Zoo's Fooling Who?

The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) stands on a platform of fighting for the right of return for Chagossians who were expelled from their islands.  It represents the largest number of Chagossians, a majority who reject the creation of the Marine Protection Area (MPA) in its existing form.

I explained to a supporter the other week that my own personal position is that I am against the MPA in all of its forms, at least prior to any resettlement of the Chagossians.  I believe that any future discussions around marine preservation should be led by Chagossians, to determine their own destiny.  If they want a marine zone, let them decide for themselves- from the Chagos Islands once they have resettled there.  I believe it is cataclysmically wrong to impose this upon the Chagossians who in all honesty have suffered enough.

It is for this reason that I personally argued so passionately at the beginning of 2010 against the zone being created.  I predicted that the area was being used as a mechanism to pre-empt the judicial action in Strasbourg.  Six months later I was vindicated when the release of the wikileaks cables confirmed that the creation of the zone was being used to place ecologists in direct conflict with Chagossians and their supporters.

Earlier this year I brought to public attention the activities of a minority movement within the Chagossian community who were being misrepresented as the voice of the majority.  As I stated at the time, it would be wrong to deny the Diego Garcian Society (DGS) a role to play in determining the future of the Chagos Islands, but that their contribution should be assessed on the basis that they represent the smallest number of Chagossians.

Similarly a campaign currently being promoted by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) to attempt to engage Chagossians in their vision of the future of the Chagos Islands, should not be silenced.  However it is critical again that there must not be a distortion of the current state of play.

The ZSL have made much of Chagossians participating in their series of events including a “family fun day” and it is noted that their campaign does emphasise this point quite explicitly.  The inference being that the Chagossians are endorsing the ZSL’s agenda.  For the avoidance of any doubt, the ZSL support the no-take fishing proposals and the MPA in its existing form which by definition means they are against a permanent resettlement of the Chagossian community on the islands.

There is no dispute that Chagossians have participated in several ZSL events or that some are seen to be supportive of their agenda.  It is just that to date the proportion of Chagossians who have engaged with the ZSL only represent a very small minority, something which is not underlined at all when the organisation highlights the presence of islanders at their functions.  Unfortunately this has created further confusion, coupled with a suggestion that the stance of organisations like the CRG has been damaged or undermined. 

This is not true.  The support for the position adopted by Olivier Bancoult is as strong as ever.  There have always been minority factions who have followed alternative paths, as outlined when I explained the existence of the DGS.  And it is right that different views and arguments should be recognised.  What is not right is for the situation to be manipulated or for inaccuracies to be allowed to fester unchallenged. 

The British Foreign Office has commenced a period of consultation as part of its commitment to “take stock” following last December’s highly contentious European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling in Strasbourg.  Supporters and Chagossians are invited to make their submissions before the 31st July 2013 to the BIOT Policy Review team who can be contacted here.

In 2010 we lost the argument not because a majority of Chagossians were in favour of marine preservation.  It was due to the ecological movement, thanks to a decisive financial advantage,  being able to convey their message more effectively.  Over 250,000 people supported the proposal to create an MPA around the Chagos Islands during the initial consultation.  This month it is up to supporters to ensure that the will of the majority of Chagossians is upheld instead of a minority who can utilise powerful allies.

Déjà Vu

Peter Hill-Wood stepped down earlier this month as the chairman of Arsenal FC.  He was the final link to the era known as the “coming to power” of the club, the period during the 1930s when under Herbert Chapman the club lifted their first trophies.  It was a golden spell which included the only period when we would win the league title three years running.

When Samuel Hill-Wood arrived at the club in 1929, Arsenal had yet to win a trophy, although Chapman had already been installed as manager.  It is rather fitting then that the Hill-Wood family association with Arsenal should come to an end at a time when the club is on the brink of becoming one of the richest and most powerful in the world.  This summer it has been widely reported that the club has a £70 million transfer budget which is the largest there has ever been for our side.

All of the signs suggest that Gonzalo Higuain, a 25 year old striker currently plying his trade for Real Madrid in Spain, is on his way to Arsenal.  The deal is believed to cost in the region of £50 million once his wages and bonuses are taken into account.  The fee of around £22m will become the most the club has ever spent on an individual.

