Righteous indignation – or puffed up
nonsense?
OK, I was asking
for trouble reading the Daily Mail
and I then compounded this error by reading the column by Quentin Letts - parliamentary sketchwriter, theatre critic,
freelance writer, anonymous gossip-supplier to the media industry and all round
pompous ass.
Almost anything
written by Letts can be guaranteed to upset a large part of the population –
inevitable really, since it will at the same time appeal hugely to most readers
of the Daily Mail. He can be humourous, of course, but he also
peddles the kind of stuff you would expect in that paper – bombastic,
little-Englander, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, pro-conservative (all with
small capital letters), etc.
His recent piece bemoaning the defeat for the Conservatives over boundary changes for Parliamentary seats was a classic of its kind – the world is doomed by the
actions of Labour and Lib Dem politicians being unfair to the Tories, aided by
the Tories themselves not being firm with them.
The very foundations of our democratic way of life are threatened by
what has happened.
Letts sees a
left-wing conspiracy around every corner, including this one. He puffs and splutters about corruption,
cheating and outrage. He works himself
into a lather about the unfairness of it all and how the defeat for the Tories
will result in that worst of all nightmares for him and those like him – “the Left will now be in power after 2015 —
with all the repercussions for our national sovereignty that could bring.”
The poor man looks likely to explode if he’s
not careful. But can you really feel any
sympathy for someone who not only uses the phrase ‘bien pensant’ in his article, but who is a repeat offender in this
regard, having used the same words at least twice in recent months (1 November
2012 and 28 December 2012). A good
writer will not use words or phrases that cause readers to wonder what he or she
is trying to say, either because the words are not commonly used or because
their meaning is not always clear. Letts
fails on both grounds. Bad or smug writers, on the other hand, may use words
and phrases they believe show how much better educated and clever they are than
their readers.
Tony Pulis – the right man for the job
For those who don’t
know, Tony Pulis manages Stoke City football club. He has the demeanour of someone with a major
chip on his shoulder. His gripe is that he represents a small club that is
struggling to be treated fairly by the world, the football authorities,
and specifically by referees. He believes that the rich clubs get favourable treatment
and he has a particular issue with Arsenal for some reason.
He is, in fact,
the perfect man to manage Stoke City.
Gritty, dour, unfashionable, committed to surviving by the principle of
the ends justifying the means. A
marriage made in heaven.
On Saturday Pulis’s
Stoke team faced Arsenal and, as usually happens, they lost. Every football manager worth his salt can
explain in great detail how it is that whenever they lose it was caused by the
perpetration of some significant wrong against them. You really can’t be a
manager if you don’t have this ability.
Arsenal’s winning
goal was awarded only after the referee had consulted with a linesman (sorry, ‘referee’s
assistant’) who had raised his flag for reasons known only to him, but assumed
to be because he thought there had been an Arsenal player offisde. Pulis started his after-match tv interview by
saying “I haven’t got a clue what offside is now”.
The Monday Moan is glad to offer some help
to him. A player is in an offside position if they are nearer to the opponent’s
goal than both the ball and the second-last opponent – including the
goalkeeper. You cannot be offside in your own half, if you are level with the
second-last opponent or if you are behind the ball. However, being in an
offside position is not itself an offence. A player is only penalized for being
in an offside position if he is interfering with play, interfering with an
opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position.
So, with that
tutorial, what happened in the game?
Well Arsenal took a free-kick, at which point the only player who might
arguably have been offside was Theo Walcott, their no.14 – although as the
picture shows, he is also arguably level with the last Stoke defender.
The ball ended up
in the opposite side of the goal to which Walcott was standing – he hadn't moved, he wasn't in the golakepper's line of vision, so clearly he
cannot have been interfering with play.
All quite simple
really – and now Tony Pulis will have no excuse for not knowing what offside is
in the future.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again
We all make
mistakes from time to time, but mostly they are not serious and very few people
get to know about them.
Unfortunately,
some people are not so lucky with their mistakes.
The person
responsible for the captions on the BBC News on Sunday will be blushing today:-
The Herts Advertiser copywriter who forgot to use spellcheck for the photo caption below probably
realises their mistake:-
However, although I am confident that most people would see the Newcastle supporter’s display (above and on this link) as a mistake, I am not convinced that the fan himself will agree.
Parts in a machine
And finally, not a moan but an observation. Sitting here and writing this blog I can
picture you and other readers at your desks, or on the way to meetings and it
suddenly seems very strange to me that I no longer have to do any of this, that
I don't have to get up to work each day, and that the good ship ‘Ex-employer’
sails merrily on without my assistance. It
is a sobering thought that we are but replaceable components in machines that
can function perfectly well without our being there, no matter how important
our efforts and presence might once have seemed.
But it is also comforting to realise that the world won't end if you don't get that paper written or that email sent. There is time enjoy yourself and do other things.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcomed - although I reserve the right to behave grumpily when I read them