American double standards

I am troubled with the idea that British politicians should justify themselves to an American senate committee. Of course, I am referring to the continued fall-out from the release of Lockerbie bomber and terrorist, Al-Megrahi a year after his original release from Scottish jail. At the time, like most people I was appalled at the idea of releasing Britain’s worst mass-murderer and still believe to this day that it was a gross misjudgment by the Scottish (aptly named) ‘ justice’ secretary, Kenny McAskill MSP. Nevertheless, I find the attempts of some US Senators to summon British politicians to Washington a troubling prospect.

The first reason for this is a matter of principle. Regardless of whether they be Scottish or British politicians, they are accountable to us, the British people, not to the US Senate. For similar reasons, I certainly wouldn’t have the audacity to summon Donald Rumsfeld over to London for the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war. There simply is no such precedent for such a move.

The second reason centers around what I view as the fashionable pastime of ‘BP bashing’ in the US. Assertions that somehow the release of Al-Megrahi was linked with the granting of BP oil contracts in Lybia is almost laughable, particularly since David Cameron has promised the release of papers from the discussions that led to Al-Megrahi’s release. I cannot help but think that the US are appying their own political standards to ours. Whilst our political system is far from perfect, there by no means the same degree of ‘lobbying’ with big business and pressure groups as the US system seems to encourage.

Finally (and one might call this a cheap jibe at our American ‘cousins’, but I will make it anyway), I find it utterly hypocritical for the US to chastise us for the early release of a terrorist prisoner, regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Perhaps if they want our politicians to justify to them in the US Senate why Al-Megrahi was released early, perhaps their own politicians from the 1960′s-1990′s could come to the British parliament and justify why they both supported, funded and armed the IRA during the period of the troubles. Is it a coincidence that they weren’t recognised as a terrorist organisation in the US unti after 9/11?

These are double standards at work if ever I have encountered them!

The Canadian Lesson

David Cameron’s acknowledgement yesterday that Britain faced the deepest cuts since 1945 highlighted the real state of the public finances in the post-Blair/Brown era. The stark reality is that both the individual and the state have been living way beyond their means for too long. Not only are we on borrowed money, but borrowed time as well. The option at the election was clear: re-elect a Labour government that would propose to merely halve the budget-deficit in five years, or a Conservative (and now Liberal) government that would use previously successful methods in order to slash the deficit in five years. These lessons would be learnt from Canada.

In 1992, Canada’s debt problem was almost as bad as that faced by us in the UK today. The spend-easy government was wasting $39bn (Canadian) more than it was gaining in revenue which equated to roughly 9% of GDP. To put this into a contemporary and British context, our current budget deficit runs at over 12% of GDP and this figure is rising. In 1993, Canada faced a similar election choice to that faced us in May and on the back of a Liberal victory, finance minister Paul Martin opted to tackle Canada’s dangerously large and growing deficit head-on. Martin proved that efficiency savings of great magnitude could be made without a detrimental knock-on effect to frontline services. He tackled the ridiculous welfare benefits that were being handed out to the unemployed, by 23%; payments to native Indian communities were slashed; subsidies for inefficient farmers and businesses were removed; airports and the railways were privatised and the number of civil-servants were reduced by an astonishing 20% in a drive to slash public-sector waste and inefficiency.

In debates on the issue of public-spending, the left frequently make the argument that any cuts to spending will have an unavoidable impact on front-line services. However, Cameron has promised to examine with consultation, the possibility of transferring the management of certain services to businesses, the private-sector and voluntary organisations. In his role of Minister of Finance, Paul Martin was able to make $39m of savings by doing just this and by doing so, changing the very definition of what the state should and should not be doing. In reality this was an example of what Cameron likes to call the ‘Big Society’, in action.

So what were the results of this daring method of dealing with a rapidly increasing budget deficit? Admittedly, the Canadian government will acknowledge that it perhaps went too far in slashing budgets of some departments. In the area of health, cuts resulted in an increase in hospital infection-rates but there was by no means the same degree of scope for health-savings in Canada as there is the UK today with our endless tiers of ‘middle-management’, ‘line-managers’ and ‘trust-executives’ (whatever the hell they all are). The truth is that Martin’s purge on waste transformed the Canadian economy in just four-years. On being elected in 1993, Canada’s deficit was the second-highest among the G7 countries after Italy. By 1998, recovery had been rapid and it was the only country in the G7 with a budget surplus.

