The lines above from Newbolt's famous poem were used as propaganda to tell the world that the British Empire always played the game i.e. would never cheat; it was of course a crock of bulldung; the sentiment that is not the poem.
Technology similar to that used in tennis and cricket would have certainly disallowed France’s winning goal in the World Cup play off with Ireland; Thiere Henry’s pass for the goal was certainly preceded by a hand ball. There is now a clamour for the game to be replayed; this is understandable from the fans and players but not from those who should know better; those who are responsible for the rules should know that the precedent that it would set would turn every game into a farce. Does Henry deserve to now carry the label of cheat? I don’t believe he does; he certainly committed a deliberate foul and he got away with it but he is not a cheat. I regard a cheat as someone who decides consciously to cheat before any opportunity happens in a game; the prime number one example of this is Sir Alex Ferguson; he has a deliberate policy of intimidating officials to gain unfair advantage for his team; he has been doing this for years and the only word for it is cheating and in his case it’s premeditated. The legendary Angelo Dundee deliberately cutting a rip in the then Cassius Clay’s glove to buy time when he was dazed after Henry Cooper knocked him down was premeditated cheating while Mike Tyson biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear is a foul but not premeditated cheating; OK an extreme example but that’s how I see it.
Henry’s reaction was instinctive; in a fraction of a second he handled a ball which was going out of play and missing the goal by inches; this was an instinctive reaction not in any way planned by a great player and a true sportsman he has always been a model to look up to and I hope he survives this with his reputation safe. I will always remember him facing down a crowd of rabid bastards who were giving the black French players racist abuse when they played Spain. He scored a goal and then did something which I think was premeditated; his team mates strangely did not rush to congratulate him; he walked slowly over to his abusers and stood arms akimbo and head held high and stared at them. with unconcealed contempt he gazed at them for about 10 secs. a defiant figure of grace, power, courage and pride; he then turned to be greeted by his team mates; absolutely electrifying; time stood still.
The simple fact is that these things happen in most sports; many Scots. football fans were in denial when Joe Jordan handled the ball against Wales and Scotland were incredibly given a penalty; big Joe knew it was taking Scotland to the world cup and kept shtum it took some fans years to admit that he had cheated. The great Maradona did something similar to England on the way to knocking them out of the world cup; he still claims it was God’s hand and not his; the fact that he scored a genuine wonder goal later in the game merely rubbed salt into English wounds and many many Scots. of the moron variety still cheer when they see it now on Tele.
Unless and until technology is introduced (as it will be) we will have to continue with the rule we all learned as kids “the referee is always right; even when he is wrong he’s right” OK. France were lucky on two counts in Paris the other night 1/ they were fortunate to beat an Irish team who matched and often outplayed them against the odds and every prediction and 2/ in more general terms they were lucky that it was Ireland who were the victims of such misfortune. The Irish fans in their thousands in the face of terrible treatment and in the play off for the World Cup and in extra time took it on the chin; I can think of other fans who would have left their mark on Paris had it happened to them and it would not have been pretty, well done Ireland and well done the Irish fans.
At the risk of upsetting my Rugby Friends I will comment on Ireland V Australia ; don’t worry I didn’t watch the game; only the last ten minutes and guess what they were a very exciting ten minutes. The excitement did not entirely come from the play; it came from the closeness of the score and the fight against the clock by the Irish. These guys seemed to do very little except wrestle with each other and I thought sometimes the tele. picture had frozen; it was like the taxi rank at County Square late Friday night; then the drama which only sport can supply happened. With 20 secs. Left this bloke called O’Driscoll for Ireland took a pass and ran through a big gap and planted the ball between the posts; then someone; maybe him; booted the kick over the bar to reach a score of 20 – 20 with 2/3 secs. left an incredible finish so; if they can find a way to make the rest of the game as exciting as this I might go and watch it; I’ve given up looking for skill but this was good fun; it has not been all bad for the Irish this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Well said, Terry. A Scot, an Italian, an Argentinian and all bent. How can honest Englishmen compete against these cheating foreign b*****s?
