Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Forgive, but not forget? Try again!
It is great to forgive and forget, but sometimes the feeling of personal injustice does not allow for that. It puzzles me though how often people wrongly say "I forgive, but I won't forget" when often what they actually mean is "I can't forgive, but I will try my best to forget and put it at the back of my mind". In other words, when someone says "forgive, but not forget", you just know you have not been forgiven!
Friday, 25 May 2012
Beecroft shows the attitude that runs through Tory policy
Aggressive comments made by Adrian Beecroft about Vince Cable have overshadowed his report into employment reforms - and rightly so. His comments, using the word 'socialist' as an insult to describe Cable's concerns about his report, bring into focus the spite and vindictiveness that have been invested into his policy agenda. In essence, his actions have exposed the lack of objectivity influencing his report that the Tory-led government will use to guide employment policy.
The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.
The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.
It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.
Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.
It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.
The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.
The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.
It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.
Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.
It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.
Monday, 21 May 2012
Romney Marsh must not be Britain's nuclear dumping ground
Shepway District Council is proposing the construction of a nuclear waste disposal bunker in Romney Marsh. The proposed site would be a square kilometre at ground level, with the underground dump potentially as close as 200 metres from the surface. The proposal, if implemented, would render the area of amazing natural beauty a dumping ground for nuclear waste from throughout the country. This would represent a scar on the Romney Marsh landscape as well as creating a nuclear hazard for centuries to come.
The scheme has already been met with a great deal of political and local opposition. The argument put forward by the council is that the new construction would offset the loss of jobs when the Dungeness nuclear power stations are decommissioned. As a Labour member, more often than not I warmly welcome job creation initiatives, but not at a dangerously large environmental cost.
The Secretrary for the Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party, Peter Wallace, succinctly argues that the plan "shows the lack of ambition Shepway Council has for our area". We live in a wonderful eclectic region, with stunning landscapes, plenty of transport hubs and a lengthy coastline. There is scope for so much more creativity for the region.
Work on the dump would not be scheduled to begin until 2025 and the site would not be ready until 2040, so the dump would not address current problems. What could possibly be the incentive for such a scheme? This is not an easy question to answer without a healthy dose of cynicism. We should all see that it is highly selfish to believe the solution to today's economic and employment woes is to leave a gift for our children and grandchildren that they will not thank us for. According to the project's website, the land could be farmed after it has completed its working life, but it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to do so.
We have an assurance from Alistair Stewart, chief executive of Shepway District Council, that if the public reject the proposal then that will be the end of the proposal. There will be a consultation with local residents - thousands of newsletters have already been sent. It is difficult to expect people to respond to the question of "would you like a nuclear dump in your vicinity?" with anything other than the negative. In event of public rejection, do the proposals go into the dump instead of the hazardous nuclear waste, or do the councillors set to work on Plan B, making a further attempt to win support?
This proposal demonstrates the problem with a distinct lack of political plurality in the district. 44 of the 46 councillors in Shepway District Council are Conservatives. It is this dominance of the party in charge that allows them to propose the sort of developments that many other councils would not dare mention. The council's official claim to have 'no formal view' about the proposal is a cop-out. To have taken the trouble to launch a website, set up presentations and spent money on newsletters, all combine to imply a support for the scheme.
They are clearly willing to take a flutter on a positive outcome of their consultation. When this is considered in the context of their recent attempt to flood Shepway with parking meters, it is not surprising that at times it seems that every square metre of Shepway has its price. In future elections, the voters of Romney Marsh should not allow them to forget any of this.
Slightly more reassuring is that the idea has been criticised by the leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, as well as by local MP, Damian Collins. They can see the potential for lost votes throughout the county, as well as the prospect of towns and villages in Kent becoming transport gateways for nuclear waste. Furthermore, this is south-east England - not the middle of nowhere. Transporting highly radioactive waste through largely populated areas lacks the most basic of common sense.
Nuclear waste is not the answer to Shepway's employment woes. The best thing Shepway's councillors can do is to retreat from this proposal and return with an inspirational idea for regenerating the district.
Links:
Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party: http://www.shepwaylabour.org.uk
Proposal website: http://www.romneymarshnrdf.org.uk/
The scheme has already been met with a great deal of political and local opposition. The argument put forward by the council is that the new construction would offset the loss of jobs when the Dungeness nuclear power stations are decommissioned. As a Labour member, more often than not I warmly welcome job creation initiatives, but not at a dangerously large environmental cost.
The Secretrary for the Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party, Peter Wallace, succinctly argues that the plan "shows the lack of ambition Shepway Council has for our area". We live in a wonderful eclectic region, with stunning landscapes, plenty of transport hubs and a lengthy coastline. There is scope for so much more creativity for the region.
