Justifying The Unjustifiable

*My blog pieces are grammatically correct and I do not need to resort to any spell check. Consequently, purely in terms of English, this collectively places my blog easily amongst the top ten of blogs for proper use of the English language. Aren't you glad that you have paid a visit to here, you lucky, lucky people?!

**This beautiful blogsite is primarily a vehicle for uploading extracts from my many informative, insightful, insurrectionary, quality reference books. I wish for this site to raise my profile amongst the chattering classes, so that maybe one day I too can be invited onto radio discussion shows to offload my twopence worth. At present, British radio and television shows are over-populated with the same old talking heads. Is Matthew Parris really the voice of England? Does Stephen Fry hold the monopoly on wisdom?

***Also, unlike many attention-seeking uber-egos out there who expect everyone to follow them, if you follow me [RonGattway] on Twitter, I will return the favour. That is a promise.

****Finally, I am extremely grateful for all of the visitors to my site, but don't just browse at my book extracts, please purchase the publications that are showcased. They would make ideal presents for your family, friends, and even worst enemies. I can even arrange a discount if you contact me.

My undying love to you all,

Yours insincerely

'Gary Watton' xo

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

An All-Ireland Soccer Team Is A Must by the commentator and football historian Gary Watton

The dismal, not to say embarrassing, recent failures of both
Northern Ireland and their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland has
convincingly persuaded me that drastic surgery is required to heal the
sick men of Europe. Passing the managerial baton back and forth to
various hapless managers has clearly not worked on either side of the
border. In defence of the poor, wealthy managers, they can only do so
much with what they are provided with. There is after all no rich
sugar daddy owners or transfer windows at their disposal, so room for
manoeuvre is extremely limited. Northern Ireland in particular is
handicapped by a scarcity of footballing manpower, while in the
Republic, soccer must compete against the popular GAA for the
attention of the young. Furthermore, rugby union throughout the island
probably attracts more youngsters than was the case in previous
decades. Even the profile of Irish cricket has been elevated over the
last half a dozen years by the exploits of the national team at the
cricket World Cup.
     Not surprisingly, the six northern counties is seemingly unable
to supply the footballing superstars of yesteryear. The days when
Northern Ireland could produce high quality performers such as a Best
or a Jennings or a McIlroy are long gone. Nowadays, top English
players are struggling to get selected each week for the top English
teams, so what chance have the humble journeymen of Northern Ireland
got in such circumstances? Consequently, the majority of Northern
Ireland's squad are drawn from mediocre lower league clubs. This
speaks volumes for the calibre of players that we are offering these
days. Where once we had Armstrong or Blanchflower of Tottenham
Hotspur, Neill, Nelson and Rice of Arsenal, and Gregg, McGrath,
McCreery, Nicholl, and Whiteside of Manchester United, we can no
longer foresee the cream of English soccer acquiring Northern Irish
players. Most recent Northern Ireland teams would struggle in the SPL
or the English Championship. Most of the Northern Irish team would
struggle to be known or recognised by the next-door neighbour, let
alone the wider footballing public.
     The solution has to be an all-Ireland one. Regrettably, clinging
on to a separate Northern Ireland team is logic-defying and is a
manifestation of a sectarian undercurrent that will have no truck with
any vestige of Irish unity. This is all the more ridiculous when one
observes that we have a long-standing and thriving tradition of
all-Ireland cricket and rugby union teams. The existence of such
thirty-two counties sporting outfits has not led to the walls caving
in on Northern Ireland or the six counties being invaded by the forces
of the Vatican, so please let sanity prevail and combine the dubious
strengths of the six counties with the rest of the island into an
all-Ireland team. In fact, there was an all-Ireland team until about
1950. It needs to be revived, as two separate teams are merely
hopeless also-rans on the international soccer stage, and any
pipedream that Northern Ireland can revive the glories of 1958 or 1982
is delusional in the extreme.
     So why doesn't the IFA of the six counties and the Republic's FAI
join together in unholy matrimony? I don't know if the FAI has any
burning desire for such a move, but certainly north of the border, the
rationale for remaining separate and adopting a Sinn Fein attitude of
'ourselves alone' is itself irrational. About half of the grassroots
supporters unfortunately view a day or night out at Windsor Park as a
boozing session 'with the lads'. I've seen the loyal Northern Ireland
supporters on a number of occasions congregating at the junction of
Tates Avenue and the Lisburn Road, bedecked with scarves, football
tops, and oh yes the obligatory cans of beer. To remove the
'privilege' of huddling together en masse in south Belfast at various
times in the year would merely deprive certain northern citizens of
the opportunity of a good old piss-up. Mind you, they could still
avail themselves of Dublin's hostelries, which admittedly are
considerably more expensive.
     As for the 'top brass' of the IFA, this organisation will cling
on to its status for dear life. It's a mirror situation of the
northern unionists who would not wish to cede their hegemony at
Stormont and join the ranks in the Dail because they would be
transformed from big fish in a small pond to small fish in a bigger
pond. By the same token, the same political considerations condition
the IFA's attitude. They want to dictate their own neanderthal ideas
about soccer to the six counties. They do not wish to be subordinate
to an all-Ireland body where they would not possess the same
influence. Furthermore, Linfield Football Club has benefited a little
too well from being the hostess of Norn Iron internationals, and so
the unique status of Linfield must be preserved by various
self-interested parties. It simply wouldn't do to merge avec the
Republic's FAI. It might be deemed as an equivalent of turkeys voting
for Christmas.
     However, the bottom line is that toothless Northern Ireland
cannot even overcome the perennial punchbags of Luxembourg. Our
players are merely seconded to lower league clubs. We do not have the
assembly line of future superstars nor the resources. The writing is
on the wall for the IFA. They are but a cabal that desperately avoids
facing the grim reality that their national team is now little more
than the international equivalent of a non-league team. An all-Ireland
soccer team is not another step towards the unification of Ireland nor
an erosion of Ulster's so-called culture. It's a common sense step to
ensure that soccer supporters north and south can have a team worth
cheering on. If we can do it in cricket and rugby union, then why
doesn't soccer step into the brave new world too?

