Fobbed off with broomsticks

Aside from my ritualistic devotion to the Gunners, I enjoy following other sports, albeit only in international competitions.  What frustrates my friends is the fact I support England/Britain at every single sport, except the one I have the most passion for- Football.  I’ll happily sing “swing low” when the Rugby is on, but when it comes to Football I’ve been a France fan since my teenage years, before the arrival of Monsieur Wenger in London I might add.

There are a few reasons for this. 

I watched a Panorama documentary about England fans at Euro 2000.  Unfortunately no videos of the broadcast are available online, but the scene which still sickens me 11 years on was the one involving England fans singing a song about World War 2 against local Dutch fans. 

I also despise the arrogance of the typical England fan, the table thumper, the one who recalls the events of July 1966 as if he was in the stadium; despite the fact he wasn’t even born. 

I detest the ignorance that because England invented the game they naturally must be the greatest and have an expectation to win World Cup’s or European Championships.  Of course this is amplified even more by the British media, but I don’t accept that this alone justifies the crude nature of England football fans.  It’s certainly not what I have found with followers of Rugby or Cricket.  Even when England lifted the World Cup in 2003, there was a humility which you just wouldn’t get with the England football fan base.  Likewise, more recently this can be seen as England have attained the status of best Test Match side in the Cricketing world.

Yet for me personally the story begins on a cold November night in 1994 at Wembley in North London where me and my father watched an England game for the very first time, an International friendly against Nigeria.  We were in the family enclosure which happened to be directly below a significant contingent of Nigerian fans.  What ensued was one of my most traumatic experiences as a football fan.  I witnessed one after another as England fans in our section, parents of accompanying young children too, racially abused the Nigerian fans sitting above.  Eventually enough was enough and as if fate would have it, an intervention from match day stewards came at the precise moment David Platt scored the only goal. 

Instead of some of the more decent fans applauding the worst antagonist of the abuse being led away, the occupiers of the Family enclosure were more concerned as to what they perceived to be an overreaction, a fuss over nothing no less.  I can still vividly recall a supporter who had also engaged in the abuse telling my Dad that it was “no big deal” and that “the stewards have nothing better to do”.

That was 17 years ago.  I have been to many football grounds since and it is true I have never experienced that level of racism since.  Yet in other ways football has not evolved from that horrid evening.  There is still a reluctance to face down this problem in England.  England fans and the English football establishment are legendary for patting themselves on the back about campaigns such as “Kick it Out” and finger wagging towards the rest of the world whenever there are incidents of racism elsewhere.  But when the problem rears its ugly head at home, there is a remarkable tendency to either look the other way or attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet.

I accept there is a bigger problem abroad; Eastern Europe resembles a time warp to a poisonous era at times.  Equally I am not for a minute suggesting that we are back in the 1980s with Bananas on the pitch as John Barnes runs down the wing. However there is now a culture that England has got rid of the problem, and cannot bear for a moment to consider the prospect that there are still elements to tackle today.  It is for this reason that people like Aragones can sneer when anybody from England attempts to offer any lectures.  A lot like my last post about people in glass houses.

When Dwight Yorke complained that he was racially abused against his former club Blackburn during a match for Birmingham in 2004, his Chairman David Sullivan had his broomstick ready for action.  Arguing that Yorke’s grievance had stemmed from an incident which had been “blown out of proportion” and then compounded his ignorance with the stereotypical response of every modern day racist- “I've got black friends, Indian friends and Jewish friends.”   At the time I reworked a well known football song to capture the events of the Spain v England match and the race row involving Yorke, Sullivan and Blackburn:

“Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chim Cherrooo. The Spanish have racists, but England has too!”

It went down like a lead balloon amongst my England supporting friends, but I stand by the song today as I did in 2004.  Two recent incidents involving very high profile players threaten to rock the English football family to its very foundations.  Luis Suarez and John Terry are both alleged to have been responsible for making racist insults during two separate fixtures this month against Patrice Evra and Anton Ferdinand respectively.  Incredibly Gordon Taylor has suggested he would be ready to offer mediation services.  Mediation?  If this were not so offensive in itself it would be laughable!

