Google+ Badge

Thursday, 26 November 2009


Dans la presse on a pu lire que Thierry Henry a été tenté d'arrêter sa carrière de footballer en raison de "l'incident" au cours du match France - Ireland. Même l'arbître de la rencontre, qui n'a pas pu voir "la main d'Henry" veut tout "plaquer" suite aux humiliations subies dans la presse.

Quant à Sir Alex Ferguson, qui n'apprécie pourtant guère les arbitres en général, il dit que Martin Hansson n'a pas pu voir l'incident.

Des articles de ce Blog ont déjà signalé ce que d'autres Organisations Sportives ont fait pour résoudre des problèmes semblables. L'UEFA et la FIFA ont beaucoup de retard. Mettre un arbître supplémentaire derrière chaque but ne resoudrait rien. Que peut faire l'arbître si l'incident se passe derrière son dos ?

Lorsqu'il y a un problème de réglementation, il faut agir.

La FIFA vient d'annoncer qu'elle tiendra une réunion extraordinaire le 2 décembre prochain, au Cap, en Afrique du Sud. A l'ordre du jour notamment: le conrôle des matchs. Souhaîtons que cette réunion aboutira à des solutions pratiques et modernes !!!

Monday, 23 November 2009


I explained in my blog a few days ago that I was of the opinion that Thiery Henry scored a goal but that the match could not be replayed. The rules of F I F A are clear. The referee decides and no one else.

This simple rule is too simple !!! FIFA needs to modernise its act. Everyone remembers the "Hand of God" of Maradona, now we have the "Hand of Henri" !!! There have been other disputed goals and there will certainly be more in the future, unless FIFA act and adopt modern viewing techniques.

Other sports have introduced video replays to settle difficult or disputed incidents. The naked eye cannot always see everything. Referees need help. You cannot shame the referee in the France vs Ireland match.

Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby and Tennis are just a few of the sports who have modernised their approach to judging difficult incidents in sport.

When will FIFA or UEFA accept there is a problem ? What is holding them back ? Do they not have the money or do they not have any idea of what needs to be done ?

Friday, 20 November 2009


I was completely duped by Tony Blair's flirtation with the candidacy for the post of President of the European Union. I had always understood that he coveted this possible appointment and that to this end he had visited numerous leaders in the E U to encourage or drum up support.

I also read in the press that he had toured Brussels with the help of estate agents to sound out where he and his family could possibly accept to live.

I was not surprised either that Gordon Brown and David Miliband wholeheartedly and totally endorsed his candidature. After all, they are two of his socialist heirs. Their unreserved support for Tony Blair, their admirative descriptions of his qualities as the leader Europe needed, now reflects how much they too, were completely duped !!!

In the end I was lead to understand that Tony Blair had never been a candidate for the job of President of the E U !!!

Gordon Brown and David Miliband will soon embark on the election trail. Their objective will be to save their bacon by explaining (or duping !) the electorate to accept their programme for their next five years in office.

If ever Tony Blair comes to their aid by volunteering his services, I hope the Socialists accept !!! The electorate has been duped by his tactics so often, the next time could certainly be fatal for all those involved !!!


La FIFA a des règles et il faut les appliquer. Par exemple, celle selon laquelle l'arbitre est maître pendant le match; après le match on ne peut pas infirmer les décisions de l'arbitre. Donc le résultat d'un match ne peut pas être changé !!!

Ainsi, conformément à cette règle, le match France - Ireland ne pouvait être rejoué.

Comme la FIFA, les règles du football existent depuis longtemps. Ce qui pèche, c'est que la vieille dame FIFA ne s'est jamais modernisée contrairement à d'autres fédérations sportives qui ont introduit un deuxième arbitre (le Hockey sur Glaçe) ou le recours à des gros plans télévisuels (Rugby et Tennis). Quant à l'athlétisme, les performances sont mesurées en centièmes de secondes !!!

Avec les techniques modernes, on pourrait sûrement réduire certaines infractions, actuellement très mal contrôlées, telles que "body checking", "shirt pulling" et "wrestling", que l'on voit de plus en plus, et qui ne sont pas assez sanctionnées.

Pourquoi la FIFA est elle si réticente à envisager l'utilisation de telles techniques modernes ?

Au président de la FIFA, Sepp Blatter, et au président de l'UEFA, Michel Platini, de donner l'impulsion nécessaire pour faire évoluer la réglementation.

Wednesday, 18 November 2009


So much secrecy surrounds the choice this evening of who will be the first President of the European Union, after the steamrollered adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, that hardly anyone knows who is on the list of candidates.

This is a cloak and dagger operation led by politicians who are not elected Members of the European Parliament, but who are, however, with all due respect, leaders in their respective countries. However, the unknown candidates, who are not MEP's either, are manoeuvering for a very powerful and important position.