There will inevitably be those who will criticise this government no matter what when it comes to cuts. Ironically, it was their own big-tax, big-spend ideas that got us into the quagmire in the first place. Times will be tough in the months to years to come, but one thing is for sure: if our Canadian cousins can pull through the tough times, then so can we. The alternative is too painful to consider.

A news review of the week

This week’s news headlines have been dominated by the tragic events in Cumbria where crazed gunman, Derrick Bird, shot dead twelve people on Wednesday. Thankfully, such incidents are rare in our country. Nevertheless, the incident has provoked the inevitable questions on the state of our nation’s gun-laws and whether or not they’re too lax. I was pleased to hear David Cameron’s reaction to such accusations. Of course, all laws should be subject to review in light of such an incident. However, we must also take note of the fact that our gun-laws in the UK are amongst the toughest in the world. 99.99% of all those that own shotguns or high-powered .22 rifles in this country are stable, law-abiding individuals. Sadly, the nature of human-kind will always leave laws open to some degree of exploitation and I am afraid that this appears the case in the tragic events in Cumbria.

The news has also continued to focus on Israel’s continued blockade of the Gaza strip in order to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into the region. Today, we learn that an Irish aid ship has been peacefully boarded and searched by Israeli authorities. I blogged previously on the original incident involving the Mavi Marmara and the clamour against Israel appears to have reduced as the facts (and video-footage) of the incident has emerged. I will continue to make the case that for as long as Hamas and other neighbours of Israel pursue violence, terror and deny the Jewish state’s right to exist, then  the blockade to prevent the smuggling of arms and terrorists into Gaza is entirely justified.

It has also been another tough week for British forces serving in Afghanistan. In the last week, two Royal Marines lost their lives in the service of their country and today, we learn that two servicemen from 1 Bt. The Mercian Regiment have also been killed in action. As summer closes in, we must brace ourselves for an increase in casualties as we continue to fight to make Afghanistan a safe-haven from terrorists. In order to honour those who have fallen, it is important that our mission-goals in Afghanistan are achieved.

Finally (and I couldn’t ‘not’ mention the World Cup), Rio Ferdinand, England’s captain has been ruled out of the tournament because of an injury picked up in training. As a Manchester United fan, I am personally gutted for Rio and happen to rate him as one of the best centre-halves in the world. No doubt also that Emile Heskey will be best remembered for his tournament-ending tackle on the England captain in training.

It’s not always easy, but we must defend the actions of Israel

The election of Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister has resulted in a distinct shift in the way in which Israel has conducted her domestic and foreign policy. The rhetoric against the Iranian regime has justifiably become more intense and the Israeli Navy is rumoured to have made the unprecedented military move of permanently stationing one of her three ‘Dolphin Class’ nuclear-armed submarines in the Persian Gulf as a deterrent against any possibly Iranian, Syrian or Hizbollah missile attack. On the domestic front, Netanyahu has consistently rebuffed US pressure calling on Israel to halt any further settlement on post-1967 occupied areas of the West Bank. This relatively major diplomatic escalation between the two allies placed Israeli-US relations at an extremely low point. What one can perhaps understand from these two points, is that Israel increasingly appears to be acting against widely perceived international norms; perhaps better described as a ‘law unto itself’. Therefore, is the latest incident involving Israeli commanders storming an aid ship in international waters surprising?

The answer to this question is no. What we have learnt from the previous ten-months is that the Netanyahu administration approaches Israeli challenges in a somewhat one-dimensional and unilateral fashion. Not all Israeli prime ministers have stood up to US administrations, let alone ones as popular as Barack Obama’s cultish government. Nevertheless, it is widely perceived that Netanyahu’s almost arrogant approach to problem-solving is making him rather more enemies on the international stage than it is friends, even amongst those normally ardently ‘pro-Israeli’, to use a grossy overly simplistic term. Yet in spite of these developments and perceptions, I still believe that we must defend the actions of Israel in a region that is hard to understand unless you live there, surrounded on a daily basis by other states that have attempted to, and wish to see Israel wiped off the face of history.

