FIFA IS NOW A JOKE.

FIFA has to be the biggest, and most appalling, example of corruption ever seen.

The last few days have seen the only candidate opposing the current incumbent in the forthcoming Presidential election, Mohamed bin Hammam, accused of bribery and now suspended pending further investigations. At the same time, the current President, Sepp Blatter, has himself somehow contrived to be accused of something of which he has been cleared by the FIFA Ethics Committee. One has to wonder whether Blatter's own indictment was simply a mechanim designed to give the organisation an opportunity to tell everyone that he was 'clean'.

The upshot is that Blatter now has a clear run for the re-election he has so yearned and, no doubt, most nations will vote for him in order to remain in favour. A few, the FA included, will abstain but it is a shocking indictment of world football that their governing body is being allowed to carry on regardless even after plumbing the depths of such dirty dealings. Blatter has presided over years of alleged corruption and has done nothing about it; suddenly, the organisation has roused itself and taken action, but against Blatter's only rival for the top job. That this smacks of political intrigue can not be a coincidence. 

By the end of his next Presidential term, Blatter will be 80; what possible connection with, or understanding of, modern football can he then have ? Will he even survive or, if he does, still be capable of carrying out his role ? It is utterly ludicrous that a person of his age should be considered for, let alone elected to, a post of such international standing. Why doesn't anyone of sufficient status say so ?

KILLER CUCUMBERS TAKE THEIR TOLL.

One of today's news items concerns the extraordinary story of contaminated cucumbers causing a number of deaths in Germany. The cucumbers, believed to have been imported from Spain, have become infected with the E.coli bacterium which has caused some very nasty illness and some 10 deaths.

One wonders if the CIA have taken note of the possibilities attaching to these events ?

IF YOU'RE OLD, DON'T GO INTO HOSPITAL.

The government quango responsible for monitoring the performance of hospitals and care homes, the 'Care Quality Commission', has reported that a number of NHS hospitals have given cause for serious concern with regard to the way thay have been treating elderly patients. This is the umpteenth time that this type of concern has been raised and, as usual, there'll be lots of hot air but very little action as a result.

From my own experience, I know very well that elderly patients are poorly served in hospital. Patients who need help with toileting or washing simply have to wait until a care assistant, forget the nurses, they're too busy doing much more important things, can get to them. When breakfast, lunch or dinner arrive, the meals are simply placed in front of the patients, who are then left to get on with it; an hour or so later, the food is removed and, although there are forms to fill in to record what's been eaten, I've seen these completed in a truly mythical fashion. It is rare in the extreme for any staff to take an interest in the patients to the extent of noticing that they may need help or encouragement in eating their meals and it astonishes me that patients don't die from malnutrition on a daily basis. It is, of course, well known that most people lose significant weight when in hospital and this is just accepted as being a consequence of their illnesses; I suspect it's far more a consequence of the largely unappealing nature of the food presented to them and the total lack of concern about whether meals are eaten or not shown by staff.

The staffing of hospital wards, and the modern 'bayed' lay-out, do not lend themselves to providing anything other than the most basic level of care. Wards in which patients are physically fit are not a problem in this respect, but wards with physically dependent patients simply cannot cope with the demands; many make no secret of the fact and actually encourage friends and relatives to help out with tasks such as feeding. In such an environment, is it any wonder that those who experience the poorest levels of care are the elderly ?

The only solution to this problem is to look at the funding issues involved in the NHS. It is never going to be able to provide the level of personal, as well as medical, care that older and less able-bodied patients often need, without deploying greater resources; it makes sense that patients should contribute to the hotel and social care elements of their time in hospital. Putting these 2 issues together could be the start of a resolution but it's doubtful any politician will be brave enough to suggest it.

NSPCC SEX ABUSE FIGURES ARE MEANINGLESS.

Today's news stories include one claiming that sexual offences against children rose by 8% from 2008/9 to 2009/10. The police reportedly recorded some 23,000 offences according to information obtained by the NSPCC. The Home Office, of course, has said that the figures are appalling.