Work on the dump would not be scheduled to begin until 2025 and the site would not be ready until 2040, so the dump would not address current problems. What could possibly be the incentive for such a scheme? This is not an easy question to answer without a healthy dose of cynicism. We should all see that it is highly selfish to believe the solution to today's economic and employment woes is to leave a gift for our children and grandchildren that they will not thank us for. According to the project's website, the land could be farmed after it has completed its working life, but it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to do so.
We have an assurance from Alistair Stewart, chief executive of Shepway District Council, that if the public reject the proposal then that will be the end of the proposal. There will be a consultation with local residents - thousands of newsletters have already been sent. It is difficult to expect people to respond to the question of "would you like a nuclear dump in your vicinity?" with anything other than the negative. In event of public rejection, do the proposals go into the dump instead of the hazardous nuclear waste, or do the councillors set to work on Plan B, making a further attempt to win support?
This proposal demonstrates the problem with a distinct lack of political plurality in the district. 44 of the 46 councillors in Shepway District Council are Conservatives. It is this dominance of the party in charge that allows them to propose the sort of developments that many other councils would not dare mention. The council's official claim to have 'no formal view' about the proposal is a cop-out. To have taken the trouble to launch a website, set up presentations and spent money on newsletters, all combine to imply a support for the scheme.
They are clearly willing to take a flutter on a positive outcome of their consultation. When this is considered in the context of their recent attempt to flood Shepway with parking meters, it is not surprising that at times it seems that every square metre of Shepway has its price. In future elections, the voters of Romney Marsh should not allow them to forget any of this.
Slightly more reassuring is that the idea has been criticised by the leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, as well as by local MP, Damian Collins. They can see the potential for lost votes throughout the county, as well as the prospect of towns and villages in Kent becoming transport gateways for nuclear waste. Furthermore, this is south-east England - not the middle of nowhere. Transporting highly radioactive waste through largely populated areas lacks the most basic of common sense.
Nuclear waste is not the answer to Shepway's employment woes. The best thing Shepway's councillors can do is to retreat from this proposal and return with an inspirational idea for regenerating the district.
Links:
Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party: http://www.shepwaylabour.org.uk
Proposal website: http://www.romneymarshnrdf.org.uk/
Friday, 18 May 2012
Warsi right to call for race debate on abuse case
I have never agreed with the Tories' mouthpiece, Baroness Warsi, on anything, but they allow her to speak so often it had to happen eventually. Warsi has made a huge and admirable statement on the subject of how white girls are perceived by a small minority of Pakistani men. The comments come following the jailing of nine men for abusing young girls in Rochdale. As a daughter of Pakistani migrants herself, it is a bold declaration.
It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.
I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.
Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.
Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.
When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.
Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.
It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.
I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.
Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.
Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.
When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.
Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Premier League review: my thanks to City and United for an amazing season
What an end to the football season. What a story. Those two injury time goals for Manchester City, as they belatedly snatched the win they needed against Queens Park Rangers to win the Premier League title, was an incredible end to the most captivating football season in years. At that precise moment, the money poured into the club became a mere footnote. The story was bigger than that. It was a reminder the most important thing in football is what happens on the pitch, rather than in boardrooms.
It is for that reason the Newcastle fans have warmed to Alan Pardew, and have less to say about their controversial owner, Mike Ashley, than they once may have. It is for that reason the Blackburn fans despised Steve Kean and wanted him out, then went quiet for a bit when results picked up, before going into meltdown as they saw their Premier League status slip away.
Football is the people's game. It is a never ending story, of which a new chapter has just been completed and another is just starting. With that new chapter, it is also the first time in years that I want the next season to start straight away. Forget the play-off finals. Forget Euro 2012. Forget pre-season friendlies. I cannot wait for season 2012/13. I can only hope it is at least fractionally as good as the last.
Aguero's run which carved up the deep QPR defence, and his strike which won the title, will live in our memories for years. It concluded the closest finish to a top flight-season since 1989, a whole three years before football was officially invented by the FA Premier League in 1992 (yes, football did actually exist before then). 1989 was a bitter-sweet time to follow the game because of a mix of crowd disturbances and disaster with a more tactile and engaging experience as a fan. I never thought I would feel the excitement of a final day of any Premier League season as I did back in 1989.
That day, football was free on (and I am trusting my memory with this part) ITV. Furthermore, (and I am trusting my memory again here) the end of the season fixture between Liverpool and Arsenal was delayed due to Liverpool's piling up of fixtures following the Hillsborough disaster of the same year. English football needed the last day of the season to deliver, and deliver it did. Michael Thomas broke clear of the Liverpool defence to score a last minute goal for Arsenal which sent the title to Highbury.