Naturally the news has excited the overwhelming majority of Arsenal fans.  It is viewed as a statement of intent, following years of watching the club sell our best players.  A major milestone that demonstrates we are finally in a position to challenge once again for honours and to rival the larger clubs for players.  The Emirates stadium is almost paid off and a new TV deal commences which has given the club more spending power than ever before.  Everything suggests a new era is beginning.  A fact beautifully epitomised with a changing of the guard in the boardroom and the end of the Hill-Wood’s stewardship of our club.

But this doesn’t feel like a new dawn.  Instead it feels a lot like déjà vu.

Five years ago some Arsenal fans were in mutinous mood.  In hindsight it is probably the origin of the first genuine voices of discontent against Arsene Wenger.  It was to become a movement which would eventually result in Arsenal games feeling like a series of civil wars as fans turned on one other, divided over the future direction of the club.  We had just missed out on the 2008 Premier League title and the theory followed that the only solution was to make significant financial outlays in order to save the club from spiralling into mid-table oblivion.

Unfortunately the club did not start the 2008/9 season in anywhere near like the fashion that was needed to marginalise the doubters.  On Boxing Day evening a 2-2 draw at Aston Villa suddenly felt terminal and the muffled murmurs of criticism at the start of the season had snowballed into revolt as fans demanded that the club invest heavily during the impending January transfer window to avoid Arsenal slipping out of the top 4 for the first time since 1996.

The response from Wenger and the board was emphatic as the transfer record was broken in order to secure the services of a Russian player called Andrei Arshavin.  A player coveted by Barcelona no less. 

Sadly aside from a magical night at Anfield, Arshavin’s Arsenal career will not go down in history with the greats.  An expensive signing which did not deliver should have silenced the fans who clamoured for his signature.  Yet instead this was conveniently overlooked and the voices demanding further expensive acquisitions became louder and louder.  To his credit Wenger faced down his critics each time, often from even more precarious positions than Boxing Day 2008.

I have never subscribed to the viewpoint that Wenger should go, I regard him as being the most important and visionary Arsenal manager since Chapman.  But I recognise that for the first time fans who agree with me are now in a minority.  It made sitting on the North Bank last season at times a torturous experience as I witnessed around me the venom of bitterness that had accumulated against our manager.  There was even one point when I thought he would actually walk away. 

There is little doubt the playing squad is in need of some reinforcements, but I cannot help thinking that the pursuit of Higuain is Arshavin all over again: a big name signing designed to appease disharmony amongst our supporters.  I am firmly of the view that last season it was not Robin Van Persie that we missed but instead the services of Alex Song who performed a rather unsung pivotal role protecting our defence. 

Last season Arsenal didn't have a problem scoring, a fact backed up by the fact that we actually scored more goals than the season Van Persie enjoyed his best year for us.  We did however endure catastrophic disasters in defence, best illustrated in conceding four at Reading and three at home to Newcastle.

It is impossible to justify consuming over 70% of our budget on a player we do not need.  In an ideal world we would have a budget of £200 million and it would be a nice luxury to acquire another striker.  But in terms of where we are now this simply does not represent anything like a priority for us.  We need another defender, a defensive midfielder and possibly another goalkeeper too.

However those signings won’t generate the loud headlines and thus will not appease the voices who demand Wenger’s head on a platter.  So I can see why Wenger is taking this path.  Finishing above Spurs merely served as a temporary ceasefire.  Anything less than a big name signing would have spelt trouble, resulting in the club starting a new season with the fans already against them.

I sincerely hope that when fans wonder why we are still suffering defensively next term, that the boos that ring out at the Emirates are not directed at Wenger.  Or at the team or even the club board. 

I truly hope that the boos are for the fans who collectively played their part in hijacking our clubs rebuilding objectives in return for a few tabloid headlines.

Trauma Vs Tradition

My second year as an Arsenal Season Ticket Holder draws to a close over the next few weeks, and tomorrow I will take my seat for Arsenal v Manchester United.  It is a fixture which is so rich in history and drama from unbelievable joys to paralysing heartache.  A couple of years ago I was celebrating my birthday early as Aaron Ramsey slotted home to give us victory with the only goal of the game.

