Chiefs Draft Dodgers

A new dawn?

The 2008 NFL Draft is history and the Chiefs hope that they have filled a lot of holes on their roster and dodged the bullet of underachievement.

Certainly in the first round most NFL pundits think the Chiefs were either very lucky or very clever by picking two outstanding young linemen who should make an immediate impact on the team: Defensive Tackle Glenn Dorsey and OT/G Branden Albert. By immediately going a long way to filling the gap left by the departure of Jared Allen the Chiefs answered their critics big-time. There are no guarantees in the NFL but with two top draft picks ready to bolster two of the real problem areas of last season - things look good. Now the front office must make sure these players are signed, sealed and delivered before training camp starts!

The Giants Super Bowl win has firmly focussed coaches minds on defence so it was no surprise when the Chiefs took Brandon Flowers, CB, in the second round. The Chiefs need someone who can step right in and they obviously think he's the man to do it. If so, fantastic, if not they covered themselves by taking another CB in round five, Branden Carr from Grand Valley State. I readily confess to not knowing where Grand Valley State is or what kind of football program they have. Obviously, the Chiefs think they do! If the Chiefs can get another starting CB out of Round Five, they will be beyond ecstatic!

The third round was interesting. Three picks produced a running back, a tight end and a safety. If all three make the final roster, even as special teams and backup players, this suddenly becomes a fantastic year.

With their 4^th round pick the Chiefs took Missouri wide receiver Will Franklin. Whether this was just a sop to the local fans and sports writers only time will tell. If you're not a complete cynic you have to think a Fourth Round wide receiver has a chance to make the team and be more than just a special teams player. Remember, Jared Allen was a fourth round pick!

The scouts and coaches really earn their money when you get to rounds six and seven. Chiefs had two picks in each round. In round six they took another lineman, Tackle Barry Richardson and a WR and Kick Returner, Kevin Robinson. You do get NFL players from rounds six an seven – but if you do it regularly, it's a real bonus. If you are one of the scouts who recommended these guys, you've got your fingers crossed!

Finally, in round seven the Chiefs took a DE (more cover for Allen?) Brian Johnston from Gardner-Webb – and who ever heard of Gardner-Webb? A quick search finds that they have provided Jim Maxwell, linebacker of the Bengals and Gabe Wilkins a former GB Packers defensive end, so they are not entirely without pedigree! With their final pick they chose Michael Merritt a tight end from Central Florida.

The bottom line is the draft is the Chiefs chosen route to the promised land. This looks like a good start, but all the draftees are untried at the NFL level. If half of them make the team that's six good young players. If among those six are the replacements in the real problem areas, then we are on the way. If two of the top picks sink without a trace, things look very bleak indeed.

The NFL draft is unique in that it supplies a conveyor belt of exceptional athletes for the professional game, and it (mostly) ensures that the talent is shared out among the 32 pro teams. Regardless of what the fans think it's up to the coaches and the front office to get it right. They have made the call and will have to live with it. Another 4 and 12 season and heads will roll. Young QB not good enough – fans will want to know why they didn't draft one?

Armchair Quarterbacks – get ready to rumble!

Blogged with Flock

Chavs and Chavistas

Dewsbury? Screwsbury more like it!

Someday I’ve got to get to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Some day, but hopefully not too soon.

Dewsbury must be the Chav City, Arizona! Judging by the shenanigans surrounding the “disappearance” of Shannon Matthews, Dewsbury is inhabited by more completely dysfunctional Chavs and Chavettes than anywhere else on the planet.

The Telegraph has the best article to try and explain this intricate and pathetic situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/08/nshannon108.xml

I find it very difficult to judge or even comment on this situation, and I don’t usually find myself at a loss for words!

Here are the highlights of the Telegraph article:

The Daily Telegraph understands that Miss Matthews, who has seven children to five fathers, was arrested on Sunday as she sat in a police car with Det Con Christine Freeman.

Miss Matthews allegedly admitted that she had wanted to leave her boyfriend, Craig Meehan, 22, and that his uncle, Michael Donovan, 39, had offered her a place to stay. Miss Matthews is alleged to have said she intended to leave home but at the last minute "lost her bottle". However, sources said she denied having an affair with Mr Donovan and had not asked him to take Shannon.

Mr Donovan, who slit his wrists while on remand at Leeds Prison on Sunday, is awaiting trial charged with kidnap and false imprisonment.

Mr Meehan is in custody charged with 11 counts of possessing child pornography and will appear before Dewsbury magistrates on Friday.