One of these faceless candidates is going to be pulled out of the magicians' collective hat to become European President for two and a half years. Contrary to normal practices, before his appointment we do not know what his avowed intentions for the future of the E U are. It goes without saying that candidates are certainly making costly promises which the E U, ultimately, will be encouraged to adopt.

These practices fly in the face of all the principles which have become accepted standards during the last two or three hundred years. The people who run the E U should be elected on their avowed election programme, and MEP's from their midst should elect their President.

The E U organisation should not become the Gravy Train for the outplacement of unelected Personalities. Such intentions should be rendered impossible by further changes to the E U Constitution.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009


As Sir Thomas Clegg knows full well, there are various systems of accountability for claiming reimbursement of expenses. Whatever the basis of the claim, repayment of out of pocket expenses with justifying vouchers, or pre-agreed forfeitory claims for rental charges and the like, where vouchers are frequently not available, every reimbursement claim must be signed by the claimant.

Delegating the work of preparing an expenses claim to a secretary can never absolve a claimant if there are errors, latent or not.

The next step is that the claim is normally authorised by the signature of the heirarchical superior of the claimant.

This signature and the underlying vouchers are then normally passed to the accounts clerk for payment. To justify and to retain the proof of the authorisation for the payment, the accounts clerk must then make photocopies of the documents justifying the expenses claim.

This means therefore that before any payment is made by the accounts clerk, he has a duplicate file of what is being claimed. If an accounts clerk cannot justify what he has paid out, he faces dire consequences.

When the press blithely reports that expense files of certain politicians have been accidentally destroyed, it makes me smile. Sir Thomas Clegg knows that accidents can happen: once, yes but twice with the same files ?

There must be other reasons or weaknesses in the system which have not been revealed !!!

Monday, 16 November 2009


Politicians are very politic !!! They do not like putting their noses out of joint. They consider it is better to avoid a political conflict if risks are involved. It is better to be safe than to be sorry afterwards !!! This is even more true when an election is approaching !!!

So what is the most important issue or problem that politicians in the United Kingdom are presently avoiding or not addressing ? The reply is simple:

"Should a referendum be held to decide whether the United Kingdom remains in the European Union or whether the U.K. should withdraw ?"

A few simple facts can put this key issue into perspective viewed from the point of view of a British voter.

1) The official accounts of the European Union have not been officially approved for the last 13 years.

2) Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady of British politics, obtained a reduction of the British contribution to the running costs of the EU in 1984. The amount was variable but worth at least 2.5 billion pounds annually at the time, with upward revisions possible !

3) Tony Blair promised in his election manifestos that there would be a referendum on the E U.

4) Tony Blair, on the advice of Mandelson and the Socialist Cabinet, decided, in December 2005, to abandon the Thatcher EU rebate, which by now was worth about 7.0 billion pounds per year to Britain. In return Britain got nothing !!!

5) The Socialist promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was abandoned: Gordon Brown realised that it would be quicker, surer, and more convenient to do like all the other countries, what better excuse, and get it voted through Parliament on the back of the large Socialist majority.

Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted by Europe, the problem of a Referendum would seem to have gone away. However, is this really the case ? To be practical, all the countries have adopted the Lisbon Treaty, which originally was called the E U Constitution. Only Ireland held a referendum, not one, but two !!! Some people would even go so far as to say that the whole process is comparable to a political stitch-up !!!

If adherence to the E U becomes an election issue, if finally a referendum is promised to the U K electorate, the question could be on what terms would Great Britain be prepared to remain in the E U ?

There are many in the E U at present who are very critical of the laxity with which decisions are made. One could say that the E U at present is like a ship without a rudder.

There are too many unelected Directors and Advisors, the accounts of the E U have not been officially approved for 13 years. How can you run the International Company of Europe without controls and a responsible organisation ?

This whole E U problem is something which should be discussed seriously in the run up to the coming election. We should examine very closely the credentials of those who seek our votes !!! Gordon Brown and David Cameron should explain what they intend to do in this area.

Sunday, 15 November 2009


The next general election has not been lost yet, which also means to say that it has not been won either. Both the Socialists and the Conservatives have a lot of manoeuvering to do in order to reassure the electorate and obtain votes.

Gordon Brown has started to detail his intentions and plans for the next five or ten years in areas like prison capacities and nuclear reactors for electricity production. He neglects to explain that these urgent problems in Britain today are the direct result of years of neglect by his government.

The gravity of this negligence is highlighted by the fact that in France more than 80% of its electricity requirements are produced by nuclear reactors. France exports electricity to all its neighbouring countries, including England.

In these areas and others the long term plans he now proposes should have been started ten years ago, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister and he, Gordon Brown, was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The cost of these plans and others are never revealed, nor where the finance required is coming from. In fact the next election, whatever the date, will take place just before or just after the financial year-end on the 5th of April. Hard official figures for the Year 2009/10 will therefore not yet be available; but there will certainly be unofficial estimates or guestimates.