Two decades earlier and a couple of days before my eleventh birthday Alan Smith scored a hat trick hours after we had clinched the league thanks to Nottingham Forest defeating Liverpool earlier that day.  Manchester United were simply blown away as the newly crowned European Cup Winners Cup victors fell to a 3-1 defeat at Highbury.  The night was also notable for Manchester United performing a “guard of honour” as our players stepped out onto the pitch. 

Their manager that night was a certain Sir Alex Ferguson, who was merely five years into a reign that continues to this very day.  I will not be a hypocrite and pretend to be Fergie’s biggest fan, but let it never be said that he does not get occasions like this right.  It was an act which was repeated when Chelsea were to visit Old Trafford as newly crowned Champions fourteen years later.

It is a custom which I fully agree with.  The Premier League is one of the most fiercely contested competitions in the world and during the season tempers will fray and emotions inevitably spill over.  But when the curtain falls and the honours are awarded, it is a time to reflect and to show a little dignity in defeat. 

For Arsenal fans it is also time to enjoy the now annual feast of St Totteringham Day which as any respectable Gooner will tell you is the day which is marked by fans of Arsenal as the moment when Tottenham can no longer catch Arsenal due to the number of games and remaining points available.  The last time the national holiday was postponed was 1995.

It’s a tradition, and as such they should be honoured and respected.  Much like the act of the “guard of honour” performed for visiting champions once a title is secured.  For all my personal irritation of the club, something further exasperated by their manager, I would have no personal issue following and respecting that act.  As a club we pride ourselves on doing things the right way something which has given rise to the phrase the “Arsenal Way.”

However something can stop me from doing that.  The potential selection of a certain player, an individual who once graced our club and who we in turn supported through some turbulent times as he struggled with repeated injuries.  A former employee who enjoyed the best period of his career in the 18 months directly leading to his departure when for the first time in his career he managed to stay injury free for longer than a few months.  Who having discovered the absolute peak of his ability after all of our years of support and faith (not to mention those pesky BUPA medical bills!) decided to leave us rather than to reward our belief in him with a commitment to stay.

Having supported Arsenal for just under three decades, I am not naïve enough to not realise that players do move on.  It’s a natural cycle of transition.  Once upon a time I didn’t know how Arsenal would go on without Ian Wright.  The same could be said for Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp, Patrick Vieira, Cesc Fabregas or Robert Pires.

Players can return and be appreciated, as has been shown when Thierry returned with his Red Bulls, or Patrick with Juventus.  The norm is not to subject them to ninety minutes of the kind of venom which Ashley Cole, Emmanuel Adebayor or Samir Nasri can relate to.  In each of those examples the players concerned have secured notoriety for their conduct in the period leading up to their departure.

Personally, I don’t even see why the issue is even being discussed.  Manchester United are the champions of England and have no logical reason to bring Robin Van Persie to London tomorrow. 

Some may argue that Arsenal or their fans have no right to make any demands regarding the team selection of another side, and to a certain extent there is a valid point to be made.  But when the nature of the anger amongst Arsenal fans is so tangible and so obvious to be revealed in an ugly display of contempt for the arriving champions, it cannot simply be ignored.

On Monday Fergie will assert his position in the media and condemn Arsenal as a club without class, without humility and without dignity due to the reception which will be afforded to Robin Van Persie should he be included in the squad.  However I will counter that Fergie has deliberately orchestrated a stand off and placed dignified Arsenal fans like myself in an impossible position.  I do not want to be known as one of the 56,000+ Arsenal fans who will welcome the newly crowned winners of the Premier League with boos and jeers.  But equally I will not ignore the elephant in the room that will be the case should Robin Van Persie be anywhere near North London tomorrow.

The choice is clear: Manchester United can have their guard of honour with respect or they can have Robin Van Persie in their squad.  They cannot have both.  The line in the sand has been drawn and should Fergie wish to use this match as some kind of machismo demonstration of authority, then he will only have himself to blame when the guard of honour descends into a tunnel of shame.

We can behave ourselves tomorrow and we can observe the traditions of English football and extend further the aura of the “Arsenal Way.”  Tomorrow can be about everything that is wonderful about English football, or it can be a classic example of why Sir Alex Ferguson will never be respected or adored in the same style as Shankly or Clough. 

Tomorrow is more than just a fixture between two old rivals.  It can go a long way towards formulating the lasting legacy of a manager who is in the twilight of his career.  Or it can remind everyone why he is the first to demand respect, despite showing so little himself to anyone else throughout his career.