Now, call me old fashioned, but I’m not convinced that dysfunctional adequately covers the Dewsbury Chavs. Whilst trying desperately to not sound completely like Victor Meldrew, one is tempted to shout, “You cannot be serious!” What chance has society got if the Dewsbury Chavs take over?

Not much.

And, they might.

They might just “out-breed” the rest of us. After all, they seem to have not a lot else to do!

A real case: in my immediate family we have produced four boys. All of them are now just into their thirties. One is married. One has a “partner”. Two have no on-going relationships. None has children.

And the Dewsbury Chavs? Mrs Matthews (and this is no more than an honorary title) has, at last count, seven children by five different fathers. Apparently, she is now fed up with her present “partner” – a gormless looking lad who is charged with child pornography offences.

Ok – we can see the problem – what’s the solution?

I was carelessly musing on this question just the other evening and (jocularly) let slip the contention that perhaps Hitler had the right idea. Certainly there would have been no Chavs or Chavettes in Nuremburg. He would have gassed them.

Consequently, Hitler gave fascists a bad name. And, more importantly, his legacy is to make us all slightly queasy at any idea that bears only the remotest similarity to his obscene attempts to rid Germany of undesirables.

Could it be that in this new century we could dust off some of the ideas and have a sensible discussion?

The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees Ms Matthews the right to a family life. So it should.

Does it also guarantee her the right to reproduce as much and as often with whomever she chooses – whilst the State picks up the tab?

I don’t think it should. I think there should be limits. We can discuss where the limits should be – but, unless we accept that there should be some kind of limit we are open to the charge of fascism. Can we afford to ignore this? No. What chance have we if the fittest in our society choose selfishly to “look after number one” while the Dewsbury Chavs do belly-bouncing - secure in the knowledge that the state (you and I) will pick up the tab?

Now we find that Chief Chavette Matthews has been arrested and charged.

My case is nearly rested. These morons have a right to life – but not an indiscriminate right to breed like rabbits (or perhaps vermin might be more apropos)!

Blogged with Flock

Nobt Waving - but Sinking

Harmison sinks his way to the back of the queue!

The travelling chorus of cricket troubadours has arrived triumphantly from New Zealand. After losing the first test, they managed to comprehensively demolish a very mediocre Kiwi side and restore some much-needed confidence. Whether or not this is a false dawn is more problematical.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the series concerned the batsmen who found runs difficult to come by.

Commentators Bob Willis and Michael Atherton were banging on throughout the whole series about how bowlers seem to get the chop after a few poor performances, whereas the batsmen just keep going on and on – seeking to find their form – without any activity from the selectors. At various times, the commentators were almost apoplectic in their rage at the selectors.

Bob and Michael were probably being a bit over-simplistic. Much was made about the lack of centuries. Statistics “prove” a poor runs per over rate from England batsmen since the Ashes series. As a unit, the batsmen have definitely under-performed.

Problem is: there are no batsmen charging to the front of the selection queue, nor will there be until the English season gets under way. It is more than slightly unrealistic for Willis and Atherton to call for changes when there are no batsmen in the tour party surging for selection. They know this. Perhaps they were just filling in the time for the benefit of Sky TV?

Here are the facts – as I see them.

Michael Vaughan is out of touch, but he’s the captain and will not be replaced because of a dip. He will be given lots of opportunity to play himself into form this summer before anyone seriously challenges his place in the side.

His opening partner, Alistair Cook, has an exceptional record for a young test opener. Those who question his attacking skills are just being silly. Even though the commentators bemoan the lack of Test centuries, he is one batsman who is likely to grind out a big score in difficult circumstances.

Andrew Strauss is not a number three. If he’s not opening the innings it’s difficult to find a spot for him if Vaughan and Cook hold any sort of form. What England need is a solid batsman at three for the times when an opening partnership doesn’t come off, but one who can attack when the situation presents itself. Strauss is probably not the man for this job. Petersen should bat at three. (see below)

Ian Bell is a lucky batsman. That’s not a bad thing to be, but in his case his luck will probably run out some day soon. Every time he hits a run of low scores and is just about to be axed – he finds a big one. One thing is for sure – he’s not a test number 4.

Kevin Petersen is over-rated. Bowlers have worked out his limited game and he is struggling. He seems indispensable because he is capable of the Holy Grail – a big score and in quick time. Unfortunately, his average is plummeting as the going gets more difficult. He had one good score on tour against a very weak attack. He ought to stop reading his press clippings before he starts believing explicitly in them.