As the Mammy used to say, 'We may be poor, but by gum, we're honest.'
Hope you enjoyed the last 10 minutes of Scotland's game with the Aussies too!
(Ariel) 22/11/09
What Italian?
You might be on to something here; could it be that cheating is in fact the responsibility of “Johnnie Foreigner” have you contacted that fine upstanding Englishman Mr. Griffin about this?
(Jim) 11:51
I haven’t seen it I will try to catch it on U Tube or whatever.
I didn’t know Ireland or Scotland were playing Australia; I seen it on a TV strapline which said Ireland had just scored and it was very close etc.
My understanding is that Australia are usually one of the favourites to win big competitions so it was a remarkable result.
It was a remarkable result indeed!
We got pummelled for about 78 minutes out of the 80. They finally scored a try in injury time, but their kicker who'd only converted 1 from 3 had a nightmare and missed the kick that would have made the score 10-9 in their favour.
You wouldn't have found much to enjoy skill wise their either, but for pure nuts out endeavour it was compelling.
PS Australia are on tour in the UK at the moment. They beat England 2 weeks ago, drew with Ireland last week and lost to Scotland on Saturday. They've got Wales in Cardiff next week. Scotland play Argentina that day - but I certainly wouldn't recommend that game to you, it'll be a brutal war of attrition.
You might find something to admire in the Welsh game though... Shane Williams (Twinkle-toed Welsh winger) is a player that I'm sure even you could appreciate.
I picked up the Paisley Daily Express today.
It would appear that your friend and bedfellow councillor Jim Sharkey has been intimidating and using aggressive behaviour to a fellow woman councillor.
I hope that you would not condone this.
Audrey
I would be very interested in your views on the article in Yesterday's Paisley Express about Councillor Jim Sharkey bullying a female councillor.
It reads that he has admitted doing to the Labour Leader Ian MvMillan and has been reprimanded for it (although he hasn't apologised for it).
But at the end of the article he totally denies that he did it when questined by the Paisley Express reporter.
It would seem that he is not only a coward and bully but a liar to boot.
Nice company you keep Councillor.
"My Labour colleague Jim Sharkey who is something of an anorak"
"Hoodie" might be more appropriate after reading about him in the paper yesterday.
It looks like he gets his jollies by frightening women.
Yes I read about it and I understood a bit better; it was backs to the wall and defiance; a bit like France 0 Scotland 1 at football.
I will look out for Mr. Williams. I was not even aware that Argentina played rugby.
(Audrey) 23/11/09
I haven’t spoken to any of those mentioned so I can’t comment but I must assume that you do not know the woman councillor involved.
“I hope that you would not condone this”
I hope this is not a serious remark.
(Sandra) 10:05
“It reads that he has admitted doing to the Labour Leader Ian MvMillan”
No it doesn’t.
Why is Cllr. Sharkey a liar and not Cllr. McDonald? There is no evidence of this and there are no witnesses so why have you decided he is guilty?
A liar like you would not get anywhere near my nice company.
(Anonymous) 10:22
Cllr. Sharkey stated in the article that he treated Cllr. McDonald like a true gentleman despite her swearing at him; are you not being rather harsh on him?
Terry, the Labour leader said Sharkey's version coincided with the complainants. After that, are you still saying McDonald was the one telling porkies?
And another thing - you have a face only a mother could love. Reminds me of a well hung grouse. Can you please take it off your replies
Argentina were ranked as high as 3rd in the rugby world recently - mainly due to a remarkable group of players coming through at the right time, but they had an incredible journey at the French World cup, beating the hosts twice as well as Scotland and Ireland...
The good news for Scottish fans this week is that our own livewire winger, Thom Evans, is back in the starting line up. Hopefully he'll get a chance to shine.
My pal who was at Murrayfield last Saturday said exactly the same thing about it being like the Scotland victories over France. We were both at Hampden for the home version of that, alas he has one over me now...
Perhaps you didn't read the aticle.
Councillor Sharkey admitted to his behaviour to your Group Leader Ian McMillan and that Councillor McDonald's version of events matched his own.
Does this not tell you that Councillor McDonald is telling the truth.