On the face of things, these figures are certainly suggestive of a fairly appalling situation, however, there is no further detail and what the figures really show is open to interpretation. The NSPCC, which obviously has its own corner to fight, will obviously claim that they show that thousands of defenceless children are being abused and something must be done to prevent it. The Home Office statement appears to be pretty ambivalent - saying that the figures are 'appalling' is as near to saying nothing as they can get but, without any further details, what more can they sensibly say ?

What the figures do is to raise additional questions. Was there any change in the recording methodology between the 2 years in question ? Was there any change in policing methods or emphasis between the 2 years ? What counted as an 'offence' ? How many of the recorded instances ended in arrest, caution or prosecution ? How many of the associated accusations were later withdrawn or found to be groundless ? How many prosecutions were successful ?

Without answers to these questions, and others, the figures publicised today are actually meaningless, and that is appalling.

FIFA - AS CORRUPT AS IT GETS.

FIFA continues to amaze.

Just days before the election for its next President, the only candidate opposing the current incumbent ihas been accused of serious corruption, along with the current vice-President. Sepp Blatter, the current President, has immediately announced, in extremely strong terms, that FIFA will not stand for corrupt practices and there will be an inquiry by their Ethics Committee within the next 3 or 4 days.

Given the other recent allegations of corruption which have met a stoney silence, this sudden activity is astonishing. FIFA has faced allegations of corruption for years and has done absolutely nothing about them; indeed, it has steadfastly denied all charges of wrong-doing by anyone and everyone associated with them. It can be no coincidence that this latest change of heart is so close to a Presidential election nor that the allegations involve the one obstacle to Blatter serving yet another term in his position of authority, privilege and abuse.

The timing of these events is so coincidental as to be impossible. It is clear that the charges are part of a conspiracy to try to ensure that Blatter achieves his aim of another Presidential term; at the same time, it is clear that such an outcome will ensure the survivial of the existing FIFA system of total corruption and incompetence in the management of the world's most popular game.

With any luck, the plan will fail and Blatter will be defeated, notwithstanding the attempt to blacken the name of his opponent; with any luck.

CAMERON AND OBAMA BARBECUED.

Watching Cameron and Obama pretending to be great barbecue hosts makes me wonder why anyone actually voted for these two men to be the leaders of 2 important nations.

They are meant to be serious politicians, responsible for the health and future of 2 great countries, instead they play the parts of fools for the camera. The 'photo-shoot' or 'photo-opportunity' is all; let's give the media something that will appeal to the masses and perhaps they'll forget, if they ever knew, what else we're up to.

Where are the real leaders who will treat us like mature adults rather than ballot-box fodder ?

These 2 men are a disgrace.

DISABLED COUNCILS MUST BITE THE BULLET.

Councils that are attempting to avoid more general cost reductions by reducing services to the elderly and disabled have been dealt a blow by today's ruling in the High Court against Birmingham City Council. The Court ruled that councils must take account of peoples' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others in order to comply with anti-discrimination legislation.

What gets me is why it is that councils should try to save money by reducing services to the elderly and disabled. Why don't they first look at services to the very abled, those more than able to look after themselves ? Gay and lesbian centres, youth centres, services for young mothers etc., etc. Why can't these disparate groups look out for themselves, if necessary, with support from voluntary and/or charitable organistions ?

Councils need to sort out what they must do from what they'd, ideologically, like to do, long before they start cutting truly essential services.

OBAMA; MAN ON A MISSION

I never cease to be amazed by the ability of politicians to change sides seamlessly.

Not very long ago, countries such as Egypt, Libya and Syria had full support from most of the western world, including the USA. In the last few weeks, the USA initially withdrew support from President Mubarak in Egypt, then from Gaddafi in Libya and now from Assad in Syria. Nothing has really changed in any of these countries except that internal events suggested that it might be in the interests of the USA to  support local populist uprisings, which they did. Egypt got rid of Mubarak in a relatively bloodless coup, though what will happen to the ex-President may be less than bloodless; Gaddafi is intent on ensuring that his country will sink with him, and we have yet to find out how Assad will decide to respond.