Paul Collingwood is perhaps the one batsman who can take some credit from the series. He consistently got runs and at a reasonable pace. He even did a bit of bowling. He seems at least to understand his role in the side and plays to his strengths. He’s probably the best we’ve got right now to bat at 5 or 6.

Tim Ambrose looks a promising bat and a reasonable keeper. Therefore, he plays. Mind you, this time last year we also had a promising bat and a reasonable keeper. We seem to have a lot of promising bats with reasonable keeping skills. What we don’t have is an Alec Stewart. It’s unlikely we’re going to find one.

Stuart Broad should now be a “must play” player. He can bowl and will get better. He can bat. He may be a genuine all-rounder. When Andrew Flintoff returns, England could have two class all-rounders in the side and bat right down to number 8.

Ryan Sidebottom is having the best time of what will be a short career – but only because he is the wrong side of thirty. In England this summer he should take a packet of wickets and have the NZ openers having nightmares.

After years of injury worries, Jimmy Anderson looks set to cement his place. Waiting in the wings should he stumble are Hoggard and Harmison. Both should be smarting from being discarded in NZ. The press had a field day when it was revealed how much they were getting paid to under perform. I expect to see Hoggard fighting tooth and nail to get back. Harmison should be discarded – he simply brings too much baggage and his salary should go to a younger bowler.

Monty Panesar is a bowler and a number 11. He cannot do anything else. He must play every test match regardless of the perceived conditions. He must not be allowed to bat or field if possible. How about a strategic spell of intestinal diseases when England are in the field – recovering when he needs to bowl?

Much has been said about beating a mediocre NZ team but I'm more positive. If Flintoff is 100% he can work his way back into the side without much pressure. The Ashes can be won in 09.

Blogged with Flock

Thanks, Phil

Thanks for nothing!

Phil Banyard of the EDP has taken it upon himself to create a controversy in local cricket. He hasn't done it all by himself – but, it appears, he is the prime mover. With help from Norfolk's own version of Victor Meldrew, John Murrell, he seeks to upset everyone he can.

We've had three weeks of stories about plans to expand the Norfolk Alliance at the expense of the feeder leagues. It's obvious, various people are not happy.

The title of “Chief Whinger” surely goes to John Murrell of Sprowston C.C. It's a shame to personalise what should be a serious debate about cricket, but when John is involved – it's difficult no too!

John exhibits all the characteristics of a real “Nimby-Jobsworth”. He thinks he's on a mission and the rest of the world is out to get him. We see this every year at the Annual General Meeting of the Norfolk Cricket League. First, John puts forward umpteen amendments – the purpose of which is to make the Norfolk League more like the Alliance – we spend a long time reading them and trying to make sense of his poorly constructed proposals, and then they are all rejected by an overwhelming majority.

Like all good Jobsworth's this does not really deter John.

So, this year he has run to the Alliance Committee and persuaded them to back an expansion of their league. In other words, what he can not get by democratic means he seeks to impose. There's a word for this, and I think it's fascist.

What is it exactly he wants? Under the guise of raising standards he wants to resurrect the Alliance closed shop that the ECB did away with when the pyramid structure was set up some years ago. The rest is just window dressing.

To do so, he has resurrected a document “Norfolk Cricket Board – Feeder Leagues Proposed Standards for 2005”. There is much to be commended in this document. Unfortunately, John has chosen to focus on what I describe as the “toilet and twaddle” parts of the document. Whereas the focus should be on item one: good playing surface”, John has ranted on about showers and toilets and separate changing rooms.

I resist the temptation to ascribe motive to his concerns.

Let's be clear, the aims expressed in this document are good. But, in trying to beat his fellow cricketers to death with the minutiae, John just makes himself look foolish.

It's a shame that Phil Banyard has chosen to give him a mouthpiece.

Blogged with Flock

The Americanisation of England

Small World - isn't it!

A bumper issue of the Sunday Times this week provides a thematically interesting perspective on some current issues.

First, on page one is the story, “Children's oath to Queen”. Lord Goldsmith thinks that this kind of procedure might strengthen the understanding of children as to what it means to be British. The article goes on to equate this proposed oath to the Pledge of Allegiance, which is a very common way of starting the day in American schools.

I can recite it by heart: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under God with liberty and justice for all.

Actually, I, apparently, got it a bit wrong. Here's the words Wikipedia thinks are correct:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps the “under God and indivisible” have switched places in modern times. I believe the indivisible was traditionally first because of the Civil War – but I could be wrong. Either way, since I was last in school over 40 years ago - I didn't do too bad in the “anti-Alzheimers” stakes!