Another attempt to cover up the problem as opposed to finally confront the issue head on.  I’ve had enough of English football chastising the rest of the world regarding racism in the game only to pathetically resort to a broom when it comes to its own issues.  Fans of all colours should reject the tedious act of being fobbed off with broomsticks.

People In Glass Houses...

My island of Mauritius was back in the news last week.  The MedPoint scandal took an unprecedented twist as Pravind Jugnauth, leader of the Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) and son of the President Aneerood, was arrested and subsequently charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA).  This followed the award of a £3.8m contract to MedPoint Limited while Finance Minister, a company his relative had a 29.59% interest in.

Mauritius has a chequered history of corruption, a number of which during the late 1990’s brought down the first tenure of current Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.  The rainbow island has endured a cruel stigma as being a rogue state where people in authority are influenced by bribes and unsolicited gifts, part of which sadly is warranted, the rest of which possibly a lazy and ignorant stereotype of African countries in general which is totally unwarranted.

Jugnauth is not going down without a fight, and there are a number of fascinating sub-plots playing out with an increasing probability that an early election will be called.  This in turn introduces the intriguing prospect of Paul Berenger returning as Prime Minister.

What has been interesting to note as ever has been the attitudes of British based ex-pats, what you might describe as a condescending glance of disgust.  A resignation  that this is typical of Mauritius, that things will never change and they will always be that way.  A sad and incredibly damaging indictment it must be said.

Former colonial republics like Mauritius look to nations like Britain to set an example, and despite replacing the Queen as head of state nineteen years ago still have the Privy Council as the highest point of appeal within the Mauritian legal system.  Like several Commonwealth nations, it’s almost a reinforcement of the idea that even after independence, there is still a nod to the former colonial powerhouse as the figure of guidance when administering their own affairs.

It’s perhaps this status as a position of guidance that provides ex-pats with a confidence in Britain, an unquestionable faith that it can teach Mauritius a few lessons in responsible governance.  But we all know what happens to people in glass houses.

For all the criticisms of Mauritius, there must at the very least be an acknowledgement that it is a country which is attempting to address the problem of corruption.  It’s open to conjecture as to how much more it could be doing of course, and critics will rightly argue that there is a long way to go. 

That being said I’m deeply troubled when British based ex-pats feel assured enough to take the moral high ground over Mauritius, I feel it is essentially a flawed position.  Britain is far from perfect, from “Cash for Questions” to “Cash for Honours”, and lest we forget the military scandals involving the sales of weapons to Iraq and Sierra Leone.  The biggest police force in the UK is currently working hard to bury a corruption scandal that saw the two most senior officers resign earlier this year.  Central to the controversy was the figure of Andy Coulson, who having left the newspaper at the centre of the allegations, went on to become the Director of Communications for British Prime Minister David Cameron. 

As things stand nobody has ever been charged with any offence in Britain related to any of these scandals.  A few low level MP’s were successfully prosecuted following the expenses scandal, but all of the scandals involving senior figures have all followed the same tired pattern.  A scandal arises; people are hauled in for questioning which is later followed by more questioning.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will consider the case before reporting back several months later when the furore has evaporated and subsequently announce that there is a lack of evidence to proceed with any charges.

The next time somebody from Britain would like to lecture about the never ending web of corruption in Mauritius, try asking them this: whatever happened to “Lord Cashpoint”?

Good Riddance Gaddafi- Now Get Out Of The Chagos Islands!

Its always been fascinating watching Britain join other nations in the last six months intervening in the Libyan civil war, a mission said to prevent genocide and uphold human rights.  I shed no tears for the demise of Gaddafi, but equally do not hold much aspiration that the motives of the British like her allies have been sincere.  Libya is home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves and one only has to look at Bahrain, Yemen & Saudi Arabia to witness regimes with some of the worst human rights records being supported by the same allies because their leadership is regarded as being in line with Western interests.