At the same time that the USA was making these somersaults, so were many other western nations, including our own. All of a sudden, foreign leaders that we'd been happy to trade with for years, or even decades, were declared 'beyond the pale', ' persona non grata' and so on. Why this sudden change in approach ? Is this just politicianns being fickle ?

I suspect the truth is that, in the continuing aftermath of the 'Cold War', there has to be an enemy to confront in order to maintain the fiction that some countries have to have a controlling influence in order to prevent Armageddon. The Americans initially rounded on Iraq, then the focus moved to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, and now we've moved on to 'what comes next ?'. Armed forces need exercise and practice, weapons need real trials and, in the absence of a real enemy, states have to manufacture threats to justify the use of their forces in conflict situations. Hence, we invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and will quite probably invade Syria before long; then it may well be Iran. The one middle-east country that's immune from invasion or censure is Israel, the made-up country that the USA will support until doomsday because of its own over-riding political interests, and yet he even appears to be suggesting they need to change their approach.

President Obama has said that the USA will now support 'reform' in the Arab world, including its 'transition to democracy'. Will he also really support the Palestinians who have been so shockingly subjugated by Israel ? Is democracy what everyone really needs or wants ? The truth is that Obama needs to build a platform on which to base his re-election campaign next year and he is currently in trouble. So far, he's achieved very little and is in danger of being the worst President, other than his immediate predecesor, since at least the 1920s; making a lot of jingoistic noise and pretending to save the world is an ideal way of improving his position. God Help the rest of us while he gets on with his own career.

THE FA NEEDS MORE BALLS.

I've just read a news story which says that the English Football Association (the FA) intends to abstain in the vote for the election of the next President of FIFA, the world football body.

Half-way good for them, I say. Both of the candidates are tainted and neither is likely to bring about the changes necessary if football is ever to become a 'clean' sport. Why did the FA not make a real gesture and put up its own candidate ? Why have they not threatened to withdraw from FIFA unless there is real reform ?

Sadly, their decision to simply abstain in the vote is an indication that they are powerless to influence affairs, but that they'd rather not be blamed for future events, if that's ok, Mi'lud. It also indicates that no one actually gives a damn what they think, that they, themselves, don't really want to rock the boat too much for fear of falling off of the gravy train, and that corruption is acceptable. Who cares about football or probity when there's money to be made ?

RAILWAY USERS' HELL.

It's reported today that a government-commissioned study into the railways is to recommend all manner of changes to the rail system, including a complete revamp of current ticketing and fares.

Years ago, we had British Rail which owned and managed everything as a publicly owned body. Then we decided this wasn't efficient - it certainly wasn't - and sold off all the pieces to a variety of dfferent organisations. We had Railtrack, which had responsibility for the infrastructure of lines, signalling, and stations, and a host of train operating and freight operating companies. Inevitably, this fragmentation led to all sorts of problems and some of the parties involved have failed to survive, most notably Railtrack, which was wound up in 2002, its assets being transferred to a new, pseudo state-owned company, Network Rail.

Over recent years, passenger fares have skyrocketted while the facilities offered have declined; many stations have little in the way of staff, ticket offices are rarely open, and they've become scruffy and unattractive. Some towns and villages may well have sufferred as a result of the unappealing state of their stations, not to mention the infrequent and unreliable nature of the services available.

Now, Sir Roy McNulty, the man appointed by the government to conduct the study, has apparently made recommendations that include a complete review of fares, reducing staff, still further, and a variety of organisational changes which seem likely to take us back towards more of the former British Rail model by re-integrating elements of the services.