Israeli commanders’ assault on the Turkish aid ship, Mavi Marmara, in the early hours of this morning (Monday 31 May) may not have been pretty, but we really must examine the true facts of what has occurred and the course as events as we understand them at this early stage. A ship carrying aid to Gaza approaches an Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza, designed to prevent the smuggling of terrorists and weapons into an area that is controlled by a terrorist organisation Hamas. The commander of the ship emphatically states that the aim of the convoy is not merely to distribute aid to Gazans but to ‘break’ the Israeli blockade by ‘whatever means necessary’ (one must assume by this he means force). As a result, IDF commandos storm the ship, are confronted by armed militants who open fire on the Israeli military who, in turn, return fire. The result? Ten soldiers wounded and nineteen (tbc) ‘aid workers’ killed. This was, naturally, followed by the inevitable anti-Israeli media s**t-storm and demonstrations by the same old suspects outside Downing Street and on the streets of Gaza. Hamas leaders also called not for a day of mourning for the dead but a day of ‘wrath’ against Israel and her people.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t find the killing of nineteen people particularly palatable. On the contrary, I happen to think the entire mission was a PR disaster for Israel and yet again, just as in Lebanon and Gaza, the military operation had fundamental flaws. However (and this is a big however). PR disaster yes; poorly conducted militarily, yes; ’massacre’ and ‘gross violation of international law’, certainly not. The first point I would make is that this was not a massacre. The rules of engagement on which any military would conduct an operation of this kind, state that live fire would not be allowed unless fired upon and that is the accusation levelled at those on the ship prior to the deaths. The second point I would make revolves around the description of these aid workers as ‘peaceful’.  I draw your attention to the words of Huwaida Arraf, one of the lead organisers of the flotilla, who stated that his intention was to “fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us…they are going to have to forcefully stop us…”  Additionally, if the aims of those on the ship were peaceful, then what were those on the ship doing in possession of arms, knives and guns stolen from the IDF commandos? Finally, the UN is making its usual clamour regarding where the incident took place. Clearly, it was conducted inside international waters, away from Israeli territory, but when the aim of the convoy was solely to reach the blockade and then continue to Gaza, does the area in which the incident occurred really matter? Surely if the territorial integrity of one nation is threatened from international waters then that nation still retains the right to self-defence?

Self-defence is what Israeli politicians will argue; they always do and yes, it can even wear thin at times for those who seek to defend Israel on a particularly regular basis. Nevertheless, let’s place this latest incident in some degree of Israeli context. Israel is a state founded out of one of the worst human-induced catastrophes that this planet has ever seen: the systematic attempt by Hitler’s Germany to wipe world Jewry from the planet. Now, look where Israel finds itself: surrounded by Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas- all groups that wish to see the exact same fate for Israel as Hitler envisaged for the Jews in the 1930′s and 40′s. When people accuse Israel of ‘over-reacting’ and being overly defensive in nature, before condemning their actions with outlandish statements that border on ill-disguised anti-Semitism, just consider that Israel may well have something to be defensive about.

Liberals should put up or shut-up

I’m getting a little sick and tired of hearing liberals whining and winging about going into coalition government with their age-old badies, us Tories. For the first time in seventy years, the Lib. Dems. hold the balance of power they so desire as the third-party in British politics. They have managed to retain the Human Rights Act that does so much to limit the liberty of innocents and have been granted a referendum on a more proportional voting system (just so that they can be the disproportionate power broker after ALL general elections). So, instead of their activists and disgruntled MP’s from the left (Simon Hughes, ‘Whisky’ Kennedy etc.) bemoaning the fact that their plan to ‘keep the Tories out‘ has spectacularly backfired (and that neither were given a job in the Cabinet), might I suggest that they make the most of this coalition agreement while it lasts, because let’s face it, it’s the last time Nick Clegg et. al. are going to be anywhere near the power-hub of British politics for a very, very long time.

Cameron must hold firm on Human Rights Act repeal pledge

A week into the era of ‘new politics’ and I feel as if our coalition government has reached its first major hurdle. Following the appalling yet not surprising decision of Mr. Justice Mitting not to send terrorists Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan back to Pakistan for further questioning on terror-related offences, new Home Secretary Theresa May promised a ‘review’ of the European Human Rights Act that was incorporated into British statute law in 1998. However this was in the face of comment by Mr. Clegg who commented that government would tamper at the Human Rights Act (HRA) “at its peril”.