Of course there is no such hope of a taskforce being set up to liberate the Chagos Islands.  No such banging of the tables at the UN to demand the adoptions of resolutions condemning the illegal occupation and depopulation of an indigenous community.  So instead we are left to increase the pressure through alternative methods.

In July the long awaited verdict was delivered in the Al-Skeini v UK case which stated that the European Convention on Human Rights applied wherever the UK exercised “effective control”.  This ruling is being seen as potentially crucial to determining the outcome of the Chagos Islanders v UK case where a judgment is due before the end of the year.

Britain has long maintained that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had no jurisdiction over the depopulation and subsequent policy towards the Chagos Islands due to the fact that the Islands are located in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from the European Union.  This you may remember is the latest episode of a legal battle which has dominated the last decade and the impending verdict is seen as the final ruling as there are no further avenues of appeal open to either party.

It has been a ruling which the British have been determined to undermine by creating the worlds largest Marine Protection Zone, so as to prevent the return of the Chagossian people back to their Islands if the ECHR were to rule in their favour.

Much has been made of the recent introduction of the Government’s E-Petition website which suggests that any petition which accumulates 100,000 signatories will trigger a debate in Parliament.  The significance of this for anybody who has followed this story is that it is very rare for Parliament to discuss this particular issue, even Early Day Motions have been few and far between.  An opportunity to force this back on to the political agenda is always welcome and should be seized upon. 

The link to the petition can be found here.

We are seeking 100,000 signatures in 12 months, a very difficult challenge when you remember that the most successful petitions accumulated for this cause have made barely 10% of that figure.  Anybody in the UK can sign this petition, please circulate among your friends- let us stop this hypocrisy of the British interpretation of human rights and force this back up the political agenda.

It is indeed good riddance to Gaddafi, but its also now time for a rebellious community to get out of the Chagos Islands.

Why We Should All Be Scrutinising Corrupt Capital Cops

The recent disturbances in England affected me on a personal level for several different reasons.  Firstly because I spent 14 years of my life living in Tottenham, secondly because I have personally been distressed by realising what the Metropolitan Police were capable of and thirdly because I was visiting Tottenham the night Mark Duggan was shot dead by police.

I arrived in Tottenham roughly 18 months after the events of October 1985.  I was an inquisitive child and was always aware of significant watershed moments during my childhood.  So it was no surprise when I quickly established that my new neighbourhood had achieved national notoriety due to the guilty verdicts of Winston Silcott, Mark Braithwaite and Engin Raghip, referred to as the Tottenham Three, over the murder of PC Keith Blakelock.

Four years later our school was visited by a local Police Constable with a question and answer session thrown in for good measure.  This visit had coincided with the recent news that the Tottenham Three had been acquitted of Blakelock’s murder.  So I queried the PC about the revelation that evidence had been fabricated, how he felt about it personally and what he thought should happen to the police officers involved.  The questions were of course never answered, but I was assured that “Winston Silcott was a thoroughly nasty piece of work”. 

I think it would be fair to say that this innocuous exchange had not left me with a positive impression of the Metropolitan Police.  Although young, I could see what had happened.  Somebody had been framed, a fact finally recognised by the legal process of this country.  Yet rather than concede that mistakes had been made, I was instead being subjected to overt indoctrination in the hope I would overlook the errors which had occurred in the first place.  The presumption being that since Silcott was a horrible man he deserved everything he got.  This didn’t sit well with me.

Two years later Joy Gardner was killed by immigration officers attempting to deport her from the country back to Jamaica.  Sadly this was another case which affected my local community.  The case came to trial in May 1995 and three police officers were acquitted a month later at the Old Bailey- two weeks before the commencement of my work experience placement there.

Reading about almost 3 metres of tape gagged around her mouth doesn’t quite have the same impact as finding the photographs of Joy Gardner in the registry of the Old Bailey.  They were the images you would associate with a battered wife, not the deportation of a woman by immigration officers.  It was impossible for me to comprehend that the three people who did this had not only been acquitted but had also retained their careers.  It was a complete contradiction of the smear campaign that had been deployed immediately after her death that she was a violent and dangerous woman.