Will government never learn ? They tinker, screw things up and then tinker some more; there's always another expert lurking round the corner to offer advice on how to make things better, and they always make things worse. This country is crumbling under the burden of state intervention in every area of life; our main roads are clogged, our railways grotesquely inefficient, overcrowded and overpriced. While we are constantly cajoled for using our cars and fuel prices rise to stratospheric levels, in many parts of the country there is no alternative as the railways no longer exist, courtesy of another government review, in 1963, by the infamous Dr Beeching.

Rail users can expect no solace from this latest review. Fares will rise for many users and services will be reduced; there'll be even fewer stations with manned ticket offices and rural stations will become less and less looked after. Until the next review, in 2016, of course, when it'll all be put right, again.

CLARKE NOT GUILTY OVER RAPE.

Dear ol Ken Clarke, the favourite 'Tory' of all left wingers, has somehow got himself emrolied in a row about what he said, and what he meant, when he made a few remarks about Rape yesterday. Clarke was really talking about possible changes to sentencing rules which would see the reward for early confessions of wrong doing increased from a 33% reduction in sentence to a 50% reduction, but the Radio 5 interviewer leapt onto the possibility that such a change could see some convicted rapists serving little more than 1 year in prison before being released.

To be fair, Clarke did not handle the interview well and rather bumbled along, as he is inclined to do but the way in which his words have subsequently been used by socialist politicians and womens' groups to whip up a storm really is contemptible. Why is it that we have to be so extra-sensitive when it comes to anything to do with women when the same women seem so determined to be seen as being 'equal' to men in every respect ?

Rape, in its traditionally understood form when a man uses his extra size and strength to force himself on to an unwilling women, is a disgusting crime that deserves a long prison sentence; full stop. What Ken Clarke attempted to say, not very well, is that even though, in law, Rape is Rape, the courts actually identify different types of rape when it comes to sentencing and it has to be recognised that every case is different.

Sexual intercourse that involves a girl under the age of 16 is Rape, whether or not the girl consents - how many such 'Rapes' occur every day in this country ? I'd suggest that it is many thousand, as young people, supplied with free contraceptives by the State, enjoy each others' company with no thought whatsoever that the boys' actions are illegal. Any suggestion that such instances whould be pursued through the courts as 'Rape' are simply ignored by the police and CPS as being 'not in the public interest' unless there is a very significant age difference between the parties, or the girl is under 14 rather than 16 which is the legal limit.

Instances in which a young woman gets a little carried away, has a bit of a fling and then regrets it, may also be called Rape if she later tells the police she didn't really want it. Is this the same as a Rape in which violence and force is applied ? Worse, instances in which young women go out on Friday or Saturday night, dressed highly provocatively and behaving in a loud and often lewd manner, may lead to liaisons with young men acting in similar fashion. Many of these youngsters go out with the clear intention of getting drunk, some on the look-out for drugs and others with a definite intention of 'getting laid'. When an encounter goes wrong, is this 'Rape' to the same degree as in the case of a sober and soberly dressed woman, dragged off the street and into nearby bushes ?

The lesson from this is that none of us can expect to escape the consequences of our actions. The man who who commits a 'traditional' Rape has no one but himself to blame. The schoolgirl of 15 who finds herself pregnant, having quite happily had sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, is not the victim of anything but her own stupidity; to call such an encounter 'Rape' is simply ridiculous. The girl who meets an old male friend with whom she used to live, has a good time and voluntarily spends the night with him before regretting it the next day, can hardly claim to be a 'victim', any more than can the drunken girl, dressed like a tart who finds she's lost her knickers somewhere, though she's not quite sure where, or who else was involved.

The adage that 'No' means 'No' is fine but inevitably there are rarely more than 2 people involved in a case of Rape, making witnesses difficult to find. Did she really say 'No' ? Was either party in a fit state to know whether or not she said 'No' ? Did she say 'No', but not until the next day, or when she'd thought about it for a while and realised her current partner might find out ? There are innumerable possibilities. The nonsense that the conviction rate for Rape is too low is another piece of lunacy; just because a woman makes an allegation, doesn't make the man guilty, indeed, there has been more than one case of deliberate false accusation in the press in recent times.

