Tattoos.

We have seen in the last couple of years how tattoos have become more popular and  acceptable. This is due in the main by high profile "celebrities" adorning various parts of their bodies with all manner of messages, designs and images. I read a good article in today's Express by Simon Edge who describes tattoos as "fashion's ugly accessories". I could not agree more. When you get the likes of David Beckham and his wife, Robbie Williams and numerous others sporting tattoos, you will always get an army of followers doing the same. I always remember my dad saying to me when I was young, whatever you do don't ever get a tattoo. He always regretted getting some in his youth, because he said "what might look good now, will look stupid when you get older". The trouble with tattoos, despite what some people say, is that you cannot get rid of them. Laser treatment is expensive and will leave you with scars. That is why I cannot understand anybody having tattoos on their face. In the Express article, fashion expert Hannah Sandling said ­“Tattoos are like bad clothes and having a tattoo stuck to my body for the rest of my life is like going round with the same jumper on for ever. What looks good on one person may not ­necessarily look good on another. Some rock stars may pull them off with style but for others that same tattoo may end up looking like a bad-taste Seventies carpet and what happens when your skin loses its youth? Do you honestly think the grubby-looking carpet you’ve been carrying around for the past 40 years is going to look any better?” What I want to know is, what happens when tattoos lose their appeal and become a fashion faux pas. Are we going to see masses of people bombarding their GP's or local NHS hospitals demanding that their body markings be removed at tax-payers expense? Unlike the celebrities, who no doubt will be able to afford to make their own arrangements, whereas the ordinary punter will have to put up with it. The tattoo artists should make the most of their current popularity, because I can see in the not to far distant future, the emergence of the "no win, no fee" personal injury lawyers championing their client's claims that they were drunk or drugged and not in control of their senses, as an excuse to claim compensation. They will argue that their client's have suffered emotional and psychological damage as a result of having their bodies desecrated. I say, if you chose to have one/some done, then you have no one else to blame but yourself. End of.

Short of something to do this Bank Holiday weekend?

If you are I have got the perfect solution. On Good Friday, Blackpool are playing Scunthorpe United at Glanford Park, kick off 3pm. Then on Easter Monday, the Seasiders will be at home to near rivals Doncaster Rovers, kick-off again is 3pm. With only six matches remaining this season, with a possible 18 points up for grabs, it could turn out to be one of the best ends to the season Blackpool have experienced since promotion to the Championship. Scunthorpe are still not safe from relegation and so will be fighting for their Championship lives. On the other hand, Doncaster like Blackpool are pushing hard for an outside chance of a play-off place. They are currently one place behind us with two points less than us. They also have Billy Sharp, ex Scunthorpe, ex Sheffield Utd, playing on-loan to them, who always manages to score against us. They also have Jay Emmanuel-Thomas on-loan from Arsenal, who we had on-loan here at the start of the season. For us he was a bit hit and miss and split the fans opinions of him right down the middle. I think this was the main factor he did not return to us after Christmas but chose to go to Doncaster instead. He has certainly been one of their better players and one we will have to keep an eye on. We have sold all out ticket allocation for the Scunthorpe match, but you can pay on the gate on the day of the match. I should expect there to be a bumper crowd at Bloomfield Rd on Monday, so get down if you can, it should be a cracking match. COME ON YOU POOL.

Trial without jury. Right or wrong?

For the first time in 350 years Britain had a trial without a jury. The case involved 4 men accused along with others of the £1.75m armed robbery, at the Menzies World Cargo warehouse at Heathrow in February 2004. Three previous trials collapsed due to a number of reasons, including alleged jury tampering. The prosecution, fearing the same might happen in the next trial, successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal to allow an unprecedented trial without a jury in England and Wales. The Appeal Court agreed there was a "real and present" danger of jury tampering, and considered that even a £6m package of protective measures by the police would not prevent it. Despite defence objections that they had not been provided with any evidence of jury interference, the first jury-less trial went ahead. Trial number four started in January 2010 at the Royal Courts of Justice with Mr Justice Treacy in charge.  

At the end of the trial Mr Justice Treacy did not give the usual summing up as there was no jury present to remind of the facts.
"The time has come for me to consider my verdicts and deliver a reasoned judgement," he simply said - and left court for an undisclosed period.
With no days lost due to jury sickness the whole trial had taken place in less than half the time of the previous trials - just three months rather than six.

But the costs of this series of trials is said to have risen to more than £20m. In the end Mr Justice Treacy found all four men guilty of the charges and would pass sentences later.