Dirty Tricks? Nobody Does It Better!

This post formed part of a larger article which was published on March 14 and can be found here

The Falklanders are heading to the polls for a referendum to decide on the future of their islands.  The outcome is not in doubt at all.  A huge majority will vote in favour of retaining the existing arrangement and remaining under British rule. 

Chagossian supporters have been quick to point out that another group of British subjects, the Chagossian community, have been denied this right repeatedly.  Many argue that the only difference between the two sets of populations is the colour of the skin of those involved.  The Falklanders are white while the Chagossians are black. 

But the British government will point out that the Chagossians have already been consulted and that an election administered by the Electoral Reform Services has already been conducted. Technically they are right, but as is often the case with the Foreign Office, there is more to this than meets the eye.  When it comes to dirty tricks, nobody does it better.

Last December the legal battles reached a pivotal stage when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg finally ruled on the islanders’ case.  The court decided that the action was inadmissible due to compensation being granted to some Chagossians in 1982.  The Foreign Office’s official response to the ruling was that it would “take stock” of the ruling and meet with Chagossians in due course.  This was welcomed by the community, a sign that perhaps the government may be ready to engage with the islanders. 

Sadly as has been common since the 1960s, nothing which originates from the Foreign Office regarding this issue can ever be regarded as sincere.

The overwhelming majority of Chagossians fight on a platform for a right of return and an end to British rule on the islands.  However there is one small faction, which offers a contrasting perspective.  The Diego Garcia Society (DGS) are led by Allen Vincatassin and where they differ from other Chagossian groups is that they want the islands to remain British.  This difference is best illustrated in their adoption of the official British Indian Ocean Territories (BIOT) flag as their own, as opposed to every other Chagossian group which adopts the more widely recognised Chagossian flag as the symbol of their struggle for justice.

There is nothing wrong with Vincatassin and the DGS offering an alternative view on the future of the Chagos Islands.  Their arguments should be welcomed as much as anyone else’s.  It is just that their input should be viewed in the context of which it is made: as a marginalised fringe faction which does not represent the majority of the will of the Chagossian community.  Like an extremist wing within mainstream politics.  They add to the debate, and their views should be registered, but assessed on the basis that they are the smallest of the groups.  They have a voice, but are not THE voice.

Of course the British government is never one to miss a trick.  They identified very quickly that Vincatassin represented a trophy to bolster their own agenda.  Here was a group of Chagossians who wanted to maintain the status quo.  For the Foreign Office this was a gift from the heavens.

Vincatassin was invited by the Foreign Office to conduct an election overseen by the Electoral Reform Services and was only open to members of the DGS.  There are over 2,000 Chagossians based in the UK.  Vincatassin secured just 122 votes.  That’s around 6% of UK based Chagossians, which in a British election normally usually means you breathe a sigh of relief as you have saved the deposit by posting over 5%! 

But Vincatassin got far more than his deposit back.

He was awarded the title of “provisional President of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands”.  It was more than simply a meaningless honour.  It provided him with unrivalled access to people at the very heart of the Foreign Office and the British government.  Meetings with the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband were to be a regular feature of the elevation of Vincatassin from a marginalised fringe faction leader to the leader in waiting of the Chagossian community as a whole.

When the British government wanted to make good its promise of “taking stock” and meeting with the Chagossian community, they had a willing and able partner to legitimise their charade.  Vincatassin was only too happy to meet with Mark Simmonds from the Foreign Office to discuss the implications of the Strasbourg ruling.  Simmonds and the Foreign Office knew Vincatassin would merrily dance to their music and in doing so enabled the Foreign Office to respond to critics that they are indeed meeting and interacting with Chagossians.

At the time of writing, the leader of the largest Chagossian group Olivier Bancoult has still to be invited for talks. The same applies for anyone else from his organisation, the Chagos Refugee Group.  That this should be the case merely supports the theory that the British government will only engage with Chagossians who reinforce its own hideous agenda.  Chagossians who support British government policy are rewarded with contentious titles and access to the corridors of power which will ultimately decide on the future of the islands.

Those who oppose the British government’s policy are ostracised, excluded and alienated.  That they happen to represent the overwhelming majority of Chagossian opinion is completely unacceptable.  The Foreign Office cannot pick and choose who they will work with based on this subjective test.