The point is that the Pledge of Allegiance is relevant to Americans every day. It hearkens back to the time when all Americans were resisting European ideas of government. It reminds citizens in a moving kind of way that their birthright and heritage are still relevant today.

I'm not sure this “Americanism” would transfer very well to the U.K. Because the U.K. pledge would be to the Monarch, it is too personal. People who didn't like the Queen or any future Monarch would object.

My view: it's another government gimmick.

Page 4 informs us that the U.K. armed forces are to get Purple Hearts for wounds received in battle. The government would like to see the public's support of the Armed Services be affirmed and be made more visible. Reacting, perhaps, to news that personnel at RAF Wittering are told not to wear their uniforms in Peterborough, the government's response it to call for more public award ceremonies to present medals to soldiers. America is held up as a model of how a nation should honour those who serve in the Forces.

If a week is a long time in politics, then a generation is a life time in honouring soldiers. The government should remember how the American public's condemnation of the Vietnam war and the soldiers who fought in it nearly tore the country apart and, it can be convincingly be argued, gave us Nixon's paranoia and Watergate.

Looks like the government floating an idea in response to what it perceives as a real public concern. Not working for me.

Lastly, we have the article, “Earth's secrets kept in lunar ark”. It's Arthur C. Clarke and 2001 all over. This time it's the European Parliament who are trying to outdo the Americans. Let's bury an obelisk on the Moon and fill it with Earth's secrets. All we have to do is persuade NASA to play ball and we can get the whole thing under way soon.

What happens when the “future apes” eventually evolve to take our place – in 8 to 10 million years or so, and whose job it will be to repopulate the planet after we destroy it discover the thing buried on the Moon? I would love to be around to see that one!

Because we will have archived all the old films we won't need a HAL 9000 computer to work out the answer!

Blogged with Flock

Loans

Premiership bandits.

No, this is nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

This is about the ridiculous loan arrangements in the football league.

By the football league, I mean to include the Premier League – which is essentially a bandit organisation which has (somehow) managed to remain a part of the FA.

How does the loan system work?

“Premier League clubs have almost complete freedom to sign whatever number and category of players they wish. There is no team or individual salary cap, no squad size limit, no age restrictions other than those applied by general employment law, no restrictions on the overall number of foreign players, and few restrictions on individual foreign players — all players with EU nationality, including those able to claim an EU passport through a parent or grandparent, are eligible to play, and top players from outside the EU are able to obtain UK work permits.”

This is the policy of the madhouse!

Try applying this to the rest of society. Imagine that (say) airline pilots had the same working arrangements. So, Virgin Atlantic – awash with Branson's extra billions – decides to sign all the airline pilots to long-term contacts. This, by the way, would cost less than signing Premiership footballers!

Then, in a gesture of extreme hubris, Branson decides to loan some of the pilots (he chooses which ones!) to British Airways – but only on the strict condition that they don't fly any aircraft to cities served by Virgin and that BA pay all of the pilots inflated salaries and provide medical cover, training, etc. Also, as a prerequisite for receiving “loan pilots” BA must agree to give them priority in the flying roster to ensure that their skills are developed – to the extreme benefit of Virgin.

Sound good? Like to be a passenger on one of Branson's planes – piloted by a “loan-star”? I didn't think so.

The football loan system is a sham which works only to advantage the already super-advantaged Premiership. They have all the players and use the rest of the league to hone their skills. They refuse to part with the “fringe” players, not because they want them, but because they don't want any of their rivals to get them. They only loan them to Championship teams in order to reap any benefits without having to take any of the risks.

If the loan player “flops” at the Championship club – so what? Now they know he's not good enough for the Premiership. What have they lost? Nothing.

What's the solution?

Twofold. First, limit on size of all football squads. Premiership teams should only be allowed to have, say 27 professionals on their books. That's two teams and a bit to allow for reserve team games and injuries. The transfer window should be abolished. Let the Premiership teams wheel and deal to maintain squads if and when they want.

Second, limit the number of loan players a club may field to one. Footballers should want to play football. If they want to play, let them play for the team which owns their registration.

The loan system is yet another shameless scam which distorts the already shameless game of football and should be stopped or severely restricted.

Blogged with Flock

Ipswich Murders - A Conclusion?