Monday, 21 October 2013

Statistical Review Of The Cricket County Championship, Division One, 2013 by Gary Watton

Statistics rarely lie, and with this in mind, I have lovingly compiled various facts and figures which go some way to explain why the Division One of the 2013 County Championship ended as it did. The tables underneath focus upon bonus points, while I have also studied and revealed which counties possessed the best opening partnerships. I do take the view that a first-wicket stand can be crucial in laying the foundations for a competitive innings, so it might be of considerable use to the various protagonists to take heed of my findings. Obviously, the opening pair in any encounter face the perils of the new ball in demanding conditions which sometimes favour the bowler. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that one of the opening batsmen may succumb early in his innings. This explains the plethora of single figure first-wicket stands that each county has incurred.
OPENING PARTNERSHIPS
Derbyshire: 4 fifties; no tons; highest: 89; 13 single figure scores; 652 runs at an average of 21.7
Durham: 3 fifties; 2 tons; highest: 125; 13 single figure scores; 822 runs at an average of 27.4
Middlesex: 3 fifties; 5 tons; highest: 259; 8 single figure scores; 1255 runs at an average of 52.3
Nottinghamshire: 4 fifties; 1 ton; highest: 105; 12 single figure scores; 715 runs at an average of 27.5
Somerset: 6 fifties; 1 ton; highest: 103; 6 single figure scores; 1026 runs at an average of 34.2
Surrey: 4 fifties; 1 ton; highest: 171; 13 single figure scores; 693 runs at an average of 26.7
Sussex: 4 fifties, 4 tons; highest: 163; 7 single figure scores; 1132 runs at an average of 41.9
Warwickshire; 1 fifty; 6 tons; highest: 153; 6 single figure scores; 1107 runs at an average of 46.1
Yorkshire: 2 fifties; 1 ton; highest: 126; 9 single figure scores; at an average of 24.3
It was quite startling to discover that Middlesex were head and shoulders above les autres, with Warwickshire and Sussex also recording healthy first-wicket averages. Paradoxically, Yorkshire accumulated more batting bonus points than anyone else in spite of possessing a welter of mediocre opening partnerships. The County Champions, Durham, certainly did not have too many opening partnerships of note, but their strengths lay elsewhere.
OPENING WICKET AVERAGES TABLE
Middlesex 52.3
Warwickshire 46.1
Sussex 41.9
Somerset 34.2
Nottinghamshire 27.5
Durham 27.4
Surrey 26.7
Yorkshire 24.3
Derbyshire 21.7
In spite of boasting the best opening partnerships in the County Championship, Middlesex were less successful at converting their good starts into many batting bonus points. This obviously amounts to one of two explanations: Either their best opening partnerships occurred in the second innings or more likely that the rest of the batting line-up proved more fragile and less able to capitalise upon good starts. This surely must provide food for thought for the north Londoners.
Yorkshire by contrast did not benefit from many good opening partnerships but were instead able to draw upon a strength in depth in their batting formation, as their middle order batsmen of Ballance and Rashid [and Bairstow when available] rescued the team. Consequently, Yorkshire amassed most batting bonus points in spite of having less than impressive opening partnerships.