None of this is intended to provide any support for rapists but only to try to show that Rape is a complex issue in both society and the law. The idea that women should bear no responsibility, whatever they do and however they behave, cannot be right; if I stand in the middle of the road on a wet, dark night and get run over by a truck, whose fault is that, mine or the truck driver's ? We all have to take responsibiliuty for our own actions and for at least some of the consequences of them. The idea that 'Rape is Rape' is just as silly as saying that 'Murder is Murder'; circumstances and situations are different in every case and it is right that each case is treated on its own merits.

Ken Clarke is certainly guilty of being caught flat-footed by the interviewer and of making some ill-judged comments, but anyone who believes his guilt is any greater than this is an idiot. What politician hasn't been caught out now and again ? If Clarke had been talking about almost any other subject, his words would have gone unnoticed, but he was talking about Rape, which immediately gained the attention of a range of interested parties, and we all know how much the media loves a good juicy story about anything to do with sex.

STRAUSS-KAHN, A CHAMBERMAID AND THE ELYSÉE.

Almost every time I look at the news, I find myself astonished, horrified or both. On this occasion, it's very definitely both.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Head of the International Monetary Fund, has been arrested in New York following various allegations including attempted rape; the charges have reportedly been laid by a chambermaid at a prestigious hotel in the city and Mr Strauss-Kahn apparently spent last night in a prison cell.

The charges may, of course, be spurious and Mr Strauss-Kahn may be wholly innocent, but it is, to say the least, worrying that the head of such a vitally important international organisation can get himself involved in such a scandalous affair. What is even more worrying is that this man has been seen as being the front-runner for the Socialist party in the next French Presidential election, though my concern is not what may be suspected.

The International Monetary Fund has huge influence throughout the world, vast resources at its disposal and should be, largely, politically neutral. That its Head is someone still active in politics within his own country is surely utterly unacceptable; to my mind, this renders the IMF's stance on international economic issues highly questionable. With an active politician in charge, will the Fund not be more likely to follow policies that support his ideological viewpoint ? Might it not temper its statements regarding his own country and be more outspoken about countries seen to be political rivals ? Might it not, in fact, make judgements and decisions that specifically help his proposed candidacy for the French Presidency ?

Whether or not Mr Strauss-Kahn is guilty of the alleged offences, his position as Head of the IMF is surely untenable.Whether or not the French people will still be prepared to consider him as a potential President will say as much about them as about him.

FIFA CORRUPT; SHOCK, HORROR !

Lord Triesman, ex-chairman of the Football Association, has reportedly claimed that some FIFA members are corrupt in that they sought bribes in connection with the 2018 World Cup bidding process.

Really, FIFA members corrupt ? Surely not, at least, no more so than they are allowed to be by the FIFA executive management's total refusal to review its procedures in order to ensure that corrupt practices are rooted out.

Just like the other great international sporting body, the International Olympic Committee, FIFA has been accused over and over again of actions ranging from 'shady' to outright criminal. These organisations have memberships that reflect the cultures and practices of every nation in the world; as such, some of their members have very different approaches to life than do others. There can also be little doubt that some of the representatives have found it very difficult to ignore the opportunities for self-enrichment that are offered by their positions.

Of course there is corruption within FIFA, as there is within the IOC. What is really shocking, though, is that we and other supposedly honest nations continue to belong to these discredited organisations. Perhaps the lure of all the associated 'benefits in kind' is simply too great even for our otherwise honest representatives to refuse; the FIFA and IOC gravy trains are every bit as lucrative and rewarding as those on offer from other wide-ranging organisations such as the UN and EU, and we know how honest they are.

In the case of FIFA, there is shortly to be an opportunity to give notice that members are not happy with it's activities in recent years, with the presidential election to be held in three weeks. Sepp Blatter has been President for more than 12 years and wants to serve a further 4, by when he will be nearly 80; his predecessor, Joao Havelange, held the office for nearly a quarter of a century. Surely it is time to change things, to ensure that this office cannot be held for such long periods of time by any one individual. Without serious change, the ingrained corruption that exists will continue unabated.

