Archive for October, 2010


A small dilemma…..

As you may or may not know, last year there was a bit of….well…I was going to say
“debate” but I can’t really say that considering that the people the debate was mainly
between – Stephen Ralph and supporters on one side and me and Ciaran Farrell on the
other – ended up in me being chucked off MEAUK resulting in no debate at all.
Mr. Farrell had already been expelled, probably for the heinous crime of being
doggedly awkward and using a lot of words in the process. However the expulsion
of John Sayer from MEAUK merely for defending the right of Mr. Farrell to express
his views on matters and my uploading of those views to YouTube was, in my view,
utterly irrational and immature and, if anything, worse than my expulsion.

All this stemmed from the YouTube series I recorded on the NICE judicial review and
two parts in particular, twelve and thirteen, in which Mr. Farrell criticised the tactics that
were used by “Margaret Williams” aka Kate Stewart. Point being that a few months later
I was sent some text from an anonymous source, out of the blue, more or less saying
“I thought I’d send this to you….”.

What I was sent was a series of messages from a message board/forum in which a poster
called “flopsy” wrote a defence of Margaret Williams. Believe it or not, I had no problem
with another view being put (the whole point of the YouTube series was to air views) but
the messages mainly included vitriol aimed at unnamed individuals, although you didn’t
have to be Sherlock to deduce who those unnamed individuals were.

The posts also contained some allegations, some oblique and some not so, about the
unnamed individuals. The allegations ranged from the debatable to the downright
scurrilous and untrue. One of the individuals whose identity was hinted at by “flopsy”,
after some reflection, took the decision to write an email to “flopsy” about these posts
in order to politely correct the damaging misconceptions made in the posts.

This resulted in a phone call from a DC at Paddington Green to the home of the emailer
saying that they had received a complaint. The emailer explained the situation to the DC
whereupon the DC advised the emailer not to be in contact with “flopsy” *but* that he
(the DC) would get in contact with “flopsy” again and tell them, essentially, that they
were wasting police time.

In the end, the individual that received the call from the Met police also received a
letter saying that the case was closed. This was no doubt because the Police had no
evidence to warrant any form of investigation into the matter.

The heavy-handedness of calling the police was, it appeared to me, tantamount
to bullying.

It was using a law enforcement agency to stamp on a matter that barely registered on
any scale whatsoever – since when has a mere difference of opinion meant that the
very high security Paddington Green police station should have its resources used to
intervene in such trivial matters, resulting in a stupefyingly embarrassing wastage of
police time?

Subsequently I have been told by others that “flopsy” has resorted to unusual measures
in the past to get their way in other situations. *If* that is the case, it is not necessarily
unrealistic to imagine similar measures being taken against me or indeed anyone who
may comment on this.

If that were to occur, dare I suggest it would be an unwise move on the complainant’s part?

What Mr. Farrell said in parts twelve and thirteen of the YouTube NICE series was not
to everyone’s taste – hey, not everybody agrees with everybody else all of the time –
but for “flopsy” to resort to the tactics which they did instead of rationally and maturely
discussing the matter with those unnamed individuals smacked to me of a heightened
sense of drama mixed with cowardice, duplicity and untrustworthiness, hence a wish to
attend a demonstration on Monday in Whitehall to further underline the lack of physiological
research into ME but fearing that irrationality on the part of the organiser – “flopsy” –
may result in unwarranted and trumped-up allegations being presented to a PC.

Critics of Mr. Farrell’s criticism of Ms. Stewart have been quick to portray that criticism
as an uncalled-for and cowardly attack. Bear in mind that Ciaran, and myself for that
matter, have been to many ME-based events over the years and so have been perfectly
open to face-to-face discussion of any disagreement over Mr. Farrell’s piece on
Ms. Stewart’s involvement and my recording and subsequent uploading of it to YouTube;
there has been more than enough chances to tackle me or him in the nearly
one-and-a-half years since release. In contrast to the public exposure that me and
Mr. Farrell regularly undergo (as it were!), the criticism from “flopsy” was made under a
pseudonym on a board that neither of us were subscribed to.

As a result, I would argue that the posts from “flopsy” were uncalled-for and cowardly.
I will not call it an “attack” because that word has been severely overused in this
ridiculously irrational saga.

In the ten months since “flopsy” posted the messages, “flopsy” has not contacted me
at any point in any way to discuss the YouTube clips despite a public, open invitation
from me to discuss the matter. Given the recent history of postings from “flopsy”,
it would not surprise me if they continued to defame me, probably with the use of a
pseudonym, in ways the author would believe I have no access to.

Curiously enough by “flopsy” avoiding the issue, I believe it has made things more
difficult for that person. I am now aware of people (who I shall not name) who were
previously friendly with “flopsy” but now avoid the person because of the can of worms
that has been opened up. I was one of those people who was previously friendly with
“flopsy” and I feel surprised, disappointed and subsequently mistrustful of that person.
In fact if “flopsy” had contacted me to discuss their concerns over the YouTube clips,
I may well have not felt the need to post this.

I would also bet that a number of these people are also doubtful over their attendance on
Monday due to the seemingly unpredictable nature of “flopsy”. Demonstrations about the
lack of proper research into ME always result in very few people attending. If I don’t attend
– or can’t, if “flopsy” decides to use a sledgehammer to crack a proverbial – that would
possibly leave *very* few people. “Flopsy” may well have become a liability.