Durham, rather surprisingly, were well down the batting bonus points list, but clearly their potency derives from a knack of bowling teams out twice.
BATTING BONUS POINTS
Yorkshire 49
Nottinghamshire 47
Sussex 45
Warwickshire 37
Durham/Surrey 36
Somerset 33
Middlesex 32
Derbyshire 31
Let us examine the table that not surprisingly reveals the county champions of Durham as the most lethal in terms of acquiring bowling bonus points. Graham Onions and the gang excelled themselves at bowling most teams out twice, hence the county's impressive haul of ten wins from their sixteen fixtures. Moreover, Durham also accumulated a staggering forty-six bowling bonus points from a maximum of 48. Herein lies the deadly secret to their success. It's not that Durham were less competent at batting, yet when one observes the assorted batting statistics above, it is clear that Durham did not stand head and shoulders above the other counties in the categories already listed - far from it. Secondly, it is also worth noting that the two demoted teams, Derbyshire and Surrey did also finish at the foot of the bowling bonus points table. Clearly, a successful bowling unit is most necessary to thrive in the premier division of the County Championship.
BOWLING BONUS POINTS
Durham 46
Warwickshire 42
Somerset 41
Nottinghamshire 40
Middlesex/Sussex/Yorkshire 39
Surrey 37
Derbyshire 34
The table below for the combined bonus points does underline how adrift Derbyshire were in terms of their first-innings performances and when you loiter many points below les autres, then there is extra pressure to make amends my winning as many matches as possible. Sadly for Debyshire, they could not win enough matches and collect the crucial sixteen points on offer to redeem themselves for their inability to amass sufficient bonus points. Not surprisingly, their bonus points deficiency was a huge contributory factor in the county being relegated back to Division Two, one year after winning the Division Two league.
COMBINED BONUS POINTS
Yorkshire 88
Nottinghamshire 87
Sussex 84
Durham 82
Warwickshire 79
Somerset 74
Surrey 73
Middlesex 71
Derbyshire 65
Finally, the following facts make for interesting reading, thinks me:
1. Durham lost more matches than Sussex, Warwickshire, and Yorkshire, but still comfortably won the County Championship. The moral of this story is that wins are infinitely more preferable to honourable draws that yield far less points.
2. The two teams at the summit of Division One did win more matches than their counterparts. This again underlines the desperate need to win matches and obtain the sixteen points for such an achievement.
3. The two teams at the foot of the final table lost more matches than anyone else, so clearly they were more vulnerable than their competitors and most likely to be bowled out twice. Their relegation was therefore 'merited'.
4. Derbyshire won more matches than Somerset [who finished two places above them] and as many matches as Nottinghamshire [who finished above them too]. However, Derbyshire's undoing was a distinct lack of bonus points which suggests that their first innings performances were not up to scratch.
5. Middlesex also won more matches than Sussex and Warwickshire who were perched above them. Again, as a mirror of the Derbyshire situation, Middlesex finished fifth and not third because they did not record enough bonus points to match their haul of six wins.