He was also reprimanded by Ian McMillan and told that "his behaviour is unacceptable"
What makes Councillor Sharkey a liar is that when he was asked about the incident by the Paisley Express he sais that “I have no concerns about my behaviour, which was impeccable and gentlemanly.”
and he gave a different version of events to that of which he had already admitted to his Group Leader.
Perhaps you should have read the article properly.
Terry Kelly said
"Why is Cllr. Sharkey a liar and not Cllr. McDonald? There is no evidence of this and there are no witnesses so why have you decided he is guilty?"
Iain McMillan Labour Leader said
But, in his reply to the Lib Dem councillor, Mr McMiIllan said: “The Chief Whip, Sam Mullin, and the Depute Whip, Eddie Devine, spoke to Jim Sharkey about the incident and his version of events basically matched your own."
Iain McMillan also said
“Although, on this occasion, no further action will be taken, Jim has been told by myself that his behaviour is unacceptable and I have told him to refrain from aggressive behaviour in the future."
Are you suggesting that The Labour Leader is lying?
People who bully and intimidate women or anyone for that matter should not be in the office of Councillor.
It is unbelievable that this guy has admitted his guilt and still won't apologise.
Perhaps he is proud of his aggressive behaviour
(Ariel) 24/11/09
Cllr. Sharkey has his remarks at the end of the piece go and read them; I haven’t spoken yet to any of those mentioned; nor have you so why have you made Sharkey guilty?
“And another thing - you have a face only a mother could love. Reminds me of a well hung grouse. Can you please take it off your replies”
Unlike you; you snivelling little mountebank I don’t fear my face being shown. And I’m often told that I have a kind of handsome if bucolic appearance.
I'm glad to see that you clearly enjoy your sport I hope Argentina are not like their football playing countrymen; that might be embarrassing.
(Sandra) 08:57
I did read the article and it is clear to me that your hatred/fear of Cllr. Sharkey is leading you to false conclusions or more likely in to lying.
I strongly suggest that you contact all 4 Labour people mentioned in the article and speak to them before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
If reports are contradictory you should take the trouble of finding out why; if you seek honesty that is; if you can set aside your bias as well.
(Audrey) 09:08
Your bias/fear/hatred of Cllr. Sharkey is showing you up to be either a liar or a fool.
The article contains clear contradictions so; ditch your witch hunt and contact the 4 Labour people involved and get it cleared up. Then you will have the truth; if you are capable of dealing with it.
(Anonymous) 09:21
“It is unbelievable that this guy has admitted his guilt and still won't apologise”
If you had any confidence in your argument you would not find it necessary to lie like this.
Go back and read Cllr. Sharkey’s remarks and then tell me that he has admitted guilt, there is clearly a contradiction in the article but you have ignored it and found him guilty; does Jim Sharkey scare you that much? Are you prepared to tell blatant lies to anonymously damage him? You would be sent down for contempt in any court of law.
The only contradiction is that Councillor Sharkey has portrayed 2 different versions of the event.
Version 1 - The same version of events as Councillor McDonald to his Group Leader who has stated to that Councillor Sharkey has been reprimanded for his "unacceptable" and "aggresive" behaviour.
Version 2 - A different version of events to the Paisley Daily Express where he states that his behaviour was "impeccable and gentlemanly.”
The contradiction is in Mr Sharkeys different stories which shows him up to be a liar.
Tell me this.
If Mr Sharkey's behaviour had been "impeccable and gentlemanly.” then why have your own group reprimanded him for it?
"Go back and read Cllr. Sharkey’s remarks and then tell me that he has admitted guilt"
He has admitted to his Group Leader that Councillor McDonald's version of events matched his own.
You can't seem to grasp this.
Or maybe you just think that using aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards a female colleague is ok.
This shouldn't be a suprise as you recently stated that "all women are thick"
Kelly @ 11.33
'Snivelling little mountebank!' I love it - it's almost poetic - it's like being savaged by the Great Mcgonagle.
But in the meantime, do remove your picture. Honestly, the bairn wont go to sleep now without the light on.