Inevitability

Because the Suffolk murders stopped when Steve Wright was arrested and charged with the murder of five prostitutes in Ipswich in December 2006, it was always going to be difficult for his defence team to “prove” that he was not guilty.

In the juries mind the lack of any further murders after his arrest was always going to be crucial.

His defence? I was with all the girls – as a paying customer – but didn't harm them in any way.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it plausible? Less than yes.

Is it likely? Not really and that is why he is facing the rest of his life in prison.

A better question might be – is it possible that someone else killed the girls?

Yes, it is.

At the heart of the case is the forensic evidence. This is not surprising as murders are rarely committed in the daylight of publicity. By its very nature, murder is a private crime and eye witnesses are seldom available.

So, Wright's assertion that he picked up the girls for sex is plausible.

How do the authorities prove he killed them?

Truth is they can't – except by the process of logical deduction.

You might think that the police have him on CCTV dumping the bodies. No. You might think he was seen by someone who can testify it was he who dumped a body? No. You might think he told someone about the murders? No You might think his family and/or partner had serious concerns about his guilt and turned him in? No.

All the police had was Wright's DNA proving he had been with the girls – a fact he never disputed – and some fibres that belonged to the girls clothes, hair, etc., found in his home and car.

The Crown simply asks the jury to consider if it is more likely that someone else killed the girls. They obviously didn't and voted to convict him. I'm only surprised it took eight hours to reach a verdict? Was someone unconvinced?

The odds are that a very sick and very dangerous man has been removed from the body politic for a very long time. The contention that he will never be released is just pandering to the public's need for revenge. It may or may not happen.

More worrying still is the possibility that Wright is innocent. The real killer may be still out there. It's possible.

The mos useful function of a case of this type is its ability to refute the crazy calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Steve Wright's punishment, if he is indeed guilty, is worse than death. he may spend 40 or 50 years locked away.

If this is a miscarriage of justice, his death would only reinforce Parliament's reluctance to condone state sponsored murder.

Blogged with Flock

Archbishops

Scimitared

Rowan Williams seems a nice guy. He is, by all accounts, very clever and very godly. These are qualities that make him eminently qualified to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

They are not qualities needed to be a wise political operator.

His attempt to open a debate about how the Muslim Sharia law might be accommodated into the UK system of jurisprudence has resulted in damage to both the CofE and the Muslim community in the UK. That much is certain.

I watched the Bishop of Hume on BBC Questiontime last night manfully trying to explain and justify the Archbishop's remarks on Sharia. He was struggling!! Struggling big time!!

This is not altogether surprising as most of the general public associate Muslims with terrorists and Sharia law with cutting people's hands off and beheading criminals. This is clearly a distortion. Where do these ideas come from?

I know one place.

Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves. Remember it? What an exciting adventure, romance tale – starring Kevin Costner (when he was still on top of the acting tree), Morgan Freeman (before he became the mega-star he is today) and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio – when she was an up-and-coming actress.

Ok, got it?

Now, remember the contrived way Morgan Freeman was brought into the Robin Hood legend? After all, there were many black people in Sherwood Forest, surely?

Robin and his mate (Marion's brother) are stuck in a Muslim prison. Robin volunteers to have his hand cut off (for stealing – notice the nice Sharia hysteria side-plot) ) instead of the hand of his boyhood friend and fellow Crusader. Robin cleverly escapes – helped by his new-found Muslim friend, Azeem, played by Freeman. How else would you get a black man into medieval England? Even then he's described as a Moor. So was Othello – and Othello was surely black.

The point?

I contend that most of what the general population ( general here, sadly, includes most of the readers for the Daily Mail – or the Daily Fascist to give it its proper name ) know about Sharia law and indeed Muslims in general is brought to them by the popular press and the entertainment media.

When the Archbishop tries to open a debate about the relationship between various ethnic, religious and social groups in Britain, he's on a hiding to nothing.

No matter how scholarly the approach – he's going to be scimitared in the popular press.

Why? Because only the enlightened few will remember that at the time of the Crusades the Muslim World almost single-handedly kept the light of learning alive in the Western Hemisphere. When London was a hovel, Damascus was a metropolitan paradise.

Unfortunately, when the twin towers collapsed so did any chance of avoiding the rampant Islama-phobia we see today. A brave attempt by the Archbishop to engineer an enlightened debate was always destined to fail.

Might as well try to reintroduce stoning for prostitutes – and I think you'll find that in the Bible – not the Koran.

Blogged with Flock

Super Bowl - It's a wrap!!

Fans are the winners!