Vincatassin has a role to play in the future of the Chagos Islands.  But the role he must fulfil must be aligned to the position he occupies: as the leader of the smallest group of Chagossians.  To suddenly distort the marginalised voice as being representative of the wider community is manipulation of the highest order and must not be tolerated.

The Gloves Are Coming Off

Sabrina Jean, Chair of the UK branch of the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG), reminded me last week that it had been a year since the 2012 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the UK Chagos Support Association (UKChSA).  A significant milestone because it marked the start of the process that saw me elected to the committee in order to become the new editor of the monthly newsletter.  It was another chapter of my involvement with the UKChSA which begun in autumn 2004- just another person transformed from the broadcast of THAT documentary.

When I took on the role, I made a promise to another supporter.  I explained how the death of Lisette Talatte had made me realise that supporters needed to act with more urgency.  It was the catalyst that made me look at my own contribution to the battle for justice and in doing so “raise my game”. 

I think the realisation that someone as recognisable as Lisette should leave us was a stark reminder that the first generation of Chagossians was elderly and dying out.  Soon like the Dodo, they would be just a footnote in history.

So here was an opportunity to walk the walk.  A chance to take on a role in the UK which some supporters have referred to as being one of the most important positions within the UKChSA.  The newsletter is the main source of information for people interested in the cause and also serves as a signpost for future forthcoming events or matters of importance. It summarises recent news developments while also shaping the agenda for the month ahead and can serve to influence supporters to navigate their efforts in a particular direction.

I came into the role with my own ideas.  While not in anyway diminishing the sterling efforts of my predecessor (Celia Whittaker), there was a growing feeling which I shared that the overall age of people within our support network was too old and required an urgent injection of younger faces.  Fresh ideas were needed to steer the association onto a more radical path.  This was maintaining the buzz word for 2012: urgency.  Almost immediately I was pulled up by Celia who rightly explained that while it was not impossible to promote my own ideas from within, it would have to be a gradual process. To deviate from the “tried and tested” way of doing things would alienate too many supporters during a delicate period of transition.

A supporter remarked to me a month ago (still at a time when the disappointment of Strasbourg was fresh in the memory) that he felt there was a change in the mood of the British government towards the Chagossian community.  Something identified before the initial responses of the Foreign Office to the Strasbourg ruling, so clearly not a result of events just before Christmas.  He went on to suggest that Chagossians should be seen as loyal subjects of the Queen who were disappointed but grateful to those in Parliament who are trying to help.

I’m not sure Sabrina would entirely concur with those sentiments and I think she has her finger on the pulse of both the Mauritian and UK based communities more than most.  Yet the broader point was ultimately true: there is indeed a change of mood. 

When the Argentinean President brought the Falkland Islands issue back into the news last month which drew a robust response from the British government, there was no need to highlight the inconsistencies between the Falklands and the Chagos Islands.  Coming so soon after Strasbourg, the double standards and hypocrisy were plain for all to see.  For the first time commentators were lining up to point out the differences.

This is significant.  It means that our voice has been heard, and for the first time we can hear the echo of our arguments being relayed by others.  There have been times when working on this cause has resembled the futile action of banging one’s head against a brick wall.  We knew there was an injustice, and that the time to rectify this was long overdue.  But our voices were being systematically ignored, and we looked on enviously as the Gurkhas successfully integrated a celebrity into their campaign which almost overnight transformed their fortunes.

I have likened the recent declaration of support from the former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott as being our “Joanna Lumley” moment.  With the greatest of respect to Ben Fogle and Philippa Gregory (joint patrons of the UKChSA) the kind of pulling power that somebody like Prescott can bring to our cause is astronomical.  On one level, his political connections are invaluable.  Here is somebody who was at the very top of government for a decade.  Yet his political clout only tells part of the story.  Here is an instantly recognisable figure, irrespective of whether you share an interest in politics.

The next UKChSA AGM will take place next month, and there are a number of areas which Sabrina and I are currently exploring which we believe will enable us to work more effectively as an organisation.  Both the flagship website and official social network accounts are woefully undermanaged, in many cases updated several days after a major development occurs.  The work of supporters on such sites is invaluable and must be built upon, but the flagship bearers must be seen to be leading the way, effectively setting the agenda.  At the time of writing this post, the newsletter was published seven days ago and yet still is not on our website. 