From that day I was suspicious of the Metropolitan Police.  I didn’t buy into the reforms of the Macpherson report.  The case of Jean Charles De Menezes genuinely scared me and for the first time I feared for my own safety simply for having Brown eyes!  So I really should have known better when I heard that somebody had been shot by police about 15 minutes from where I was.  The line doing the rounds was that someone had shot at police and was killed.  The indication being Mark Duggan was incredibly stupid and paid the price. 

By Friday morning the story had evolved to now suggest that there had been a car chase, implying a getaway car, and that Duggan had been a drug dealer.  There is no doubt in my mind that all of these snippets of information were part of an agenda to reduce interest in the story, as I am sure I was not alone when I reacted to the news with a shrug of the shoulders.  All of the clues added up to a sense of inevitability, and no reason to suspect any foul play.  Echoes you might recall of the initial deliberate misinformation regarding the mistaken shooting of De Menezes.

Barely 24 hours later, the story took a very different angle.  There was no car chase.  Duggan was in a minicab.  Duggan had not fired at police.  The gun which was recovered from Duggan was in a sock and unprepared for use.  Duggan was a father of four and had never been convicted of a criminal offence.

We all know what transpired next and the chain of events which unfolded and spread from this corner of North London to the rest of the country.  I simply do not believe that the police were unable to contain these outbreaks of disorder.  We had seen them do it time and time again in more prestigious areas of London such as the Student and anti-globalization riots.  Surely it cannot be a coincidence that the two most iconic images of the disturbances were of two very old buildings burning to the ground, apparently because it was too dangerous for fire crews to approach due to a fear of violence from rioters.  As my cousin pointed out at the time, had the Olympics Stadium been on fire, they would have found a way to put it out, danger or otherwise.

Furthermore the Metropolitan Police have a track record of regularly policing far larger gatherings of people such as concerts, sporting events and rallies.  So the idea that they were overwhelmed simply does not add up.

My theory is it was an orchestrated attempt by the Metropolitan Police, involved in a dispute against their own cuts, to provide a backdrop of chaos and loss of control to support the assertion that their budget must not be cut.  It worked beautifully as politicians lined up to denounce the austerity drive against the police.  How anybody could fall for it given that it was the very same police force drowning in corruption allegations only weeks earlier is even more astonishing.

I’m not a fan of the Metropolitan Police and probably never will be, but isn’t time we all start scrutinising this force a little bit more?

Defending the rights of the Far-Right

Jeremy Paxman caused something of a stir this week when his interview on BBC Television’s Newsnight with Tommy Robinson from the EDL was deemed to be out of step with his traditional interrogation style he built his reputation on.  Some even questioned the idea of providing airtime to such a provocative individual, only three days after last week’s atrocities in Norway by the far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik. 

I have always felt it is important in a democracy to provide a platform to people I don’t necessarily agree with.  I celebrated the appearance of the BNP’s Nick Griffin on Question Time for example and the manner in which he was taken apart by fellow panelists and the studio audience. 

I will defend the right of people like Griffin and Robinson to have a stage to air their unusual views of the world.  But I also feel we need to look closer at what this freedom should entail.  If we are going to uphold the freedom’s of far right extremists, then we cannot screech in horror when some people decide to burn some poppies during a demonstration.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  Some may say that Tommy Robinson’s appearance on the BBC amounted to inciting racial hatred and should not have been broadcast.  I disagree; I feel that it is right that he is provided an opportunity to share his political perspective, even if in doing so he makes me personally feel very uncomfortable.  Disturbed even.  Perhaps almost as disturbing as paying your respects during Remembrance ceremonies and hearing of somebody mocking the event by burning poppies.  Yet we cannot have a situation where we selectively defend and uphold the freedoms in some cases, while utilising the full force of the law to remove the right from others.