What is clear however is that the status quo is entirely unsustainable. Since 1998, the law has been manipulated by self-interested lawyers who seek to make a fortune by applying the law in a way that it was not meant to be; the cases of misapplication are infinite. It has been responsible for the early release of convicted murderers and rapists and allowed terrorists to reside within the borders of the UK for fear that their ‘human rights’ will be fundamentally breached if they are deported back to their particular country of origin. Yet what’s more, it has failed in turn to prevent the biggest intrusion on our ‘positive’ human rights since the second-world-war (and that was not without due cause!). It has not prevented thirty-day detention; it has not stopped councils intruding and snooping on our rubbish; it has not stopped the growth of the ‘big brother’ state that advocates of the act so often complain of.

Prior to the incorporation of the act into British law in 1998, we did still have human rights. Granted, they were not enshrined in one particular piece of statute but then that is the nature of the British constitution. Our human rights did not develop from the basis of a hastily written document, originally written in a post-war context. Our rights in the UK have, like our constitution, developed naturally over many hundreds of years from the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Glorious Revolution and the extension of the franchise. Apply these ancient traditions with a good old-fashioned bit of British common-sense and you have the basis for the best system of human rights in the world. There were never previously issues of the rights of innocents being violated or a complete disintegration of our basic freedoms. On the contrary, I would argue firmly that prior to the incorporation of the HRA into British law in 1998 shifted the balance firmly away from the law-abiding majority, and in favour of those who wish to infringe the rights of others in order to further their own illegal causes.

The truth is that the HRA has done nothing to further the cause of human-rights in the UK. On the contrary, it has removed any common-sense element of law-making that previously existed within the judicial and political system. It has been used advantageously by Cherie Blair type characters who seem intent on defending the ‘rights’ of terrorists over the rights of decent, law-abiding citizens. The sooner Cameron outlines plans for a full repeal of the act, the better, though I wouldn’t hold your breath. Coalitions result in rather a lot of compromise which in turn ends up pleasing even fewer people.

Premiership Dream XI 2009/10

As the Premiership reaches its end for the 2009/10 season, I will be offering my thoughts on not only a Dream Team of the Season!

I offer my starting XI for 2009/10:

• Edwin Van Der Sar (Man Utd- GK)- The Dutch veteran has been in imperious form when not affected by injury. Shay Given and Brad Friedel gave him a run for his money at Man City and Aston Villa respectively.
• Glenn Johnson (Liverpool-RB)- The young right-back has begun to make the position his own in the England side. Despite playing in a poor Liverpool squad, his performances, increasingly in defence, have been excellent.
• Richard Dunne (Aston Villa-CB)- Man City should curse their short-sightedness by leaking in goals in his absence. Aston Villa have capitalised on a strong, confident and reliable centre-back.
• John Terry (Chelsea-CB)- Personal problems have hardly affected England’s best centre-back and he has continued to lead Chelsea from the front.
• Patrice Evra  (Man Utd-LB)- Hardly any competiton for the left-back spot, both defensively and going forward, Evra has established himself as one of the best left-backs in the world.
• James Milner (Aston Villa-RM)- Milner has been a revelation this season both scoring and assisting goals at Villa. He has also become and England regular and deserves a starting berth in Capello’s England side.
• Cesc Fabregas (Arsenal-CM)- Fabregas has had yet another unbelievable season for Arsenal but has again ended trophyless. 15+ goals, plenty of assists and bigger clubs are inevitable chasing the Arsenal whizzkid.
• Frank Lampard (Chelsea-CM)- Lampard’s consistency season upon season gets him the starting place above Steven Gerrard. He scors goals, assists, tackles, passes and leads. He may well still win a league-cup domestic double this season.
• Antonio Valencia (Man Utd-LM)- Valencia came to United with the biggest boots in football to fill. Whilst he has not got the quality of Ronaldo, he has been an attacking menace down either flank and his goal and assist tally gives him a deserved spot in the starting XI.
• Didier Drogba (Chelsea-ST)- Another great goal tally, strong (if a little like jelly in the tackle) and a menace as much in the six-yard box as outside the eighteen-yard box.
• Wayne Rooney (Man Utd-ST)- Simply the best player in the Premiership this season and probably second only to Messi in the world. Class.

