Why I Won't Be Booing Joe Mattock

My team, Leicester City, will be travelling to Bramall Lane next Tuesday evening to face Sheffield United, and possibly their latest acquisition, ex-City defender, Joe Mattock. If some of the fans are to be believed, Mattock is due some stick for his decision to leave in 2009. 

Fans learn at a young age
how to get angry

For some fans, Mattock's departure to rivals West Bromwich Albion was the act of ultimate disloyalty; many saw it as a sideways step, after all, both clubs would be playing in the same division. However, whilst City performed better than most supporters expected, reaching the play-offs, WBA went that step better and were actually promoted to the Premier League.

For others. it was the comments made at the time that Mattock moved that caused most upset, most notably:

"I was ecstatic that a club like this was interested in me"

So much so, that within weeks of leaving City, he was involved in an incident in a nightclub that lead him to pleading guilty to affray after the player threw punches at two men and two women. It was stated that the first man punched had been the latest in a number of people who had been giving Mattock grief for his move. This isn't the first time that a player has courted the support of his new fans, by saying that his new club offers him brighter prospects and a better future. Some players are noted for claiming that they are joining the club of their dreams as they are unveiled to the Press, so much so it has become a joke when they are transferred. But what are players supposed to say? "I didn't really want to join [insert team name] - they made me do it". There are more tactful ways of leaving a club, thanking the former club, mentioning the fans, but we aren't dealing with the sharpest tools in the box. Plus the manner in which players leave doesn't help. In this case, Mattock wanted to leave. How much of this is down to the player himself, and how much if the influence of an agent is not known. Unless there is a serious problem at the club that a player is leaving, there is no real point in handing in a transfer request unless he knows that there is interest elsewhere, surely?

Mattock manages to contain
his excitement

Sideways step or not, ultimately the decision to move to WBA might have been the right thing to do had Mattock not had the spectre of a court case hanging over him. Mattock did not feature regularly for his new team; how much of that was down to his ability and how much was down to his off field problems is anyone's guess. After all, the two sides are playing in different divisions, and if Mattock had kept out of trouble, who knows how much he would have played a part in WBA's promotion and Premier League campaign.

Players moving clubs is no new thing, and Mattock isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, player to be subjected to grief from those supporting a former club. Many fans measure football players by their own 'moral' standards. I say 'moral'; when it comes to sport, and football especially, there is a code that fans live and die by. Loyalty is very much top of the agenda for supporters. You pick your team, or your team is determined by other factors such as family history, geography, whatever, and when you have your team, you stick by it through thick or thin. Why does Joe Mattock apparently deserve so much criticism?

"It isn't an easy decision - obviously I grew up in Leicester and all I wanted to do when I was a lad was play for Leicester"

A player and a fan - at
the time

Fans would do anything to play for their club. It is now possible to buy charity places to represent your club at charity events, or to buy a place on a team that will grace the hallowed turf of your club. Of course none of this comes close to joining YOUR club as a fully fledged professional player. The higher up the leagues your team is, the less likelihood this will happen. So when a player comes up through the ranks, like Mattock did, a self-proclaimed fan, for him to turn around and say how thrilled he is to be joining not just any old club, but a rival, well, it is the ultimate sin.

As a football fan, it's my dream job to be a professional player. But looking at things with perspective, it's easy for me to say I would never play for any other club than Leicester City. I will never be a professional player, I am the wrong gender for a start. I'm also too old, and if I'm totally honest, I was never good enough. Not really. If, on the other hand, I was in a position where I could have been a player, would I really turn down a move to a club I, as a supporter, don't actually like? Really, truly, honestly? Even if it meant a substantial increase in salary? Or the chance to take my game to the next level?

Of course I wouldn't. I'm not that daft.

This where many fans fail to empathise with players. They appear to be unable to put themselves into a position where the question even arises. Fans do not seem to be able to make that distinction between playing football for the love of your team and playing for the sake of your career. At the end of the day, to a professional footballer, it is a job. There is so much money in the game now, players cannot afford to let their hearts rule their heads. The days where players stay with a club for the bulk of their career is long gone, unless they are lucky enough to play for one of the biggest clubs in their country, even the world, where staying is an easier decision than leaving. People are quick to justify extortionate salaries on the basis that playing careers are short meaning that players would be stupid not to take advantage of what is offered to them. That is unless that player is leaving your club. Criticism isn't always aimed at players who say that they support the club that they play for either.