(Audrey) 12:11
The contradiction is in Cllr. Sharkey’s quote no one else can speak for him; why don’t you contact them and get it cleared up what are you afraid of?
“then why have your own group reprimanded him for it?”
When you find the courage to call them ask about this as well you will be amazed at how stupid you are being.
(Anonymous) 12:17
I would advise you to contact either Cllr. I McMillan; Cllr. J Sharkey; Cllr. S Mullen or Cllr. E Devine ad ask them about the newspaper article; are you afraid of the truth? Are you scared?
Bringing up the “thick women jok” shows how desperate your position is.
(Ariel) 13:50
Mountebank – (somebody who deceives other people) if the shoe fits.
Was going to change my pseudonym to Snivelling Little Mountebank, but it takes too long to type. Still love it though.
Now, back to the point. Some posts are not being published, Councillor and I'm talking the non-smear kind. OK, they might be a touch critical of Labour in general and Scottish Labour in particular, but censorship....? Surely not. I mean Uncle Joe fought for Freedom of Speech, didn't he? Publish and be damned, Terry, dont betray his legacy.
(Ariel) 14:41
“Some posts are not being published, Councillor and I'm talking the non-smear kind”
As I said “mountebank” you have proved it again.
Kelly @ 3.40
That reply is at one with your stout defence of the Gruesome Twosome, Devine and Sharkey,a load of B***s
Exactly the same manic refusal to ignore the evidence and denial of culpability as your Mad Leader, Councillor. Must be a Labour thing
(Ariel) 25/11/09
Cllrs. Devine and Sharkey are really nice guys; generous and honest to a fault just like me. Not quite able perhaps to befriend someone like you but with most normal folk we get along fine.
“to ignore the evidence”
What evidence mountebank?
In your post of 24/11/2009 at 18.56pm you said.
"There is no evidence of this and there are no witnesses so why have you decided he is guilty?"
Then the next day at 11.33 am you said.
"I haven’t spoken yet to any of those mentioned; nor have you so why have you made Sharkey guilty?"
If you had not spoken to any of those concerned at that point then how did you know that there were no witnesses?
The article in the PDE did not mention this.
It would seem that you are as big a liar as Jim Sharkey!
(Audrey) 13:50
“The article in the PDE did not mention this”
That’s because there were none Audrey your not up to this are you.
Do you think the PDE would have mentioned witnesses or evidence if there were any? Is that a difficult question for you? No cigar I’m afraid.
You are not up to this Councillor.
You are running away from the question.
I asked
"If you had not spoken to any of those concerned at that point then how did you know that there were no witnesses?"
You have not answered this.
Also you may not have quite grasped it yet but your Group Leader has went into writing stating that Councillor McDonald's version of events matched those of Mr Sharkey .
He also said (and this is a quote from his email reply to Councillor McDonald)
"“Although, on this occasion, no further action will be taken, Jim has been told by myself that his behaviour is unacceptable and I have told him to refrain from aggressive behaviour in the future.
“I know politics in Renfrewshire can be robust to say the least and I accept emotions can run high but I have told Jim to curtail his behaviour in the future and concentrate on policies rather than individuals.”
I await your reply
(Audrey) 26/11/09
"You have not answered this”
Maybe not the answer you wanted but I have answered;
I can’t really think of any way to simplify it further for you but; being a patient man I will try.
If you were a bit more astute and less gullible you would have known right away that they did not have a witness or any evidence because if they had they would have been there in print to back up the story. As long as they have easy to fool people like you reading such material they will keep printing stories where the evidence comes from “sources” anyone with any sense or know-how dismisses such rubbish.
I knew there were no witnesses or evidence because there were no references to any; do you understand that? I don’t need to be told; unlike you I have been in politics long enough to have the guile to spot them.
The rest of your comments are repetition.
So what about Iain McMillans email which ststes
"“Although, on this occasion, no further action will be taken, Jim has been told by myself that his behaviour is unacceptable and I have told him to refrain from aggressive behaviour in the future."
If Councillor Sharkey did nhothing wrong then why did Iain McMillan have to give him a warning like this.