It is time we have a full and frank debate about what freedom of speech actually means.  And let me reiterate again, I do not want to see people like Robinson or Griffin banned, however I would like to see better consistency so that they have their stage, but that equally if some people wish to express their opposition to military campaigns around the world (and I do believe there are far better ways of doing this nonetheless) they should have the freedom to do so.  And if they want to purchase some flowers and burn them at the same time then that should be their right to do so.  I don’t expect you to agree with it, I’d be troubled personally if you did, but we must enable people a right to express their views, irrespective of how uncomfortable they may make us feel.

Time To Stop Bullying The Unions

Growing up in London didn’t adequately enable my mind to fully comprehend the various dimensions of industrial disputes.  A long running saga involving signalmen meant that a Religious Education teacher regularly failed to make it to work during the mid 1990s.  This of course led to the unavoidable introduction of a substitute teacher during these spells which were always memorable occasions, though sadly not because we were accomplishing educational achievements. 

By the time I was 18 I had a very peculiar understanding of Unions and how they were relevant to modern life.  I look back and cringe now with embarrassment as I reflect on my comments which dismissed the existence of Unions as a “militant group that is ready to strike, ready to bring the country into anarchy at the drop of a hat.”

Yes I am sorry to say I was something of a Blairite in those days.

Moving to the Midlands did alter my mindset greatly, although in truth my ideological fascination with New Labour had reached the end of the road long before I packed up for Derby in the same week as 9/11.  Arriving in Nottingham less than a year later, I was a little wiser, but events like the Miners dispute of the 1980s had still largely passed me by. 

Coming from a London background, it was inevitable that my mind would have been corrupted by a poisonous right-wing dominated media, irrespective of my own personal political leanings.  As irony would have it, I spent a lot of time living in the very North of Nottingham, not far from the old Newstead pit which was the source of so much focus during the dispute.  Having lived here before and after the 20^th anniversary of the strike, I was able to attain a far more comprehensive understanding as the local media heavily reflected on the divisions that not only existed at the time between the NUM and UDM, but continued to enflame tensions two decades on.

When I started visiting London regularly again in 2008, I had a very different outlook on industrial relations, irrespective of the sector it affected.  I was cautious as to the true intentions of the media.  I always made a point by default of supporting a period of industrial action unless the case they had put forward was in my view overwhelmingly weak. 

This was a total reversal of my position earlier in life, which had been very much a case of the opposite viewpoint.  In another twist of fate, this period coincided with a certain Boris Johnson becoming Mayor of London, and directly on collision course with the RMT on the London Underground.

I have followed the dispute closely and cannot find a single episode of industrial action in the last three years where a compelling case for a strike was not made.  This doesn’t necessarily ring true with protestations from London Underground bosses or the Mayor of London, who have regularly sought to whip up hysteria amongst the public against the RMT with rhetoric such as “holding London to ransom”.

Media coverage from the recent years has gone a long way to reinforcing the myth that the RMT resembled my view of Unions from 1998, but upon closer inspection we see that time and time again there has been a credible case for the Union to sanction industrial action.  

In June 2009 the traditional right-wing elements of the media continually projected the idea that the industrial action was about pay, perpetuating an all too familiar image of selfish tube workers in a climate of economic uncertainty.  No mention then of the compulsory redundancies being mooted, with 1000 jobs at risk.

By 2010 the volume had been increased as it became personal with both RMT leader Bob Crow and his Union labelled as “bullies”.   Regular reference was made to his generous salary of £150,000 per year.  A great deal of money by anybody’s estimation, but Boris Johnson himself regards a figure of £250,000 a year as “chicken feed” (in addition to his £143,911 remuneration package as Mayor of London) so its perhaps somewhat relative really.  Interestingly the issue at the heart of this spell of industrial action was once again the prospect of compulsory redundancies including front line staff which would have had an impact on passenger safety, particularly late at night.