WHERE IS JUSTICE ?

More and more, we are being made subservient to the police.

Already, police have the right to issue 'fixed penalty notices' for speeding offences and now it's proposed to extend this power to a variety of other driving offences. Under the scheme, the opinion of a police officer will be sufficient to lead to the issue of a fine and 3 point penalty; in most cases, it seems unlikely that there'll be any actual evidence that an offence was committed, just the say-so of a policeman.

The accused will still have the right to refuse the fixed penalty and opt to go to court, but such a course of action will undoubtedly result in a guilty verdict and a greater penalty, theoretically to make up for the waste of the court's time supposedly involved.

Am I alone in thinking this continued move away from 'trial by jury', or even by magistrate, is anything but just or justified ? Am I alone in being unhappy that we are increasingly subject to the whims of police officers when it comes to being found guilty of a range of offences ? Am I alone in believing that we are increasingly being pressured into accepting guilt and a penalty without any trial, under the threat of receiving a larger penalty IF we are convicted in court ? Is this proper justice ?

ELECTORAL MAYHEM.

What a strange lot of election results we've had today.

Scotland goes to the outright control of the Nationalists, Wales is almost under the control of Labour, having kicked their Nationalists in the goolies, and the Liberals have been hammered everywhere. For some inexplicable reason, the Conservatives have managed to GAIN council seats in England and Labour have won far fewer than they might have expected.

What the implications of all of this will be is anyones' guess. Will the Westminster coalition last ? Will Scotland become independent ? Will Wales ever learn ? Will the Liberal Democrats still exist in 5 years ?

As if this isn't enough, we also had the referendum vote on a change to the voting system; did we want to stick with 'First passed the post' or switch to the 'Alternative vote' ? The results seem to show that close to 70% of us were not attracted at all by the proposed change, so why did we have to spend money on the referendum in the first place ? When will our politicians stop wasting OUR money on THEIR pet projects, for purely political reasons ?

THE US LEAVES ME SPEECHLESS.

Reading that the yanks had finally chased down and killed Osama Bin Laden was one thing, hearing now that President Obama and a gaggle of his senior aides actually watched the raid, live, through the use of a camera attached to the helmet of one of the attacking marines is something else. What is wrong with them that they so needed to witness this event and the killing of several people that none of them had ever met and none of whom had ever been found guilty of any crime ?

Equally, the reaction of some of the American public was pretty revolting and more reminiscent of scenes in third world contries when receiving similar news. Some of the news coverage of their display can do nothing for the reputation of the United States, and their claim that this act was the delivery of 'justice' is risible.

I have no sympathy with Bin Laden, or Al-Qaeda or anyone who espouses their type of philosophy, but I also have little sympathy with the bully-boy jingoism of the USA, nor with the grotesquely immature reaction of what appears to have been a significant proportion of their population. While much of the world will lose little sleep over Bin Laden's demise, a significant part will find their nightmares more full of American thuggery than ever.

OBAMA GETS OSAMA AT LAST.

Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is dead, killed by American forces after a brief battle not far from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

Bin Laden was, of course, the self appointed leader of the organisation known as Al-Qaeda, which has been credited with committing some of the worst atrocities of recent years. He had been sought by the US ever since the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 and it was probably only a matter of time before he was caught and killed, however, there are a few questions that arise from his demise.

How is it that he was found so close to the capital of a supposedly friendly country ? Why was he not arrested and brought to trial, for a proper and lawful judgement to be made, rather than being killed out of hand ? Is there any firm evidence that he was in fact responsible for all, or any, of the atrocities credited to Al-Qaeda, other than his own claims ?

It seems certain that this was a very nasty little man who hated the West, but without a proper open and fair trial, we will probably never be sure of his real guilt or involvement in the events for which he has been so vilified, and Al-Qaeda is unlikley to die with him.