Monday, 7 October 2013

Britain's Nanny State by Gary Watton

In recent weeks, I have taken the liberty of emailing each and every one of the 650 Members of Parliament. It has been something of an eye-opener for this slow learner. For example, did you know that MPs are not permitted or required to reply to correspondence from non-constituents. Therefore, it is a bit difficult for amateur lobbyists such as yours truly when Mr, Mrs or Miss Elected Representative is unable and/or unwilling to respond. Nevertheless, some parliamentarians (bless them) did take the bait and had the courage and/or decency to grant my emails an answer. To cut a long and exciting (sic) story short, I suggested to the Westminster elite that each of the three main political parties (alternatively described by belligerent George Galloway as "three cheeks of the same bum") were reportedly bereft of ideas and policy proposals. Consequently, being the helpful young (sic) citizen that I am, I proceeded to make the foliticians aware of my manifesto as located lovingly at http://gw930.blog.com/manifesto
I wasn't remotely surprised that those who browsed through my 'manifesto' replied that there were some ideas that met with their approval and other proposals that did not. This is precisely how I feel about their manifestos too. There are various bits in each party manifesto which are appealing to me and there are others which are considerably more unattractive to my beautiful mind. In a nutshell, I am a radical whose ideas transcend the apparent ideological differences on planet politics. If one were to observe my various blogs revealing the Greedy Bastards of Great Britain, it would be apparent to the lucky reader that I have leftist tendencies. However, I am ultimately a square peg, because I also possess ideas which belong further to the right of the political spectrum. For instance, I am appalled by Britain's nanny state and wholeheartedly endorse the Conservative Party's attempts to improve and reform the benefits system and the rotting welfare state. In fact, my strong feelings about the dependency culture is uppermost in my mind in terms of determining my voting preference at the next national beauty contest in 2015.
Well, various raspberries were blown by the usual suspects at the Conservative Party Conference's most recent welfare reform proposals. The Daily Mirror [a perpetual apologist for benefits exploiters and trade unions that have a grudge against the Conservatives], fronted by its jocular Geordie Mr Kevin Maguire mischievously suggested that the Conservatives' 'earn or learn' scheme in which innocent, little unemployed wretches could be condemned to spending every weekday at the local job centre was a return to the bad old days of the dreaded workhouse. A number of others from the Left as well as representatives of soft touch organisations were equally keen to scoff at the imminent reforms.
Perhaps this reveals the flawed nature of Brits (and others elsewhere) that we are frequently resistant to change. Could it be that most people are conservative in so far as many and indeed any proposed reforms from our political superiors are opposed because they represent upheaval and oblige folk to evacuate the complacency and safety of their comfort zones and embrace the great unknown of change. However, we all need to improve ourselves and our society, and progress can only be achieved via change. This represents the great conundrum of modern society in that change is something of a terrifying concept. Admittedly, there is a maxim that if it ain't broken then it don't need changed. Regrettably, mankind is damaged, and Britain (and elsewhere) is "broken", so the bitter pill of change has to be swallowed by a multitude of reluctant patients.
Anyhow, I have digressed somewhat. The thing is that when benefits reform is proposed, one can be pretty damn sure that the media will wheel out one or two hard luck cases whose lives will be totally undermined by amendments to the welfare state. I admit wholeheartedly that there are people whose lives are characterised by poverty which is not of their making. However, I do also contend that there are many more who benefit a little too well from benefits. I invite any leftist and liberal and naive soft touch personage to visit all the betting shops and public houses in their locality, wherein they will find a whole host of gents who are clearly not working and yet who are able to splash the cash. How can this be? Have they all taken an early retirement? Have they all won the National Lottery? Or could it be that they are some of the recipients of welfare which has enabled them, I repeat, to benefit a little too well from benefits.
I believe that it is increasingly erroneous to use the term "benefits" because there appears to be a plethora of folk who do indeed benefit a little too well from benefits. Perhaps it would be more apt to describe state aid in future as "assistance", provided that it does actually and exclusively assist the deserving poor, rather than fund the dubious lifestyle of the idle. Furthermore, it might well be worth visiting the local council estate to discover just how many houses of the apparent down-at-heel have television satellite dishes and good quality cars parked outside. It might be an eye-opener or at least an uncomfortable truth for the Guardian, the Daily Mirror and other apologists of welfare exploiters to discover precisely how many people are able to drive up and down their local roads, all day, every day, in good cars, funded by a regular supply of fuel, car insurance, and car tax. Can it be humanly possible that such people are impoverished and living on the breadline, or is it closer to reality to ascertain that there are many people who are taking the urine by exploiting the benefits system and laughing all the way to the bank.
Of course, what is most sickening of all is that there are numerous genuinely poor people working in horrible minimum wage jobs who are indeed struggling to cope and maintain any semblance of a quality of life whilst benefits exploiters are enjoying an idle lifestyle at the expense of hard-working and low-paid taxpayers. Why does the British welfare state reward the idle and penalise the hard-working, low-paid workers?
The trouble with the Labour Party is that they prize the welfare state to such an extent that they often refuse to entertain any benefit reforms. The party prides itself with having established the welfare state in the latter half of the turbulent 1940s, and therefore feels obliged to conserve [that word again] this flawed 'institution'. However, now that Labour has been killing the hospitals and schools with kindness and allowing exploiters to run rings around the benefits system, the party has instead presided over the creation of a nanny state. Britain is indeed broken, but I sincerely believe that welfare reforms and benefits adjustments are absolutely crucial to repair the damage to our decaying nation.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Malice, a man who hates Britain by the author Gary Watton

