BLATTER ET PLATINI DOIVENT AGIR !!!

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 !!!

FIFA NOT HENRI AT FAULT WITH FRENCH GOAL !!!

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 ?

SO TONY BLAIR WAS NOT A CANDIDATE

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 DOIT SE MODERNISER

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.

NOMINATION OF THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE E U

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.

NORMAL RULES FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

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 !!!

WHY NO REFERENDUM ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ???

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.