An easy analogy is to think about your own career; if a rival firm head-hunted you, and offered to double your salary, would your loyalty to your current employer prevent you from accepting? Or would you be handing in your notice at the first opportunity? I'm sure most people would opt for the latter, unless there was something substantially flawed with moving. If that's the case, then why should footballers be criticised for making the same decision?

For me personally, I cannot get too upset about players leaving. That's not to say I don't find it disappointing that someone has to go elsewhere because my club cannot afford to pay ridiculous sums of money, or just isn't good enough. It does dent the pride, admittedly. But players come and go all of the time, just as managers do, even owners. A football club is always in a state of evolution, and things can never be expected to remain the same. For me, the fans are what make the club, and even they can disappear over time. Not unlike the ones on the field wearing the shirt. This is why I won't be booing Mattock next Tuesday evening.

Baby On Board

Or not, as the case may be. 

The Chelsea Tractor only came to my attention, as the driver was struggling to manoeuvre it into the extra large space in the "Parent & Child" bays at a local supermarket. There were no other cars parked in the area, but the driver was making a meal out of such a simple thing. I have to admit, I was transfixed.

So you can imagine my shock when the woman who had struggled to badly to park, calmly and coolly left the vehicle, and nonchalantly walked into the supermarket. "Hang on" I thought, what about the baby in the car?

I had to walk past, so as I did, I had a look in the window. I expected to see an abandoned child, maybe a confused toddler; what I didn't expect to see was absolutely no evidence of any child ever having been in the car. Which was the case.

Now, I appreciate that mums don't have their kids with them all of the time, but surely the purpose of a 'Baby on board' sign is to let people know that, er well, there's a baby in the car? What I didn't realise is that they are, in fact, parking permits for those nice, wide parking bays nearer to the store entrance for the totally bone idle among us.

To be honest, I don't really see why I need to know why someone has a baby in their car. Most drivers with them tend to be selfish numpties who really shouldn't be allowed behind a wheel in the first place - "hey I might drive like a t**t, but think of the kiddy before beeping or flashing at me". 

I am lead to believe that the signs were the brainchild (no pun intended) of a parent who's child was catapulted out of the car after a collision. Something along the lines of the driver being unconscious and the emergency services didn't know that the baby was in the car. A fine idea in principle, but seriously, how quickly or badly do you have to drive for a baby's car seat is propelled not just out of a car, but so far away it can't be spotted? Aren't these things supposed to be strapped in so they don't even hit the back of the seat in front, let alone fly several hundred feet into a ditch? And how the hell does it manage to go anywhere if it did get loose? Surely you'd have to be driving a car with the roof down, so you wouldn't be able to display your sign very well any way? 

More importantly, even the creator said that you only displayed the sign when the child is in the car. This then prevents hapless rescuers searching for a kid that is safely tucked up at home.

It doesn't just stop at baby signs; you can get "Naughty person on board" signs, which I guess means "my kid's a little sh*t, but we try and laugh it off", or "Babe on board". D'ya gerrit? Ha ha. Why is it they only appear in the windows of super-minis being driven by young women who the only "Babe" they resemble is the pig? 

Privacy - a privilege?

Max Mosley believes that he should be notified before any stories about him are published. I am sure Premiership footballers up and down the country will be rubbing their hands (keep it clean....) at the prospect of having to be informed if a slapper sells her story to the popular press. They'll no doubt be joined by a number of obvious candidates who have been the subject of negative stories.

Rather than wasting money on taking matters like this through the courts, shouldn't self-absorbed, attention seekers stop living their lives in the public eye? There are numerous celebs out there who I have no idea what the hell they do with their lives outside of a film or tv studio, or the sports field, or wherever. People who don't try and capitalise on every little detail of their insecure lives. 

Then there are the media whores, who use every tiny little piece of publicity to their own advantage. Yet they also seem to be the first to go running to their lawyers at the first sign of any negative publicity. Don't they realise that they have made themselves the subject of such scrutiny? The public are just as much interested in their downfalls, failings and mistakes because they are being spoon fed all of the good times.