A whole 23 years later, and the Premier League finally delivered the goods. Manchester City went into the final day of the season only needing to match Manchester United's score to win the title at the expense of their hated local rivals. United faced a tricky away visit to Sunderland. City faced relegation-threatened QPR at home. No surprise then that the United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, declared City as having "two hands on the title."
It was never going to be as simple as that. QPR themselves needed a result to make absolutely sure of the Premier League survival. United have a habit of succeeding in what Arsene Wenger described as the "money time" - a reference to the endgame when those with the winning mentality step up and triumph. This is equally as applicable to injury time in matches (often known as "Fergie time" due to Manchester United's tendency to get plenty of it in matches and grab winning results in this time) as it is to crucial points of the season.
City on the other hand had developed a losers' mentality during over 40 years of failure. They were the ones with the tendency to lose matches in Fergie time. They were the ones who had been to football's version of hell (League One, in today's money) and back. They were the ones with the uncanny ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. To put it simply, they were the complete opposite to their multi-title winning neighbours from Trafford. Out of this discourse emerges pessimism. This pessimism can on occasions transmit to players, even if they are reluctant to admit it. On the day of the title decider, the impression I got was City fans were cautious about their prospects of finally winning the league.
What they needed was an early goal. It never came. QPR had opted for a strategy where most of the players were not just camped in their own half, but in their own 18-yard box, with the hope that they might just snatch something at the other end during a rare breakaway. This stifled City. The fans' jitters were worsened by news that United had taken the lead at Sunderland. Those jitters were briefly calmed by a rare goal from Pablo Zabaleta in the 39th minute. His fizzy shot proved difficult to handle for QPR goalkeeper, Paddy Kenny, who could only flick it into the net. The news of the goal was transmitted to United support by the Sunderland fans gleefully singing "1-0 to the City boys," to the tune of Go West by The Village People.
The relief was short lived, as QPR regained parity early in the second half. Joleon Lescott did his Euro 2012 prospects no good whatsover with some poor defending which allowed Djibril Cisse to pounce and level the scores. City fans could not believe it. Manchester United fans could not believe it. I could not believe it. What was on paper a straightforward task for City became something altogether more complicated, in keeping with City tradition.
City seemed to get the space they desperately needed when Joey Barton decided to behave as Joey Barton does, by getting himself sent off under provocation from Carlos Tevez. Regardless of how much provocation was involved, punching and kicking anyone in sight is not the way to stay on a football field.
In typical City fashion, they proceeded to make beating a 10-man relegation battling outfit at home look difficult. QPR went further ahead in yet another rare attack, to the incredulity of fans on both sides of Manchester. The title was swinging United's way. Tears and despair started to rain down on Eastlands. As the match went into injury time, I brazenly tweeted my congratulations to United, and how the last day failure was so typically Manchester City and that QPR manager, Mark Hughes, had served his revenge stone cold on the club that sacked him. Then, came the unimaginable.
The two injury time goals by Edin Dzeko and Sergio Aguero formed the late twist that all good stories should have. Despair became delight for the City fans at Eastlands. Manchester City had won the title in the most exciting way imaginable, and won many new friends in the process. Years of negative energy were erased in three glorious minutes. For QPR, it was relief that results elsewhere had gone their way. Again, the news filtered through to United fans through phones, radios and gloating Sunderland supporters. In a show of maturity, Wayne Rooney was the first to acknowledge the terrific support of the United fans.
On one hand, I could not believe what I had witnessed. On the other hand, I was not completely shocked, because of the capability of The Beautiful Game to surprise and enthrall. It was clear then, I was still trying to comprehend the magnificence and the enormity of what had just occurred at Eastlands. Firstly, the anticipation of a new name on the Premier League trophy. Then, the unraveling of City and an indication that United were set to edge things yet again. Finally, the most memorable last five minutes of a football season. Many thanks to the entire cast that made the great show possible.
It is for that reason the Newcastle fans have warmed to Alan Pardew, and have less to say about their controversial owner, Mike Ashley, than they once may have. It is for that reason the Blackburn fans despised Steve Kean and wanted him out, then went quiet for a bit when results picked up, before going into meltdown as they saw their Premier League status slip away.
Football is the people's game. It is a never ending story, of which a new chapter has just been completed and another is just starting. With that new chapter, it is also the first time in years that I want the next season to start straight away. Forget the play-off finals. Forget Euro 2012. Forget pre-season friendlies. I cannot wait for season 2012/13. I can only hope it is at least fractionally as good as the last.