It is hard to believe that such guestimates will be allowed to embarrass the Government. Socialists in fact already have the experience of how to win an election.

Political pre-election window dressing is not to talk about past failures but to talk about dreams for the future. Do not talk about increasing taxation: talk about redistributing national wealth. Politicians should not frown or look worried: they should smile, look happy and be confident. They should talk a good story when they are addressing electors.

Saturday, 14 November 2009


La carte de visite de Tony Blair, candidat non encore déclaré à la Présidence de l'Union Européenne, n'est pas très glorieuse en raison justement des realités et de l'historique de son passé.

Tony Blair a été Premier Ministre du Royaume Uni pendant dix ans. En 2007 il a enfin donné sa démission, mais le pays était déjà complètement cassé. Il n'y avait plus de contrôles de l'immigration, les caisses de l'Etat étaient vides, la justice peinait à remplir ses fonctions, et les soldats en Afghanistan n'avaient meme pas les armes vitales pour lutter contre les Talibans.

Plus de cinq ans, peut être même dix, seront nécessaires pour que le pays qu'il a gouverné, retrouve son équilibre !!!

En tant que citoyen anglais, je crains qu'avec Tony Blair comme Président, l'Union Européenne subisse les mêmes mésaventures que la Grande Bretagne.

Méfions nous !!! Renseignez vous !!!

Friday, 13 November 2009


Sir Alex Ferguson has been judged by the Football Association, fined 20 000 pounds and warned as to his future conduct. In fact he also has a four match touchline ban, of which two are suspended until the end of the 2010/11 season.

This is a derisory punishment !!! A fine for a Scottish millionaire may be hard, but to think that for two matches he will have to shout his criticsms from the stands to make himself heard, is hardly a punishment.

This is not justice from a sporting point of view nor from a legal point of view. This blog has already clearly said that the remarks and comments by Sir Alex Ferguson after matches or before coming matches are such that they incite disturbances among spectators before, during and after matches.

The tame pussyfooting by the Football Association does nothing to discourage public disturbances. Does the F A not have any responsibilities in this area ? Or does it consider that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), KeIr Starner, is the person whose duty it is to act in connection with public disturbances at football matches ?

It would seem that everyone concerned wants this whole problem to be filed and forgotten. However there are problems which persist and which have not been addressed. When you are a paid watchdog, in the F A or the DDP offices, the public expect action, not pussyfooting !!!

Thursday, 12 November 2009


Le maire de Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, est en train de mener une politique qui ignore complètement les droits des piétons. Partout, sur les trottoirs, on trouve des motos, garées sans gêne, n'importe comment, n'importe où. Jamais, il n'y a trace d'une contravention !!! Est ce la conséquence de la réglementation, ou de l'absence de réglement ?

Si une voiture est garée dans la rue, même sans gêner quiconque, une contravention est immédiatement apposée sur le parebrise comme souvenir !!!

Il y a des espaces de stationnement pour les motos. Il y en a de plus en plus. Cependant il n'y en a pas assez. Et il n'y en aura jamais assez !!! Il faut observer le propriétaire d'une moto arrivé à sa destination; il cherche où il peut laisser sa machine. Normalement il ne veut pas marcher plus de 20 ou 30 mètres. Que sa moto puisse gêner les piétons âgés ou handicapés, de cela il n'en a cure !!! De plus, il s'y gare pour la durée qui lui convient.

Y-a-il quelqu'un à la Mairie de Paris qui se préoccupe des intérêts et des droits des piétons ?

Thursday, 5 November 2009


Once more, in the name of equality, Socialists in the present Government, want to change the rules about when children must go to school. They also, in the observance of the sacrosanct principle of equality, want to abolish or vary the traditional classifications of university degrees.

Is there not one Socialist in the United Kingdom, being of the level of Government competence, who has suspected that young children develop varyingly, that some are ready earlier than others, and that to force the others could be traumatic ?

Young children are not equal in early life, in the sense that some need more time to develop and to become "conscious" of what is expected of them. To push them too early to go to school would be traumatic.

With respect to the evaluation of degrees obtained from a University, Oxford, Cambridge or any other University, has nobody in this Socialist Government, of Ministerial level, ever realised that a degree is not an end in itself ? A degree is a visiting card !!! It gives you a chance to be interviewed !!!

From there on you are judged daily on your performance. If you are up to the job, all is fine. If you are not up to the job, excuses do not help you. You are facing the exit. Changing the way of evaluating degrees does not help one bit. That is the basic rule in private business, because they cannot carry the cost of non performers !!!

Even if everyone gets top marks in their school leaving exams, even if everyone then goes to University and they then all get a degree, they will be found out !!! A degree is a visiting card. It does not last more than five years, but could, if you build a successful employment history.

When will someone in the Government get a realistic fix on the value of a successful education ?