Fans of my blog will already know that I predicted the Giants to win Super Bowl XLII.

After coming down from the clouds with my reputation restored and a big fat wallet courtesy of the bookies, I've spent the intervening week analysing just why the Patriots flopped and the Giants prospered.

The most cogent explanation I found was on the Chiefs website and I'm happy to acknowledge that this is a quotation and not my own work:

“The Giants are champions because they played Stone Age football, and their furious pass rush took away Tom Brady’s greatest weapon – time to throw. Suddenly, one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history had to rush his throws or eat the ball while averaging a measly 5.5 yards per attempt. His running game averaged 2.8 yards per rush. No wonder the highest-scoring offence in league history was outscored 17-14.”

The rest of this article extolled the virtue of great defence. And how true it is. It is the defence that usually wins Super Bowls. Forty-two was no different.

It was my prediction that the NY pass rush would nullify Tom Brady – and it mostly did. I thought the Giants would be able to run on the Pats - and they did, though I admit not to the extent that I had thought they would.

Truth is: except for falling apart on the last NY drive, in no small part due to some excellent throws by Manning and excellent receptions by the NY receivers, the New Englanders might have won – and deserved to.

The Giants just about deserved their win. The Patriots were just about unlucky. The fans were the winners in what was actually quite a good game for the neutral observer to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

One commentator's view should be of particular interest to the Chiefs fans. The Giants won by playing their young players throughout the season. They gave youth a chance.

This makes good sense – particularly at the “monster” positions – offensive guards and tackles. Chiefs must beef up these area in the draft. Chiefs must avoid taking a marquee player early who may, or (worst case scenario) may not be able to contribute to the team for five years!!

Time for the Chiefs to avoid highly paid free agents and develop some players of their own. That's the noises that are coming out of Arrowhead.

When we see who's available as a free agent and whether the Chiefs can resist the temptation to go for an expensive quick-fix, we'll be a long way towards learning whether the Chiefs front office is serious about building a team – or just blowing smoke.

My abiding memory of the Super Bowl was the banged-up and inexperienced Giants secondary shutting out Brady and his receivers. Chiefs can do the same in 09!

Blogged with Flock

Bail

Magna Carta

Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.

The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.

First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.

Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4

The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).

The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html

Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!

(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2

The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.

The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!

What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.

That's arrested and charged – not convicted!

The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.

Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.

Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?

Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.

And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?

It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.

People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.

They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.

Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.

Blogged with Flock

Bail

Magna Carta

Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.

The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.

First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.

Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4

The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).

The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html

Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!

(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2

The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.

The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!

What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.

That's arrested and charged – not convicted!

The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.

Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.

Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?

Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.

And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?

It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.

People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.

They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.

Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.

Blogged with Flock

Doh! Independence Imprudens

Crazy - or what?

I like to keep in touch with what's happening in the old home town, Independence, Missouri. It makes me feel closer to home and to that end the internet is a god-send. No better way to keep in touch has yet been invented!

I read the local paper, The Independence Examiner, which, in my boyhood I threw on folks' porches, on-line. And, all from the comfort of my chair.

One of the best bits is the weekly poll of on-line readers. You have to choose answers to questions of topical interest and vote for your favourite answer. I always vote and always check to see what the result of last week's poll was.

I love it when I'm in-step with my “homies”!

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen often.

A bit like my old mate and neighbour Bill Bryson I find that reports from my countrymen that I am really dead are greatly exaggerated. I just don't got home enough to know what the good folks of independence are thinking.

So, the straw poll of readers of the Examiner should enable us to get a handle on Middle America.

A recent Examiner poll asked readers to rank the causes of a weakening economy in America. 14% of respondents told the rest of us to chill out – there is nothing to worry about! Only 1% were seriously concerned by the recent stock market woes and the prospect of a Wall Street melt down. 19% were appalled by the lack of “good jobs” - whatever that means? A truly staggering 19% were apoplectic about the national debt.

The killer? 28% were pretty much ready to start a war to remove the American dependence on foreign oil – citing its consequential effect on “high” gas prices.

If women are from Venus and men from Mars, the good residents of Independence are from Planet Dumbo.

Where did they get this idea from?

These are the same folks who are convinced that JFK wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. They instinctively know that Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were probably victims of some great, unknown and un-knowable conspiracy. They firmly believe that Genesis is 100% word-perfect. A large proportion of them voted for Ol' Dubbya. They are disciples of anyone who will assuage their righteous indignation by shifting the reality of dwindling oil supplies and over-consumption onto some conspiracy by the rest of the world to rob them of what they see as their God-given right to drive monster trucks and live in a house the size of a cathedral.

