Is it just me that's bored of reading about affairs?

So Ashley and Cheryl Cole have finally split up after more allegations against Ashley. Why exactly are the public expected to be amazed by this news? I would put my future life savings on this being front page news for at least 2 more weeks if not longer - why though? Do the media see the general public as being having so little genuine interest in their lives or is it more of a case of dictatorship on the medias part. I'd certainly say the latter - its the old case of someone is raised up on high so that when they fall it'll be so much more of a 'sensational' ending.

Only a few years back the tabloids were desperate to make Cheryl Cole (or Tweedy, as she was then)public enemy number one. For weeks upon end the tabloids dragged out the story that she was involved in a nightclub altercation, into a huge scandal - vicious assault, racist Cheryl, a thug - in the end she admitted to being drunk and punching the nightclub attendant, but strenuously denied being a racist - she served her punishement and tried to rebuild her career and grow up from the 19 year old young woman she was then. When the hairdresser who revealed her affair with Ashley spoke to the same papers in January 2008, Cheryl was now the poor victim and the papers turned on Ashley.

This being the same Ashley who the tabloids adore! Not because of his wonderful talent as one of the best left backs in the world, how stupid to think that, nope it's because he seems to be such an easy target for scandal. They loved making him out as a greedy, arrogant overpaid celebrity when he moved to Chelsea for the money...and possibly success (but that isn't controversial so not print worthy) yet scrambled to make his and Cheryl's wedding pictures the front page news as a beautiful and wonderful celebrity occasion. Since then, every sniff of promiscuity has been pounced upon like an elephant sitting on an ant! Until eventually they find out enough and publicise it to destroy the marriage that they promoted only 4 years earlier.

So is this my own damning verdict on Ashleys personal life, or the transitional character change and moral development of them both? Not at all. I'm merely highlighting the fickle and hypocritical nature of our national press. They aren't interested in the emotional trauma, the deep personal issues involved with such stories, they want to make money out of them, out of us. Cheryl in her statement earlier today has asked that "the media respect her privacy at this difficult time" - Do you honestly think they will??

Not a chance!!!!!

They'll milk this story for what will seem like an eternity, with apparent new revelations and insights into either of the 2 peoples lives - and they'll only get bored of it when they tell us, the nation when we're supposed to be bored of it. Sound bizarre?! It should do, but unfortunately what I'm getting at is that the national media have manipulated so much of the country into being obsessed with celebrity culture and delving into the ordinary of these people's lives. Personally, I feel sorry for Cheryl and don't agree with what Ashley has done, but it's the same way I feel about the same situation with anybody in the world - but in the end it's their business, their problems, and it's very personal - so do we really need to know the ins and outs of 'celebrities' personal lives or are we going to continue to be playthings for the tabloids?

Arsene "Whinging" Wenger yet again

The predictability of last nights post match comments re: the Arsenal v Porto game was far too easy. The Porto winner certainly was nothing short of bizarre and comical, however the reality of it is that the referee made the correct decision with regards to the rules of the game. No matter how much Wenger tries to plead the "not deliberate" backpass card, it won't wash. Sol Campbell touched the ball back to the the goalkeeper, who in turn picks it up; if anyone is to blame there it's Fabianski, he should have spotted that Campbell kicked it back to him (from literally feet away) and booted it out of touch.

Thats the first part where Wenger is talking nonsense. Secondly, was his line that competes with a Jimmy Carr one liner -

"I think the referee also has to give us time to build a wall or else you will never have a chance to defend an indirect free-kick in the box...Has he ever played football? If he has played I don't see how he can explain to me how we can defend."

Mr Wenger that is precisely the point of playing an advantage! At the time of the original infringement within a few yards of the ball was the Porto player, one Arsenal defender and the goalkeeper. Thus, when the offence takes place(which is in a way cheating the opposing side of a goal opportunity) there are those 3 players in the immediate vicinity as well as another player from each side just coming into play. Now let's skip forward to when the referee allows the attacking side to compensate from the offence. In the immediate vicinity when this quick free kick is taken there is Fabianski, the 2 attacking Porto players and the 2 Arsenal defenders - precisely the number of players and exact players that were around when Arsenal illegally stopped their goalscoring opportunity!! So where's the problem? Exactly why should Arsenal be given time to build up a wall and bring all their players into the situation? - if this happens then Porto lose any chance of an advantage. Maybe Mr Wenger ought to think a bit more before he speaks.

The goal in question starts at 3:00

http://www.footytube.com/video/fc-porto-arsenal-2-1-17-02-2010-34514

The problem is that Wenger realises that the Porto players were alert and ready to take advantage of the situation, they weren't dithering about and complaining like the Arsenal players. The Arsenal defence showed complete naivity in their approach to the situation. Why did Campbell briefly bend down and clutch his face? Why does the goalkeeper walk halfway back complaining then throw the ball to the Porto players? Where is Vermaelan's immediacy in repositioning himself? All these are the real contributors to the 2nd goal sham, but Wenger insists on trying to make a scapegoat out of the referee in the full knowledge that it is the same referee involved in the "Henry handball scandal" Rather than hold his hand up like Fabregas his own captain and admit wrong he insists on blaming the one man who is most vulnerable, in the hope that the press will get behind Wenger and make Hansson the excuse for another naive performance by his own players.

Back from the oblivion

A hectic diary of late, combined with laziness and summoning the energy to compile opinion on so many issues of late, has led to my lack of posts. I do wish in one way that I had stayed an ever present, especially with some fascinating and controversial storylines since Christmas. The big debate once again that has arisen from the John Terry affair - Does a footballers private life really matter when it comes to being an example on the pitch? Is the stereotypical football fan really bothered about the fact that the England captain has been playing away, just as long as it doesn't influence his performance on the pitch?

The additional complication of the woman he had an affair with being a teammates ex girlfriend, as well as the allegation that he paid her to have an abortion further complicates this one and brings in so many more questions and dilemmas. Effect on team morale, will there be support for the captain or is his authority going to be undermimed, huge moral questions surrounding the allegations that he used his financial clout to "quick fix" the problem. When these factors are added to the equation, one can start to understand why Capello has taken the decision to strip Terry of the England Captaincy, especially being so close to the World Cup. Under no circumstances should England's chance at the World Cup be jeopardised, not when we've got out best squad in years with the best chance in years of glory! (Take note national press by the way, if your on side stop making such an effort to disrupt pre-tournament morale and plans!!)

Apparently, the Popes defence of his clergy, the Church and religious freedom for our Country in his Ad Limina address was a direct attack on the rights of homosexuals and other marginalised groups.

Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.

I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth. Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?

The above is merely a snippet of Pope Benedict XVI's address, but I'd advise such people to have a proper read through it all. He is staunchly defending our right to have religious freedom, our right to adhere to the religious traditions that have co-existed in our society for hundreds of years, before this ludicrous government starting inventing over the top nitty gritty laws that have no sensitivity to anyone. It is the agenda of Harriet HarmMEN that should be scrutinised and opposed by England as a united nation.