If I was the editor of a newspaper, magazine or TV programme, and the ECHR do indeed rule that the media should be subject to rules of 'prior notification', I wouldn't give any of them an ounce of publicity. What's that Price, you want to talk about your marriage again? Go and shout about it in Trafalgar Square, then. I wouldn't be wasting any more of my time on you.

Privacy and press reporting has to be balanced. My concern is that if it was to swing too far towards protecting privacy, many parts of the popular press will become promotional tools for those who can afford it. If you put yourself in the spotlight, then you have to be able to deal with the consequences of your actions, good or bad. When self-censorship comes into play, there is no freedom of the press.

Celebs live in a strange world. Some crave attention, but don't like it when what they get isn't what they wanted. It's no different to the locals gossiping in the village pub; it's on a much bigger scale. The main difference is the ordinary bloke in the street won't be able to pay someone not to tell the other drinkers about his sordid little affair or his dubious sexual preferences. Is this the start of a two-tier system of dealing with what can and can't be reported about people?

Some light....

Until someone is prepared to pay me, I decided some time ago to put all of my expensive legal training to use by helping the wider community. I am volunteering myself to a well known charitable organisation.

Compared with the BVC, the training has been a breeze. For me though, I have got more out of the observation sessions. This involves shadowing an experienced volunteer and seeing the practical side of things. I've seen almost every type of situation. What I haven't seen is the client who kicks off when they don't get the answer that they want - I am certain that one is waiting for me!

Today though, I have almost reached the point where I can be let loose among the general public, without supervision. To think that this time next week I could have someone's life literally in my hands is daunting, but somewhat humbling. Some of the clients that I have seen really do need a good kick up the arse, but there are those out there who really would be in the messy stuff if it wasn't for the volunteers and organisations out there who aim to help them.

I have completed two interviews, under supervision. All of my coursemates have been dreading this part of the training, but the BVC has prepared me well for this. The scrutiny of not just a tutor, but my peers too, whilst being recorded onto DVD has taken away any inhibitions or self-consciousness. I've learned that all I need to do is take a deep breath and dive straight in there. Once it's over and done with, that's it.

I now have one more to go, then hopefully I will be allowed to get stuck into the nitty-gritty. This is the part that I have been looking forward to. Even though it's not strictly proper legal experience, the fact that I will be doing something constructive and potentially beneficial will certainly stop me feeling as worthless as I have during the past few months.

My gripes with the immigration debate

We are currently living in very unhappy times; rising costs, rising unemployment and now rising taxes are an everyday part of our sad lives. Some of the blame is being directed, quite rightly, to the Government, both past and present. However I have noticed that my social networking feeds are becoming increasingly littered with updates telling me that increasing immigration is responsible for this.

Immigration is a sore subject with some; there are legitimate concerns, but there is also a fair bit of ignorance and hypocrisy in some attitudes towards the subject. I may return to the subject in later blogs, but wanted to deal with the hypocrisy in the way that some of the Great British public view immigration.

Immigrants are taking our jobs....

With many companies laying off workers, and unemployment rising again, it is impossible to fathom out why our leaders allow foreigners to come over here and take jobs that our own, indigenous, unemployed could be doing. We all know someone who has been out of work for months, who has applied for countless jobs, and is yet to find gainful employment. Sickening, isn't it.

But take a closer look at the positions being filled by non-Brits; many menial and undesirable roles, for example. All of the cleaners at my gym are immigrants. Why? Because nobody born and bred here wants to clean the remnants of your hair removal cream from a shower for minimum wage, that's why. Would you be happy to receive £5.93 ph to clean up after the bone idle, pseudo-middle classes? Of course not.

Even if you were prepared to take on any job going, regardless of the remuneration (and fair play to you if you would), if you have qualifications over a certain level, and have experience over and above such lowly work, an employer is not going to take on a person who could quite easily move on to bigger and better things, when there is a person who is more likely to stick with the role for longer, saving on recruitment cost.

Ah, but it's not just the lower end of the job market, is it. Companies are bringing in graduates from overseas. Many young adults leaving university are unable to find work as it is, without Johnny Foreigner nicking the graduate roles available. Hah!