The overreaction by “flopsy”, Mr. Ralph and one or two others to Mr. Farrell’s to the
important issues raised by Mr. Farrell is manna from heaven for the likes of Professor
Simon Wessely, in my opinion. It gives him and his so-called “school” more than enough
behavioural material to keep him in employment.

Ideally, I would like to turn up on Monday without the threat of a complaint to the
Met police being made by the organiser. As I have done with many demonstrations
throughout the years in the capacity of attendee and, on a couple of occasions,
organiser, my presence would come with it the guarantee of good behaviour.

It would be a shame for some much needed support to be spurned.


Why does “Match Of The Day” not work?

Before I go any further with this I ought to point out that I tend not to watch
the British institution that is MOTD for the simple reasons that I don’t want
to see *every* club because the vast majority do not interest me and having already
spent Saturday afternoon listening to Radio Five Live’s John Murray at the Emirates or
Villa Park or Anfield I know the results!

Anyway, the real reason why I’m writing this is because whilst lying in the bath with
the lights off, I analysed other reasons as to why I don’t tune into BBC1 on a Saturday
night at roughly 10.30pm, like any normal and sane person would also think about
whilst in the bath, of course.

A desk. Not a table. A desk.
Desk is business, office, analytical.
Combatants facing each other.
Yes, facing each other.

Do I really want to see three ex-footballers (whose careers all encompassed
the late eighties/early nineties – cosy, anyone?) leaning back on sofas or comfy chairs?
You may be forgiven for thinking that the most challenging question that arises (off-camera,
needless to say) is what golf course they will play during the week.

The introduction of a desk might, just might, bring some formality to proceedings.

However this would really only work if part two of my plan came into being:
substituting (geddit?!) one of the ‘pundits’ for an articulate, knowledgeable football
journalist. I know finding one might be needle in a haystack time but being the optimist
(at least on this occasion), there has to be one.

For a start, he (could even be a she – you never know) would not have been a professional
footballer (yes I know there are professional footballers with columns in the papers but it is
this whole thing that I trying to get away from) therefore that ‘chuminess’ born of being in
the trenches together would not be so apparent hopefully leading to less backslapping and

Secondly, the journalist would hopefully act as our (“our” meaning the viewers, in this case)
representative in the court of the footballers. Believe it or not BBC and ITV, most of us have
never played professional football so it might just be an idea to employ someone who sees
it more from a viewer’s perspective but is, quite frankly, clever enough to get on the telly
(“Big Brother” excepted).

Thirdly, well, how can I put this? It sort of leads on from the last paragraph:
substituting an ex-footballer for an articulate journalist.
See what I’m getting at….?

I’ve used the word “articulate” at least a couple of times in this piece and there is a reason
for that; what I would absolutely not want is people in the studio who are ‘controversial’,
or to put it another way, not anybody who would generate more heat than light.
That may be entertaining to some but for those of us who have at least a quarter
of a brain it would be ever so dull.

So that’s my recipe for improving the aforementioned British institution that is
Match Of The Day – a respected football journalist (yes, I know) and a desk where
football debate, not poor joke-making, can take place.

It may never quite match the excitement that it brought to me as an eight-year-old
in 1977 having just discovered this thing called “football” but given the fact that
we live in a different world (so to speak) where money has taken much of the romance
and excitement out of the “beautiful game” (obligatory use of that cliché now
out of the way), I think it’s probably the best solution available for now.

Did I mention a desk?


Twat dresses as Hitler, gets suspended – he’s a council leader!

Here’s some real choice bits from the BBC story:

Mike Gardner, who was pictured giving a Nazi salute at a fancy
dress party, said he had done “nothing wrong.

Asked why he had chosen to wear the Nazi-style uniform, Mr Gardner said:
“It’s one of those situations, you had to be there.”

….and a real cracker considering he was at a party and posing
for a photograph

The images were taken from a Facebook page, which Mr Gardner said was a
“total violation of my privacy”.

Is he f*****g thick or what?!
You decide!


Duncan Smith does his 2010 remix of “on yer bike!”

Pearler from Iain Duncan Smith as he recreates the infamous Tebbit “He got on his
bike and looked for work
” comment for a 2010 audience.


It could be you!

I loathe celebrity culture. The UK is obsessed with the shitty, meaningless, irritating
concept of people being famous. It doesn’t matter what people are famous for as long
as they are famous. Stars are not merely “stars” – they are “superstars”.

“Celebrity” news, an oxymoron if ever there was one, is now big news.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way (and by crikey it feels soooo good), I couldn’t help
noticing the recent coverage of Christina Aguilera’s break up from her husband
Jordan Bratman and as much as that’s undoubtedly unfortunate for them, it
left me with one thought……

How the **** did he get her?!

I’m sure he’s a lovely chap but he’s, and excuse the phraseology here, definitely punched
above his weight here. Now I’ve merely used this particular example to underline my point –
I don’t have a poster on my wall of “Xtina”, as I believe she is referred to – but it’s the
(apparent) principle I’m interested in:

You can be really rather average looking but end up with a reasonably
glamourous woman!

There is hope for us all!


Can you ******* believe it?!

Coming home from the supermarket this evening and I noticed…….
wait for it…….Christmas decorations and a Christmas tree up
in somebody’s flat – on Monday 18th October.

I was going to dig out the phone to take a photo of this incredible
sight but it might have looked like I was stalking somebody so I thought
better of it but if you hunt around North West London within sight
of Wembley Stadium (clue: Wembley can be seen miles away), you
may just notice this unspeakable act.


Statler and Waldorf have now left the building!

Hicks and Gillett forced out of Liverpool Football Club.