Warming the bench: Brad Friedel (Aston Villa-GK), Thomas Vermaelen (Arsenal-CB), Carlos Cuellar (Aston Villa-RB/CB/LB), Steven Gerrard (Liverpool-CM), Andre Arshavin (Arsenal-RM/CM/LM), Carlos Tevez (Man City-ST), Fernando Torres (Liverpoool-ST).

Speculative foresight is no way to conduct a defence review

The discussion surrounding the future of our armed forces has increased in volume over a number weeks. Senior politicians, opposition leaders, Generals, Admirals and Wing Commanders have all said their ‘piece’ on the principles that should underpin our defence spending into the first half of this century, all also accepting as dead-dogma that there is an inevitability that funding to our armed forces must be cut, ultimately as a result of years of economic mismanagement by this government and indeed the MOD itself. In addition to the acceptance of cuts, all have based their arguments not on historical evidence of previous conflicts but by speculating the future conflicts that this country may face If one examines the last thirty-years of history, it is plain to see that this approach is no way to conduct a strategic defence review.

Did this county forsee the Falklands war when just prior, the entire carrier fleet was to be mothballed? Did we expect that after the fall of the Soviet Union we would still be sending troops to far-away lands such as Iraq (twice), Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Macedonia and now Afghanistan in such numbers? The last strategic defence review conducted in 1998 failed to forsee the insurgent-based warfare that has been waged throughout much of this decade so what makes strategists believe that they can forsee future threats any more prophetically this time around? General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff (2003-2006), asked why our enemies would conduct conventional warfare against this country when ‘other means of warfare, including cyber, proxy and energy bribery’ could be just as successful and not as costly as conventional warfare. The truth is that were our enemies so rational in their thought process’, then would they really be our enemies at all, or perhaps more realistically, would they be enemies of any threat if we were able to predict their tactics of warfare? I feel there is a strong case to be made that they would not be.

The truth is that many individuals have their own interests to protect. Jackson hinted that there was more of a need for ‘boots on the ground’ and less need for the two new ‘Elizabeth Class’ 67,000 tonne carriers that the government has rightfully ring-fenced. Similarly, Navy and RAF chiefs have all emphasised the importance of their own particular wing of the forces and the necessity to be flexible to the future conflicts that this country may face. Some politicians have argued that there is no point in worrying about future conflicts when you have one ongoing involvement in a particularly volatile part of the world that looks to be a long-term committment, but since when have we been able to pick and choose conflicts?

There are a vast array of threats that face our country both currently and in the future. We live in a newly proliferating world; Iran and North Korea are aggressive states both pursuing nuclear arms that would fundamentally damage UK national-interests. Islamic terrorism is growing; I cite in particular the case of Yemen that is increasingly in danger of becoming a failed-state as well as the well documented troubles in Pakistan. Russia and China continue to be more conventional threats, the former posturing ever more frequently and attempting to bully Eastern-European allies with it’s newly nationalised gas-supplies. These are just the threats we recognise- who has the crystal ball that allows us to see what state the world we be in in two-decades time? How about another Falklands? Or another genocide like Kosovo? Or the emergence of a dictator in the Middle-East that prevents the movement of trade through the Gulf of Arabia and into the Suez Canal?

Any stringent cuts to our armed forces should be strongly rejected. We are the second most powerful member of NATO and have a seat on the UN Security Council. These privileges come with them a deep responsibility, not just to ourselves but to the rest of the world. They mean that we must be prepared to fight whatever threat comes our way, be it in the form of cyber-attack, proxy warfare, insurgency of conventional warfare such as in the early stages of Iraq in 2003. Our politicians are arrogant to think that they can conduct a defence review based on such a prediction of what future conflicts may entail. Rather than looking to the future to see what potential conflicts and threats we may face, we must look to the past. Hindsight is a marvellous benefit of progression; of looking back on events through the rose-tinted glasses of revisionism. Let’s use it beneficially to make sure our forces are equipped and prepared to face any threat in the future.

A sleepwalking people awake

Many commentators from the right have been warning of the danger posed to our very society of the growth of Islam within Britain. I choose my words carefully, because the growth of the type of Islam we are witnessing isn’t the development of a peaceful, tolerant and compatible religion. It is a growth of an intolerant, extreme and threatening neo-political ideology that uses the very values we hold dear, to spout off its message to bring down the very system that gives it the freedom to operate. Up until now, this has been going on under our very noses; many have turned a blind eye.