So here we are, the final days of June 2011 and awaiting one of the most monumental days in recent industrial relations history.  June 30^th has been selected as a day of co-ordinated strikes.  Public Sector workers have effectively been left with the bill for the economic mess the country finds itself in and are being asked to delay retirement to pay for it.  Fair enough you might think for those in the public sector who are young enough to prepare for the change, but this is affecting people who are 56 and 57.  Women who were anticipating retirement in a few years are now being asked to contribute more to their pensions, receive less and work longer in order to tackle the national debt.

On the 30^th June, workers from across the public sector spectrum, including Civil Servants and Teachers will join the walk out.  Is this selfish?  If you were in their shoes would you regard this as fair?

The RMT were originally scheduled to be joining them, this time fighting for the reinstatement of a tube driver, who had been vindicated by an employment tribunal and should never have been dismissed.  Last Thursday London Underground finally reinstated the driver and the RMT subsequently cancelled their intention to strike on June 30^th.  Interestingly despite this The Mail has decided to run with its story anyway, presumably as part of a wider agenda to reiterate the propaganda of Unions being managed by “fat cats” and thus undermine public confidence in the strike at the end of June.

In response the Coalition Government are proposing to introduce new laws for industrial action, a threshold of a minimum turnout in order to enable any strike to proceed.  The notion being that industrial action should only proceed where 50% of the employees actually endorse one. 

The concept has potential I must admit, but very unfair considering such rules do not apply to elections of far greater importance such as those of local authorities or General Elections.  Last years election which was widely considered to be the closest for almost 2 decades had a turnout of just 65%. 

Brighton & Hove City Council elected their local authority with as little as 41% of registered voters actually participating.  The No to AV victory dismissed the prospect of electoral reform anytime soon on a far lower turnout for example: just 42%.   If Cameron had set such a threshold for General Elections then even the electoral landslides of 1983 and 1997 for the Tories and Labour respectably would have ended very differently since less than 50% of approval from the electorate was achieved in either election. 

The RMT are proposing to pass a resolution next week at their AGM which will support the right of return for the Chagossian community to the Chagos Islands, a cause I take a great deal of interest in.  I hope the proposal succeeds.  But even if they don’t I will still continue to support their industrial actions by default, unless they one day make the case otherwise. 

I have wasted far too much of my life believing the opposite.

Gunner vs Gooner

I have never known a week like it

Banter amongst rival fans is one thing, but last Sunday I took the unusual step of switching off my phone half an hour into our game against Aston Villa . Not because I was afraid of the texts from Spurs or Chelsea fans. Not even because I didn’t wish to be tormented by Man Utd fans still celebrating their 19 th title last Saturday.

No I switched off my phone to avoid confrontation with fellow Arsenal fans. Friends, close friends, the type who share a laugh and sigh as we follow our beloved Gunners together, but not last Sunday. It had been coming. The last few weeks, with the exception of that glorious afternoon on May 1 st , have been a horrible journey as we have jointly watched as our team self destructed from chasing four trophies at the end of February to another season of regret and sadness.

No trophies. Again. The scenes at the end of last Sunday’s match were amongst the most shameful I have ever had to witness as an Arsenal fan. To watch as a few thousand Arsenal fans stayed behind after the final whistle to abuse our players on their traditional lap of honour (or appreciation as its been referred to this week) was my saddest experience as a Gooner. Yes even topping the personal heartbreak I experienced watching us go so close in Paris . Sure enough I switched on the phone a short while later and not a single rival fan had bothered to leave a text. Quite tragic when we are so bad that we don’t even warrant any banter from our rivals anymore. But that didn’t mean my phone didn’t stop alerting me to the text messages I had waiting for me, from fellow Arsenal fans. The Arsenal civil war had begun.