With jury tampering being a major problem with cases like this or for the more complicated fraud cases where jurors are expected to sit through months of legal and intricate submissions, surely trial without juries must be welcomed?

But could this set a precedent, whereby defendents could automatically be convicted of a crime? The legal right for trial by jury was a hard fought one and one which should not be given up lightly, but do we need to make exceptions with certain types of crime?

Redemption charges.

What is the justification of Banks and Building Societies  slapping a redemption charge on you if you choose to settle a mortgage or loan  before the end of agreed period? Even more so if the financial institution has been taken into public ownership. I ask this, because I recently requested a settlement figure from  my building society (who had millions of taxpayers money pumped into it to stop it collapsing)  so that I would know exactly how much equity I would be left with once my house has been sold. Imagine my disappointment when I received a letter stating that besides an early redemption charge, I would also have to pay 3 months interest and a Discharge of Mortgage fee. Once they had all been totalled up the figure came to an extra £5,000. Sickening, when you consider they charge you interest for everyday the mortgage is outstanding.  Are these charges justified or not? What do you think?

Prisoner compensation.

Apparently the child killer Ian Huntley, who was allegedly attacked by  fellow inmate Damien Fowkes in Frankland prison last Sunday, could be entitled to compensation. Huntley's lawyer has indicated that his client could sue the Ministry of Justice for up to £20,000 for not protecting him whilst in their "care". This is not the first time Huntley has been attacked in prison and not the first time he has sought compensation. The previous occasion was when he scalded by hot water in 2005. The present Justice Secretary Jack Straw answering a Parliamentary question about the latest attack was quoted as saying "I can say to this House as an absolute fact that it would be robustly, vigorously resisted by this government, and we have absolutely no intention of making such compensation payments." Let's hope he does just that. The idea of Huntley, or any convicted criminal being able to get any form of compensation whilst in prison does not deserve to be given any thought whatsoever. First of all, any form of financial gain is an insult to the victim's families. Secondly, if claims were to become successful what's to stop inmates conspiring together to stage a mock  attack so that they can go down the compensation route. After all prisoners have plenty of time to plan what to do, especially if they have nothing to lose. The majority would be entitled to Legal Aid, paid for by hard working tax-payers. Imagine this type of thing happening elsewhere in the world, where human life is less important. I am not saying that we should go down the flogging, decapitating, capital punishment route, but I do think that once you have been convicted of a crime that justifies a prison sentence, you fore-go any rights you are entitled to on the outside. The general public are sick of hearing about prisoner's rights and not enough about the victim's rights. Let's hope the judiciary and politicians remember this.

Blackpool v Crystal Palace

Following on from the midweek reserve game, Blackpool were host to Paul Hart's Crystal Palace yesterday. Hopes were high with the home fans of a far better display against a side currently fighting relegation, following a 10 point deduction after going into administration. The Jimmy Armfield south stand was officially opened by club President, Valery Belekon, Owen Oyston and Chairman Karl Oyston prior to the kick-off. The game attracted 9,702 fans including 631 Palace fans. Manager Holloway made several changes from the side beaten by Sheffield United earlier in the week. In came on-loan Everton defender Seamus Coleman, Dobbie, Husband for the injured Vaughan, along with Clarke and Bannan. Out went Campbell, Ormerod, Eardley and Edwards. Ollie has not been frightened of ringing the changes in the past if he thought players were underperforming and on the whole it's worked out right for him. Unfortunately, Saturday's game back-fired on him very quickly. The numerous changes seemed to disrupt Pool's composure. Similar to the Blades game the Seasiders again got off to the worst possible start, with Palace scoring within 3 minutes, through a scrappy goal from Nick Carle. The ball seemed to take an age to dribble past an uncharacteristically flat-footed Baptiste who was positioned on the goal line. This gave Palace the confidence to take the game to the home side. It seemed to get worse for the Seasiders as the first half went on, the players looked at sixes and sevens not knowing how to break down the visitors. We were getting more and more frustrated watching a truly awful performance, which it got worse on the 33rd minute when Darren Ambrose made it 2-nil. He managed to control a bouncing ball and knocked it through Matt Gilks' legs. Palace were getting more dangerous and Alan Lee went close to making it 3-0. Holloway decided a change was needed and brought on Ben Burgess for the disappointing Stephen Husband. Burgess gave the attack an option they lacked with the height he gave. It came as no surprise when the home crowd showed their displeasure by booing their side off at half time. Obviously reeling from an Ollie half time team talk, the Seasiders took the initiative and got an early goal back through good work by Billy Clarke who passed to Dobbie, who in turn laid it off for Charlie Adam to hammer home. A massive sigh of relief was felt all around the home crowd, including the players. They began to relax more and started to control the game. Ollie introduced the hard working Brett Ormerod, who in my opinion should never have been left out of the team. This guy gives 100% every game and at 32 shows a lot of the younger players up. He also brought on Gary Taylor-Fletcher, which was his first game since coming back from injury. But despite Pool's dominance an equaliser was proving illusive. It finally came in 89th minute when Ian Evatt headed the ball into Burgess's path who scrambled the ball over the line at the second attempt. This caused the home crowd to erupt into unashamed euphoria. The referee allowed 4 extra minutes, which saw efforts by Dobbie and Ormerod being cleared off the line by a desperate and shocked Palace side. It ended 2-2, which at half time looked impossible. Did we deserve to win? I think not, because of a very poor first half. The referee was Phil Gibbs, who I have to say was far too fussy and pedantic and along with the condition of the ground made the game hard work. I think Saturday's result proved we are too inconsistent to get promoted this season, but credit should be given to the manager and players for the progress we have made. with seven more games to go, a top ten position is well within our reach. Let's hope we finish above our arch enemy PNE, because that alone will be such a sweet feeling.