Like most 'normal' people, I was repelled by the latest dirty trick from the grotesque, self-righteous, holier-than-thou Daily Mail. This organ of hate against the Left chose to pick a fight avec Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition. To do so, this reptilian newspaper launched an unprovoked attack upon Ed's dead father, the respected Marxist intellectual, Ralph Miliband. It is a low tactic to pour scorn upon an individual who is sadly unable to defend himself. Adding insult to injury, the humourless Daily Mail spewed forth a pun in poor taste about the grave of the late Mr Miliband. I would dearly love to see how the awful bully Paul Dacre and his Mail minions would react if the gravestones of their dead loved ones were published with accompanying puns. Yes, herein lies one of the plethora of fundamental flaws of the Daily Mail: they are experts at dishing out hostility but are less disposed towards anyone who dares to confront them or regulate them.
Nick Clegg was correct when he stated that the Daily Mail is responsible for overwhelming bile against the British people. It was Nick's greatest remark. However while immediately listing those groups that this viewspaper denounces, Mr Clegg generously omitted immigrants, benefits claimants, and people who go on strike amongst the multitudes that the Daily Malice despises. Meanwhile Alan Sugar is equally spot-on in his observation that the Daily Mail are "nasty, nasty people". Alastair Campbell is also accurate to assert that the Daily Mail is poisonous. What irks me is how they published a vicious attack upon the Milibands and then lacked the courage to face the broadcasting media, with the exception of Jon Steafel's feeble performance on 'Newsnight'. Steafel's obvious impotence under cross-examination typifies the Daily Mail: a rabble of disapproving journos who mercilessly launch vitriol and stamp upon anyone that they take exception to whilst courageously doing so from behind their computer screens. It is abundantly clear that they dare not leave the refuge of their comfort zone and engage in debate. The activities of the foul-mouthed Paul Dacre and his cowardly cronies are that of a bully.
It's hugely ironic how Dacre and his agents of hate campaign for tough laws and yet are terrified of press regulation. Human nature is so flawed that we all need boundaries. Why should the deluded hypocrites of the Daily Mail be exempt?!