I lashed out spectacularly. I accused one of not being fit to call himself an Arsenal fan, a few more of being a glory hunter’s, and another of being a fake fickle follower who abandoned us when the going got too tough. I stand by those sentiments today and make no apologies for the tone of my outburst. Let me first put my observations into context. As collapses go, this was right up there with Devon Loch and Newcastle United . Of course it saddened me to watch us go so close, to be so near yet so far to finally landing that elusive trophy after six agonising years. However I refuse to condemn my team too harshly because despite the way we have finished the season, we are still set to qualify for the Champions League for a 14 th successive year. Not even AC Milan and Barcelona can match that, let alone Chelsea and Liverpool. I believe the reason for Arsenal’s failiure to win the league this season has been down to our woeful home form. The performances away from the Emirates have been enough to secure the title, we’ve had one of our best away campaigns in years. The reason we are not planning for a trophy parade next weekend is down to the “fans” at the Emirates. The groans, booing, and general lack of support whenever we have not been 2-0 up after 25 minutes of “winnable” games is destructive and a cancer which I think the time has come to address.

I don’t buy into this argument that Arsenal are a poor team, how can we be? For any team to beat Barcelona, Man Utd and Chelsea at the Emirates in the same season has to be a special side. But the reason we succeeded in those games while failing so miserably against the likes of Newcastle, West Brom and of course Aston Villa is down to the kind of support we have been receiving. When Arsenal were 1-0 down after 65 minutes against Barcelona, all you could hear was the crowd crying “Come on Arsenal”. We know what happened next. Now think of the match against Newcastle at home? Boos at half time, more abuse at full time, and yet we are meant to be surprised? Arsenal fans are not stupid and realise that Barcelona are a great side, arguably the best in the world. But the club needs the kind of support and encouragement whether we are playing Chelsea or Crewe.

The past six years have been challenging. Though let’s not fool ourselves here. Yes we are a big club, but we haven’t successfully defended a league title since the 1930’s. The facts are that the period between 1998 and 2005 represent the most glittering and rewarding chapter of our long and proud history. The trophies only tell half the story, the records go a bit further . But the very fact that the slogan which became associated with Arsenal and still is true today is not the “boring boring boring Arsenal” I grew up around, but the “Arsenal always score” mantra which is almost always correct. Granted we have had a few bad days at the office this season, a few more than usual when it comes to scoring, but we are still right up there in terms of goals scored in the league.

Cast your minds back just under 20 years ago and we were managing 40 goals a season. Just about a goal a game. The dark old days when our goal difference was in single figures. There has been a re-emergence recently of an almost romantic vision of the gorgeous George Graham days. Possibly helped in turn by comments from that not so loveable rogue (and boyhood Chelsea fan) Paul Merson. George led the team to the first trophy in my lifetime , so despite the funny looking brown envelopes stuffed with cash , he will always retain a special place in my personal Arsenal history. No arguments there. Though to suddenly reminisce back to his management as some kind of golden era of silverwear and rich memories is not only distorting history, its borderline insulting. 2 league titles, an FA Cup, 2 league cups and 1 European Cup Winners Cup. We qualified for the European Cup once and missed out on the very first Champions League courtesy of an embarrassing defeat at home to Benfica who comprehensively put us to the sword in our own back yard . The Cup Winners Cup was always seen as the easiest of European trophies to win, hence the reason why it is not even contested anymore.

I’m not being horrible, just reflecting the reality for what it is. We were a team who only challenged for the title when we actually ended up winning it . In between we had some really awful seasons. One season we were actually talked of as part of the relegation battle. I will never forget the feature on London Tonight in 1995 (around the time when Graham was entering the final days of his reign) when they were actually discussing the possibility of Arsenal dropping out of the top flight for the first time since 1919. This is why I can’t tolerate people abusing our players, condemning the club, demanding the board be replaced or that Wenger be sacked. I can’t take these fickle little cretins as serious Arsenal fans. I have told them as such this week: if you don’t like it then get yourself down to the shop and go and buy a Chelsea or Man City shirt, because we really don’t want nor need your “support”. We are paying off a brand new stadium while retaining our position in the elite group of English football by always finishing in the top four. If we were debt free, finishing in 8 th place and empty handed maybe I would follow these Neanderthals. Even then it would have to be successive seasons; surely even the messiah is allowed one bad season.