Aguero's run which carved up the deep QPR defence, and his strike which won the title, will live in our memories for years. It concluded the closest finish to a top flight-season since 1989, a whole three years before football was officially invented by the FA Premier League in 1992 (yes, football did actually exist before then). 1989 was a bitter-sweet time to follow the game because of a mix of crowd disturbances and disaster with a more tactile and engaging experience as a fan. I never thought I would feel the excitement of a final day of any Premier League season as I did back in 1989.
That day, football was free on (and I am trusting my memory with this part) ITV. Furthermore, (and I am trusting my memory again here) the end of the season fixture between Liverpool and Arsenal was delayed due to Liverpool's piling up of fixtures following the Hillsborough disaster of the same year. English football needed the last day of the season to deliver, and deliver it did. Michael Thomas broke clear of the Liverpool defence to score a last minute goal for Arsenal which sent the title to Highbury.
A whole 23 years later, and the Premier League finally delivered the goods. Manchester City went into the final day of the season only needing to match Manchester United's score to win the title at the expense of their hated local rivals. United faced a tricky away visit to Sunderland. City faced relegation-threatened QPR at home. No surprise then that the United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, declared City as having "two hands on the title."
It was never going to be as simple as that. QPR themselves needed a result to make absolutely sure of the Premier League survival. United have a habit of succeeding in what Arsene Wenger described as the "money time" - a reference to the endgame when those with the winning mentality step up and triumph. This is equally as applicable to injury time in matches (often known as "Fergie time" due to Manchester United's tendency to get plenty of it in matches and grab winning results in this time) as it is to crucial points of the season.
City on the other hand had developed a losers' mentality during over 40 years of failure. They were the ones with the tendency to lose matches in Fergie time. They were the ones who had been to football's version of hell (League One, in today's money) and back. They were the ones with the uncanny ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. To put it simply, they were the complete opposite to their multi-title winning neighbours from Trafford. Out of this discourse emerges pessimism. This pessimism can on occasions transmit to players, even if they are reluctant to admit it. On the day of the title decider, the impression I got was City fans were cautious about their prospects of finally winning the league.
What they needed was an early goal. It never came. QPR had opted for a strategy where most of the players were not just camped in their own half, but in their own 18-yard box, with the hope that they might just snatch something at the other end during a rare breakaway. This stifled City. The fans' jitters were worsened by news that United had taken the lead at Sunderland. Those jitters were briefly calmed by a rare goal from Pablo Zabaleta in the 39th minute. His fizzy shot proved difficult to handle for QPR goalkeeper, Paddy Kenny, who could only flick it into the net. The news of the goal was transmitted to United support by the Sunderland fans gleefully singing "1-0 to the City boys," to the tune of Go West by The Village People.
The relief was short lived, as QPR regained parity early in the second half. Joleon Lescott did his Euro 2012 prospects no good whatsover with some poor defending which allowed Djibril Cisse to pounce and level the scores. City fans could not believe it. Manchester United fans could not believe it. I could not believe it. What was on paper a straightforward task for City became something altogether more complicated, in keeping with City tradition.
City seemed to get the space they desperately needed when Joey Barton decided to behave as Joey Barton does, by getting himself sent off under provocation from Carlos Tevez. Regardless of how much provocation was involved, punching and kicking anyone in sight is not the way to stay on a football field.
In typical City fashion, they proceeded to make beating a 10-man relegation battling outfit at home look difficult. QPR went further ahead in yet another rare attack, to the incredulity of fans on both sides of Manchester. The title was swinging United's way. Tears and despair started to rain down on Eastlands. As the match went into injury time, I brazenly tweeted my congratulations to United, and how the last day failure was so typically Manchester City and that QPR manager, Mark Hughes, had served his revenge stone cold on the club that sacked him. Then, came the unimaginable.
The two injury time goals by Edin Dzeko and Sergio Aguero formed the late twist that all good stories should have. Despair became delight for the City fans at Eastlands. Manchester City had won the title in the most exciting way imaginable, and won many new friends in the process. Years of negative energy were erased in three glorious minutes. For QPR, it was relief that results elsewhere had gone their way. Again, the news filtered through to United fans through phones, radios and gloating Sunderland supporters. In a show of maturity, Wayne Rooney was the first to acknowledge the terrific support of the United fans.
On one hand, I could not believe what I had witnessed. On the other hand, I was not completely shocked, because of the capability of The Beautiful Game to surprise and enthrall. It was clear then, I was still trying to comprehend the magnificence and the enormity of what had just occurred at Eastlands. Firstly, the anticipation of a new name on the Premier League trophy. Then, the unraveling of City and an indication that United were set to edge things yet again. Finally, the most memorable last five minutes of a football season. Many thanks to the entire cast that made the great show possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)