First Cuts, Then First Increases Fares

It's been reported that First Leicester will increase bus fares from this weekend, citing 

"operational costs, including diesel, lighting and wages"

for the no doubt inevitable increase. Bus companies are very quick to use increasing diesel prices to put up their fares, but it's amazing how those fares never revert back to pre-increase prices when fuel prices eventually go down.

"Not in service" - about right

Worse still, this announcement comes just two weeks after it was announced that the public transport provider will be cutting some of its services. Those cuts were prompted by the cut in council subsidies.

First Leicester is part of the FirstGroup, that provides bus and rail travel around the country. With increasing fuel costs, insurance premiums at a high (Arriva's excuse), wages etc, on top of councils cutting their subsidies, it would be hard to imagine how companies like FirstGroup survive. It would be totally flabbergasting if an operating profit of £55.4m was reported, an increase of 9.1%. I mean, you wouldn't want to be increasing fares if that was the case, would you? It would be totally underhanded and short-sighted to make customers, who will probably struggling financially and dependant on buses, after all.....

Fat Nation

It's been reported today that Britain's women are the fattest in Europe, with our men the 5th fattest. Whilst lagging behind in the world stakes, it's the first time in decades the UK has seen such unparalleled success in Europe.

Coming soon to a beach in Ibiza....

Rather than revelling in the fact we can do something bigger and better than our European counterparts, the popular press has been quick to raise blood pressures amongst our ever-increasing population - probably not the wisest move, given health and fitness levels. The Sun refers to it as a "crisis", for example. The Torygraph has also sensationalised the news somewhat, but has done some investigation into the causes of our obesity problems. Rather interestingly, Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, puts the blame down to the successive Governments

"feeding children junk food in school, selling off playing fields, and failing to tackle the food industry"

Nothing to do with:

• Overeating
• Driving everywhere
• Giving kids games consoles, TVs and DVD players
• Increase in using conditions such as asthma to excuse children from what PE schools can and do provide

Nobody is forcing parents to buy junk food. Nobody is stopping them from taking their precious ones to the local park for a kickabout. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's healthy food, and what isn't, and surely even the thickest person out there must realise that if you consume more calories than you burn off, YOU WILL PUT ON WEIGHT!

The sooner the "Great" British public start to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions, as is most probably the case) and stops looking to blame everyone else, the sooner this "crisis" will be dealt with.

Second Chance University Education Increase

University might not be out of
the equation after all....

It has just been reported that those who don't pass their A levels may not have the door completely closed on university. Apparently a third of those admitted have no "recognised qualifications".

I don't know what the purpose of this report is; is it supposed to show universities as money grabbing businesses who would rather fill their coffers than maintain their integrity? Or is it ammunition for those already concerned at the over-saturated graduate jobs market?

What this report doesn't make clear is whether or not this applies to all higher education courses, or just to degrees. It also doesn't stipulate if the 'unqualified' students are straight out of 6th form, or whether they are mature students returning to education with life experience in lieu of academic qualifications.

It also doesn't point out that part time higher education, which is outside of the UCAS system, will quite often take on students that don't quite meet the grade, but have shown a desire to take on the challenges of further study, either for self-improvement, careers, or whatever.

Omissions like these will no doubt affect the way Joe Public views this report.

Another High Profile Gagging Order....

Last month, I blogged on how the rich and famous appear to want a one- way relationship with the media; the Press scratches their back but cannot in turn stab celebs in theirs. 

Today it has been reported that yet another supposed big name TV star has successfully prevented his indiscretions from being made public knowledge. This follows a decision earlier in the week to give a Premier League footballer protection from what appears to be further confirmation that he can't keep it in his trousers.

I have two problems with super-injunctions, both closely interwoven; the first is that if you are rich and famous, you are able to have control over the media. Celebs are very quick to wheel out the Article 8 arguments if it suits them. Caught with your pants down? "That's an infringement of my Article 8 rights". Been a bit naughty? "You can't report that, that's my privacy you're violating". But it's funny how quickly stars will waive any rights to their private and family life when it comes with a huge pay cheque, or if it will publicise a new film, TV programme, album etc.

Of course, this right is qualified, and in these cases needs to be balanced with the Press' Article 10 rights. If a person is happy to share their private life with the general public, then surely they should expect interest in the areas that they don't want to share as well. Self-publicity should not lead to self-censorship, should it?

This leads on to my second gripe; celebs are able to create an image about themselves that is favourable to them. They want the world to see the fruits of their success, and are happy to flaunt this. However, some are able to live behind a mask of domestic bliss that, in some cases, couldn't be further from the truth. It is perfectly possible for those with enough money to conveniently forget their moral compass; it's a world of Dorian Grays. Men and women who can behave as they please, without judgment or recourse for their actions, safe in the knowledge that if you can't pay off your indiscretions, then the courts will gag them for you.

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?