The bigger picture in all of this, of course, is the shift in attitudes in education, in particular, higher education. There was a time when the top 2% of school leavers made it to university. Labour decided that at least 50% of children should be allowed the opportunity to go to university. Great thinking, but the number of graduate roles available hasn't increased to fulfil the new demand. More courses are available; careers that would have been available to a school leaver at 16 are no longer viable options at that age, because there is a degree available in that subject. Furthermore, there has been an increase in degrees that aren't related to any vocation, and are not strictly academic in nature. A cynic would suggest that such degrees are available as an option for students who would never have been able to obtain a university place under the old regime. Either way, parents and children now view a degree as the best way of securing employment in the future.

The problem is that some careers need a degree that is relevant to the subject area. Whilst some areas, such as medicine and law, remain competitive, fewer students are opting to study sciences. This leaves employers finding that they are unable to recruit from British born graduates, and having to look abroad to fill their vacancies. Ultimately, a policy made with good intentions has backfired, but with immigration taking the blame.

Immigrants cost the British taxpayer billions in benefit payments....

Actually, immigrants don't cost as much as people think, but that is a blog in itself.

My gripe is that the popular press, and consequently sections of the public, focus far too much on immigrants and what they are claiming. Up and down the country, however, there are British families, generations of whom have never done a day's work. This can also be related to the above issue; thousands of people claim benefits on the basis that they are not fit to work, yet they then go on to spend that money on booze and ciggies. You may not be fit for work, but you can drag yourself to the bookies? Have a word, sunshine.

Or there are, of course, the Baby Machines; 'women' who would rather churn out another sprog than get off their oversized backsides and get a job. I would like to say that I was exxagerating but unfortunately I am not.

Of course, this is linked with the issue above. Ironically, I have overheard such people moaning about foreigners coming here and taking our jobs, the fact that they do all that they can to avoid employment is lost on them. It comes across as a diversion tactic, an attempt to deflect attention away from themselves. Let's blame the immigrants, they might not notice we're just as bad....

Worse still is the assumption that as a British subject, there is an entitlement to benefits, nay right. Immigrants haven't earned the right to claim these, y'know. Well, neither have some of you, actually. Being born here shouldn't give you a bigger entitlement, in all fairness. The welfare system is unfortunately open to abuse from all sections of the community. The indigenous population costs more to the taxpayer than immigrants do. It seems that it is easier for all concerned to focus attention on a small group than to admit that the system needs to be overhauled to prevent fraud and abuse. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be sorting out our own problems before blaming others?

Immigrants are taking over; they create ghettoes in our towns and cities....

Several hundred years of history are conveniently forgotten to promote the argument against immigration.

For a start, we are a mongrel nation, the product of different invading nations who came, conquered and brought their families along to settle down here. If we all go far enough back into our ancestry, we are bound to find that our origins were in fact overseas.

Then of course, there is the Great British Empire. You know, the one where we went and took over other countries, taking with us our cultural influences and all that jive? What makes it different to today's immigration 'problems' is that in this instance, people coming to the UK today, do so without wanting to take over and turn us into their slaves.

Of course, we have learnt, as a nation. No Brits ever leave this country to try to find a better life elsewhere. No. No siree.

I am sure that there are people in Spain, Portugal, Greece etc who wish that was the case. Just like the immigrants moaned at for creating their own small communities in the UK, Brits have turned places like Benidorm into just another British seaside resort. Of course, some will say that this is not a fair comparison. This is us doing it, not some dirty foreigner, after all. There is a failure to see that it is human nature to gravitate to what we know and what we are comfortable with. This includes moving to another country. When it comes to failing to integrate with the natives, we surely must be number one in the list. How can people fail to see that we are just as bad, if not worse, than any other nation's people? "If I moved to the Middle East, I would live the way that they do" - which is why most Brits tend to move somewhere that is more in tune with our own cultural upbringing, unsurprisingly. Even then, not everybody is keen to leave behind the lager, the roast dinners and the fish and chips. So why complain when someone who comes here is also reluctant to leave their culture behind?

There is also the point that integrating into our society must be difficult when the locals regard you with suspicion as they accuse you of stealing jobs and benefits.

British society is not perfect. There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed and dealt with, but it seems to me that it is easier to lay the blame at the door of immigrants than it is to hold our hands up as a nation, and say "hey, we've mucked up somewhere, let's do something to sort it out".