That this has not been the case is not so much disappointing but an embarrassment to our organisation as a whole.  It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how such tools should be utilised.  To continue in its current format is unacceptable and cannot be accepted for much longer.  As a matter of urgency this needs to be addressed.

Personally speaking 2012 was a learning experience, a time to understand where the boundaries laid and where they could be extended.  2013 is very much a case of focussing on the latter and working to move the organisation forward. 

The honeymoon is over and the gloves are coming off.  

Twitter Vs Facebook

I like to think of myself as something of a Twitter pioneer. 

I found the site before anyone I knew back in January 2009.  Admittedly it was to be a full 18 months from that first incarnation to evolve from the single tweet I had posted at that point.  As any user knows, there comes a time when you suddenly experience that moment which resembles an epiphany as everything just falls into place.  For me personally the platform represented an ideal resource for promoting the Chagos cause I work on, as well as sharing my renewed desire for writing.

Facebook on the other hand is something I really struggled with.  I guess my main failure was using the social network almost as I would use Twitter.  That was to try and engage people on the site with issues I felt strongly about.  Political campaigns, Chagos petitions, articles, documentaries, news reports and the rest.

A short while after experiencing that moment of truth on Twitter, I remember someone posting a tweet which to this day is the expression I have continued to quote since: 

"Twitter makes you want to have a drink with people you don’t know while Facebook makes you want to throw a drink over people you do know."

In the last twelve months I have become more and more disillusioned with the entire Facebook experience.  I struggled to understand where it could have a role to play in the changing world we inhibited, even more so as our use of the internet was geared towards mobile technology.

Yet a recent experience gave me an opportunity to analyse something which some of us are unfortunate to go through.  And if you’re like me, you get to ride the rollercoaster not twice but three times in eight years. 

Ten days ago my friend was shot dead in his own car.  Coupled with the events of September 2004 and December 2006 it was to be the third time that someone I knew was to be taken violently.  A second victim to gun crime alone.  The trouble with experiencing that much grief in such a short space of time is that when the next train pulls into the station, you can still see the lights from the departing carriage which hasn’t quite pulled away yet.  The result is that emotionally you are effectively crushed between the trains.

Given the fact that I had not been anything like into social networking as I had been in 2004 and 2006 as I was in 2012, it provided an opening for an interesting experiment to see how the platforms vary in terms of their usefulness when dealing with grief.  And it really didn’t take long to recognise the contrasting qualities as well.

Twitter doesn’t do personal or emotions.  It’s very clinical.  It doesn’t care that my friend left a four week old child behind, or that I had been with him two days before his death.  It doesn’t care who mourns him, the devastated family and friends who have even more questions to pose, none of which will be answered adequately.

Facebook is all about emotions; it cares about not just what is being felt, but by whom.  It provides the support structure to work through the initial trauma and shock all the way to the hope that is needed to overcome the despair.  It provides a forum for friends to come together to recall happier times, to reinforce the pleasant memories which seem so distant in the dark days after such an event.

It is here that we understand where the platforms help in different ways.  Facebook will provide a lot of the immediate assistance needed in the days that follow such a tragedy.  Twitter is incapable of providing anything like this in the aftermath of such disruption, but will provide the stage for the long term questions which will arise once the initial dust has settled.

Twitter will be the platform which will answer the broader questions such as why gun crime is once again rising in Nottingham after almost a decade of continual decline.  It will analyse the social impacts of the event, in much wider terms.  It will offer long term solutions to the conundrums which will prevent another family going through the grief of burying their son or daughter.

Facebook cannot replicate this; such discussions are largely ignored or even bypassed by members of our network for fear of evoking controversial confrontations with people we otherwise get on with.  

And herein lies the key difference: we reserve total and complete jurisdiction over who we wish to follow on Twitter, while on Facebook we are largely confined to people we are related to, once worked with or went to school with.  The reality is we rarely find ourselves falling out with members of our Twitter network because they have been handpicked to reinforce our own views, usually politically.

It would appear that Facebook does have a role to play in the future of social networking.  There are some things that Twitter just cannot do.  As someone who probably holds the record for account deactivations in the last twelve months, I would probably say that is something positive to take away from the experience.  But going forwards, Twitter still represents the platform I will continue to utilise more, if only because with the past ten days aside, I am more concerned with the quest for justice for the Chagossians than how Jack and Jill are feeling today.