Can you please answer this just to clear the matter up.
(Sandra) 17:02
“ So what about Iain McMillans email which ststes”
What email is that Sandra?
“Can you please answer this just to clear the matter up”
You don’t need me to do this why involve another voice in your great quest for the truth when you don’t need to?
Can I suggest to you again that you contact any of the 4 Labour Cllrs. mentioned in the article and they will explain it to you.
You can email like you are doing now or write; or text; or phone; or fax; you could even go to the council building and ask them personally; you are beginning to look suspicious; do you prefer talking to me because of my charm? .
What more can I do for you? you can get answers from the horse’s mouth you don’t need to ask me.
To sum up, Terry, Sharkey and McMillan are likely to sue the PDE, Cllr McDonald and probably everybody on the planet because the allegations that McMillan warned Sharkey about his conduct and that the man himself, has the social graces of an orang-outang, are totally unfounded?
Wouldn't be surprised to learn that you also have witnesses to show Sharkey laid his jacket over a puddle, allowing the lady to cross dry shod.
It has been confirmed that the quote
"“Although, on this occasion, no further action will be taken, Jim has been told by myself that his behaviour is unacceptable and I have told him to refrain from aggressive behaviour in the future."
is an extract from an email from Iain McMillan and Lynn Jolly of the Paisley Daily Express has a copy of it.
Looks like you didn't kinow that your group Leader went into writing with an email to the opposition admitting Sharkey's guilt and the fact that he had been reprimanded.
You must feel realyy stupid as nearly everyone else in the council knows about it.
(Ariel) 27/11/09
I don’t know about your boredom levels but this is getting close to mine.
(Sandra) 28/11/09
How do you know that? Where / who confirmed it?
(Sandra) 28/11/09
How do you know about an email? There was no mention of an email in the article, please explain.
(Sandra) 28/11/09
How do you know about an email? There was no mention of an email in the article, please explain.
Are you saying there was no email, Councillor? Just to clarify/nail your position, you understand
I talked to the PDE
No.
(Sandra) 11:04
Yes of course you did Sandra; you read this article and you could hardly contain your excitement; “I’ve got Sharkey at last” what to do? The dilemma! “I know I’ll talk to the PDE and ask if it was an email”
No wonder you are anonymous.
For clarification Terry.
Are you saying that Councillor Sharkey has not been warned or reprimanded in any conceivable way by your Group Leader Iain McMillan over his aggressive behaviour towards towards Councillor McDonald.
(Laura Wilson) 19:08
All I’m saying and you should know this if you have been reading the correspondence is that there is a contradiction in the story; there are two versions of events.
If you genuinely want to pursue this I suggest that you contact any of the 4 Labour Cllrs. mentioned in the story and ask them.
I note that you have found Cllr. Sharkey guilty even after he has denied any wrong doing and despite the fact that there are no witnesses and no evidence to support Cllr. McDonald’s accusations; why is that?
You have ran away from the question which confirms that you cannot answer it without confirming Councillor Sharkey's guilt.
You have said it all Councillor.
Censoring again, Councillor?
Devine was sacked by your party for dodgy expense claims, so no smear there and even you wouldn't claim Sharkey is another David Niven, so no smear there either.
And surely, it couldn't have been doubting Blair's claim to be a pretty straight kind of guy, that fired you up
(Laura Wilson) 30/11/09
I disagree; you were asked to explain why Cllr. Sharkey’s statement was not to be accepted why when you have no evidence and no witnesses do you find him guilty? Would you like to answer that?
Ariel @ 8.41
Well done for printing the abridged version of my comment, Councillor. Good to see you're improving.
A teeny little citicsism however, my original version began - from memory - 'We're all agreed there was a Sharkey email...' Is that why the comment didn't get posted?
Now, if you'll be a good little Councillor and apologise for winding the ladies up, I'm sure they'll forgive you,you old chauvinist.
(Ariel) 01/12/09
You are not making sense again. How many times to I need to explain; if you can’t find the courage to put your name to accusations about someone they will not be printed; you have the remedy all you need is some backbone.
Post a Comment