They are and have been poorly served by their politicians.

Disregarding the Global Warming debate, it is still a fundamental truth that America is not so much addicted to oil and they are addicted to cheap gas.

In Independence, the price of gas has taken on a significance far beyond its true level of importance. Politicians can just as well be in favour of Islamist fundamentalism as they can be of high gas prices.

The result is a nonsense of misinformation and illogical thinking.

It's time the Examiner readers, and the rest of America, were dragged (screaming if need be) into the real world. Oil is a finite resource. It's running out. Therefore, you can't buck the market. In the home of free enterprise capitalism this lesson should not be too hard to learn. But, in Missouri we have saying: before you can teach a Missouri mule anything you have to get his attention by hitting him over the head with a two-by-four.

If'n I was you folks, I'd start learning to duck large bits of wood!

Blogged with Flock

Least Favourite Meals

Schools make a dog's dinner.

Some philosophers are born, some are made and some just happen. I may have just made that up – though it is, of course, a paraphrase of a famous diktat.

My old mate and part-time philosopher, The Chef, had his Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal to fall back on when either the time or the meat was ripe. It goes something like this.

If you ask any group of school children what is their least favourite school dinner and remove that meal from the menu, all that happens is the next least favourite meal simply “moves up” to take its place. Eventually you'd be having fish fingers and chips every day until the kids were thoroughly sick of them!

Simple. Logical. Works. But, not from the Jamie Oliver School of Nutritious School Dinners.

It occurs to me that this insightful dictum can be applied to all sorts of things – things far more important than little Johnnie's lunch-time nosh. How about Johnnie's school for instance?

This is what was happening on BBC Question Time last evening. The Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal had morphed into the General Theory of the Least Favourite School.

The debate focused on the advantages, real or perceived, of faith schools and the dastardly tricks some parents will go to in order to obtain places for their children at these”good” schools.

Parents take the view that faith schools are better than non-faith. In individual cases, this may be correct. As a generalisation: it's a generalisation.

What was most interesting was the methods some parents use in order to place their children in a faith school – even though they are, strictly speaking, not of that faith. I suppose this does do some good in swelling the pews on a Sunday morning, but I'd be surprised if these phoney attempts to convince the local vicar you are a devout Christian really work.

An example. I started school as a bright-eyed five year old at a Catholic School on the south-side of Chicago. In those days, all white children went to the Catholic school because there were black children in the local maintained school. Therefore, about 25% of my school was Catholic and at least the same number were Jewish. This made for interesting education!

Even as a five year old I can distinctly remember the nuns being very angry on Jewish holidays! Al the Jewish kids stayed home!

While this anecdote may say more about race relations in Chicago in the 50's than it does about faith schools, it does resonate with the parents of today who think that their children should get an advantage (more perceived than real I would argue) simply by pretending to qualify for state-aided religious education.

The summing up was from the Labour Party spokesman who blithely informed the audience that, in any event, it would be impossible to do anything about faith schools – or independent schools for that matter – because the European Court would surely strike down any attempt to limit their existence as impinging on the parents rights to choose education for their children.

What we need are smarter parents

Until that happens, we're stuck with the least favourite meal. Bon apetit!

Blogged with Flock

Super Bowl Forty-Two

Giants Win?

Well, it's official. Super Bowl 42 will be between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. The Pats will be big favourites.

They will also be going for an unprecedented undefeated season.

I'm picking the Giants.

Am I crazy? Or, just stupid?

Maybe both, but I'm still counting on the Giants to upset the apple cart and ruin what should be a historic victory by the New Englanders. I was very sceptical until I saw the Conference Championship game at Green Bay. The Pack had lost only twice in the post-season at Lambeau Field and were consensus favourites to send New York packing. The game was going according to plan, though still tight, when I got too tired and went to bed.

I was surprised in the morning to find that the Packers had lost. Watching the highlights was surreal. Even though I knew the score, I still expected Favre to engineer a last quarter comeback. It never happened. Even with a banged-up secondary the Giant's defence was beyond excellent.

If they can replicate this defensive performance in the Super Bowl, they will have a chance.

What's happening on the other side of the ball is also swinging my vote towards The Big Apple. Eli Manning is doing what needs to be done to win. He has excellent protection in the pocket. He has been making good decisions. He has been making excellent throws, putting the ball where only his guy can catch it. The Giants can test the Patriots' defence.