I was in a long term relationship during the episodes of 2004 and 2006, so even as someone who should know this bumpy road all too well, it was still a new journey for me to travel this time around.  A young lady provided a level of support and maturity which belied the fact that she was eight years younger than me.  Words will never begin to describe the debt of gratitude I owe, and this post is dedicated to her as well as Germaine, Duane and Natasha.

Cunning Chelsea Conspiracy Can't Catch Me Out

“Then put your little hand in mine, there ain’t no hill or mountain we can’t climb.  Babe.  I got you babe.”  The unmistakable melody of “I Got You Babe”, a track which became the background music to the 1993 Hollywood blockbuster “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray.

Visitors to my blog will start to feel like they are living out the nightmare of Phil from the movie, an unmistakable feeling of déjà vu that somehow we have been down this road before.  And we most certainly have.  As a matter of fact in the 22 months since I started this blog, the subject of race has cropped up no fewer than six times, which equates to just shy of a quarter of my posts.

This month alone I could have written about the ridiculous arguments which followed the decisions of Rio Ferdinand, Jason Roberts and several other players to refuse to wear “Kick It Out” T-Shirts as part of the “week of action”.  Indeed in some ways this is an extension of that debate.

As I have addressed previously, I am passionate about the subject of racism in football.  I love the sport but sadly I have been exposed to the unpleasant side of the beautiful game.  Granted, it was an experience at a young age, but one that nonetheless was to have a profound impact on my views in later life.

So I understand that some will struggle to comprehend my views today regarding the recent events involving controversial referee Mark Clattenburg and Chelsea’s Jon Obi Mikel and Juan Mata.  I am of the opinion that the story has been conceived in the Chelsea dressing room and is nothing more than a hideous attempt to amplify the sense of retribution against a referee who admittedly had a bad game. 

Ok that is wrong.  He didn’t have a bad game, he had an awful one.

The idea of referees favouring Manchester United is not a revolutionary theory.  It is one borne out of years of controversial “rubs of the green” which have been in favour of the club.  As an Arsenal fan we have not forgiven nor forgotten the highly contentious decisions which coincided with our visit to Old Trafford eight years ago this month.  A match which ended our record breaking forty-nine match unbeaten run.  The very name of Mike Riley is enough to turn even the most mild mannered of Arsenal fans into a mood of rage bordering on psychopathic tendencies.   Yes I do include myself in that assessment.

Riley made some dreadful decisions that day, many of which undermined the very integrity of referees as a whole.  In more recent times this has been replicated by referees such as Howard Webb and indeed Clattenburg.  Yet even in my wildest anger, I would never have suggested that the source of such decisions were ever based on racism.  It was unashamed favouritism without a shadow of a doubt, though never racism.

Last weekend Chelsea Football Club made two very serious allegations about the conduct of Mark Clattenburg.  They centre around the idea that he racially abused Mikel and used inappropriate language against Mata.  If this allegation had been made by the vast majority of other clubs, I would probably take it a little more seriously.

That it is being pursued by Chelsea makes the matter for me a lot easier to judge.  This is the club that allowed its player, Ashley Cole, to enter a court of law and lie under oath in order to ensure that its captain, John Terry, was acquitted of racially abusing Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand.  This is the club that refused to sack Terry as captain, despite being found guilty by the Football Association of the same offence.

That’s right Chelsea.  The same Chelsea who sacked two players in the last decade over drugs and attempted to take the moral high ground by stating that they were a family club.  That’s right; this was all about morality and not a convenient opportunity to offload two out of favour players minus a lucrative pay off to terminate their contract.  Interesting then that their moral compass was nowhere to be seen when they failed to sack Terry, or Cole for that matter.

Of course it is possible that the allegations regarding Mikel and Mata are true, and that Clattenburg did indeed take the scourge of racism in football to another dimension.  In the months and years to follow this will look like a very ill-judged piece.  But I will argue that for someone like myself to draw such conclusions shows how far the reputation of Chelsea has been dragged through the gutter recently.  To the extent that the club has lodged a very serious complaint and I along with others have dismissed the idea out of hand as being a conspiracy dreamt up amidst the bitterness of a first defeat of the season.