Terrorist, Anjam Chaudary’s plan to stage an ‘Islam4UK’ march through Wooten Bassett seems to have changed this attitude immeasurably. George Orwell described the British as a ‘sleep-walking people’ who respond best to a clear and sudden threat to their values. It appears as though our people are awakening. At the time of writing, over 400,000 people are members of a Facebook group that calls on the march to be banned; political parties are united in their opposition to this march; many more who otherwise wouldn’t involve themselves or wouldn’t even care about the political process have expressed their disgust at even the possibility that a march be allowed to go ahead for Islamists in the centre of a town that has welcomed our heroes home for the last time, on so many sombre occasions. There is real consensus that not only should this march not be allowed to go ahead, but those responsible must be subject to the rule-of-law and maybe even more.

Part of me rather wishes that Mr. Chaudary were allowed to march through a small English town. Forget the burning hell-fire reserved for non-believers and Jews, he would have a hell-fire on earth to contend with, one which no tax-payer-funded police protection could combat. I also happen to think that this could be replicated up and down the length and breadth of this country in our towns and cities, rightfully or wrongly. The British people will not let their culture of tolerance be abused by the most intolerable of people. This is an inevitable consequence of years of failed multiculturalist policy and the failure of so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ to combat the problem of extremism within their own communities because of this culture of ‘victimhood’ so inherent in many of Britain’s Muslims today.

Mr. Chaudary: The sleepwalking people are stirring.

Cricket: a game of human error and endeavour

Sporting beauty has innumerable facets, but for many of us its greatest attraction lies in the potential for romance. At some point in our ordinary existence, we have played the perfect cover-drive, holed the 25-foot uphill putt, or performed a step-over that left opposition defenders with twisted blood. For that infinitesimal moment, we were Garfield Sobers, Jack Nicklaus or Christiano Ronaldo, with the world our oyster and dreams safely cosseted away from cold reality.

From the time we could grip a bat, we could argue like the best of our heroes. Anyone who remembers like me, kwik-cricket with stumps chalked on a playground wall could tell you that rants and raves were never far away. Those who couldn’t argue took the coward’s way out, skulking home with bat, ball or stumps while the rest jeered and hurled derogatory insults. Leg-before decisions were a parallel universe, and each time the ball slammed into the shin, someone over-eager for a bat would raise the finger. If you were at the receiving end, you whined but it didn’t stop you coming back for more the next day! 

That was the reason most of us went out to play in the first place. If you were the school dunce (just ask a few from my old school-team- Manuel), you could never dream of perfect marks, but on the field, even the most hopeless case could edge the boundary that won a match for his team. Nothing was black-and-white, and we found beauty in the many hues of grey.  And then came along technology. Suddenly, people needed to stare at slow-motion replays to see if a batsman was short of his crease. Batsmen, who used to nonchalantly stroll about the crease after getting the faintest nick through to the keeper, were found out by ingenious little devices like the snick-o-meter. They even took the uncertainty out of the lbw – sport’s equivalent of Russian roulette – by inventing an elaborate tracking system called Hawk-Eye.

So where and how will this trait end? If technology had been fashionable back in 1987, Sunil Gavaskar might have finished his final Test a winner. Instead, he was given out caught off the arm-guard when on 96, as India fell 16 agonising runs short of a famous victory, but do we really care? Indians savour that innings because it ended the way it did- that is part of the romance and the human error of our great game. Cricket’s splendour lies in the fact that while the best team on the day always prevails – that doesn’t happen in football or hockey, where a fluke goal can win a game – there is still plenty of opportunity to bemoan your fate: the no-ball that wasn’t called, the inner edge that kissed the stumps without toppling the bails, or the leg-before that the umpire haughtily turned away. Regardless of whether you’re Sachin Tendulkar or IM Pathetic, we’ve all been at the receiving end of what we’ve perceived, rightly or wrongly, as daylight robbery.

 But it’s not as though match officials haven’t made us smile down the years. We loved Dickie Bird’s just as we loved Pierluigi Collina’s shining pate and Martian eyes. The day you bring in machines, and eliminate human error – bat-pad catches wrongly given, legal goal disallowed – what would we talk about? “We wuz robbed” is every fan’s favourite theme. Take away the mistakes, and you might conceivably get perfect decisions … and no one to talk about them. We’ll take our beauty with a few scars.