Not surprisingly, I'm in the minority. Watching and reading the American pundits you might think the Pats have only to turn up to win. American football is not that kind of a game. It is, literally, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. If New England don't bring their “A Game” they will lose.

There were signs of this in their game against San Diego. Tom Brady threw three interceptions. San Diego moved the ball easily down the field, just did not manage to convert field goals into touchdowns. New England weren't lucky - just fortunate. On another day they could have easily lost. If they approach the Super Bowl in an over-confident mood, they will be ripe for an upset.

This is going one of two ways.

One – it's a Patriots' blow-out. Giants get stuffed on offence and can't stop Brady's short passing game. Pat's win by 20+.

Two – it's a close football game and the Giants just get the win by (say) a field goal.

I'm choosing two.

Blogged with Flock

Aussies Rule - Ok?

Sledgers

Aussie is at it again. Not content with smashing all the test playing nations on the pitch – he is intent on sinking to new levels in the sledging stakes.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/330150.html

It wouldn't be so bad if it were not so indicative of both the Australian attitude towards cricket and (more importantly) the inability of the cricket authorities to do anything to obviate their more unacceptable practices.

Although most international teams seem to engage in sledging now-a-days, it is beyond contention that the Australians are the most abusive. When I first read about this one - I just couldn't believe it!

“If that seems over the top, it was child's play compared to comments allegedly directed at New Zealand's Chris Cairns by two Australian players. It was claimed the players had made "choo choo" noises at Cairns, whose sister had been killed in a recent train accident. The story was denied by all parties.”

This clearly isn't sledging. What it is is just plain unacceptable. Say something like this in a public bar and you might get a mouthful of teeth!

This is just about as bad!

During a WSC final at the SCG where the game had been shortened due to rain and the atmosphere was running at about 95% humidity a very exhausted Arjuna Ranatunga appealed that he had "sprained" something. He duly asked the umpire for a runner. As clear as a bell through the effects mic you heard Healey's legendary reply, "You don't get a runner for being an overweight, unfit, fat c#$%"

This is unacceptable because of the abusive language. For heaven's sake, footballers get booked for this kind of language! It should not be allowed on a cricket pitch.

Another example along the same lines

Sledging can be plain amusing. It's unlikely Merv Hughes was thinking tactically when he told a struggling English batsmen: "I'll bowl you a f***ing piano, ya Pommie pooftah. Let's see if you can play that."

This one might just be on the borderline, but only because it is a man's game and it is amusing, so the unacceptable language might be almost Ok.

Of course, sledging is not confined to cricket.

The right words can intimidate and demoralise. In 1989, a young Phil Kearns packed down opposite the All Black rough nut Sean Fitzpatrick. Amid the grinding of shoulders, Kearns became aware he was being spoken to: "What are you doing here, Kearns? You don't belong here. You're just a little boy. Why don't you go home to mummy?"

Sometimes sledging can get a reaction the perpetrator wasn't expecting!

In 1994, Allan Border told South African all-rounder Brian McMillan: "For a big bloke, you don't bowl very fast." He got no reaction - until lunch, when McMillan burst into the Australian dressing room and told Border to repeat the slur while the South African pointed a pistol at Border's head.

Last word goes to Warne, who is, by all accounts, very quick to dish it out – but can't take it?

Sledging is often personal. One reason Warne is quick to taunt Cullinan is that the South African is fond of making remarks about Warne's girth - "Leave us some lunch, fat boy" being one of his favourites. Similarly, Ian Healy once became frustrated with an overweight batsman from a South African provincial side who seemed not the least interested in scoring runs. Eventually Healy called to the bowler: "Why don't we put a Mars bar on a good length to see if we can lure him out of his crease?"

Unfortunately, the latest Aussie escapades are clearly just not on. Leaving any joking aside, the charge that they have overstepped the mark in defence of their Aboriginal player, Andrew Symonds, is a bit rich. After dishing it out on a racial basis (see the above examples) are they now saying that calling Symonds a monkey is going too far?

Actually he does look like a monkey. But, is this a racial remark? Probably not. Boxers are often tagged with the epithet of “a big gorilla”. Is this racist? If an Indian spinner is described as whirling his arms “like a dervish” - is this grounds for an inquiry?

Methinks the Aussies doth protest too much.

The real question, in my eyes, is where are the umpires in all this?

Replaced. At least Steve Bucknor was.

It's long past time that the authorities supported the umpires and put a stop to all but the obviously imaginative or humorous sledging.

It really is getting to be a joke!

Blogged with Flock