Are there any good estate agents out there??

I ask this question because I am currently trying to sell my house via an on-line estate agent, which is far cheaper than the high street version. The conventional estate agents all say theirs are the best and provide statistical charts to back their claims up. Unfortunately past experience in selling my homes have disproved their fanciful claims. So if there is an estate agent out there who can prove to me they have the capabilities to successfully sell my house, let them get in touch and I will gladly pass over my business to them. I await to hear from you.

The Jimmy Armfield stand opens.

The long awaited Jimmy Armfield South Stand was unveiled last night for the Seasiders reserve team's game against Rochdale reserves. This was because the local Council's Licensing Authority would not allow the stand to be officially open this coming Saturday unless the stand's safety issues were tested. The club anounced that it needed at least 500 fans to turn up last night so that they could meet the council's request. As a good will gesture the club made the admission free of charge. It also gave the fans the opportunity to see for themselves what the new facilities would be like. In response to the club's request more than 1600 fans turned up, which must have had the right effect, because the Pool's second string ran out 8-1 winners. The scorers were Dobbie 3, Demontagnac, Clarke, Bangura, Evatt and Bannan. It was also good to see the return of referee Mark Halsey, who returned to officiating after successful throat cancer surgery. Although the atmosphere is more subdued at reserve games the fans showed their appreciation throughout the game. At least now the south stand is in operation the away fans will be housed in the North Stand, with any overspill fans using the current "Gene Kelly" east stand. It was nicknamed after the famous song and dance star, because with it having no roof the away fans had to resort to " singing in the rain". Also, with the away fans being housed under cover the noise they make should increase the atmosphere even more. Let's hope Ollie and the boys make Saturday's game against Crystal Palace one to remember, for all the right reasons and that we can make a late surge into the play-off positions.

Is 2010 a good time to buy a house?

Well, with house price values slowing down you would think there's never been a better time to buy. So, what is stopping people buying? The biggest obstacle is the availability of adquate funds i.e. affordable sizable mortgages. First time buyers are the lifeblood of any housing market, but getting onto the property ladder for them is proving too difficult. Lenders are now being ultra-cautious after years of mortgage give-aways. Gone are the days when Banks, Building Societies and other financial institutions would bombard you with unlimited offers. Everyday you would receive advertisements offering fix-rate mortgages, 100% loans, 4 to 6 times your annual salary, that is until the US market blew its financial gasket and the repercussions were felt worldwide. Toxic debt suddenly became a problem for all governments. Perhaps this finally made everyone come to their senses and made people think that the boom in property prices were more harmful than good. The downside to this is of course is a stagnation of the sale of properties. Yes, houses are still being bought, but not at the levels needed to stimulate the market. We are experiencing the difficulty first hand of our daughter trying to get onto the property ladder. She needs to be able to produce a minimum deposit of between £7k to £10k to even get started. That takes a great deal of time and effort to achieve. Even then her salary has to be around the £25k per annum mark to be able to meet her monthly repayments. Unfortunately, she meets neither criteria at the present time. So our idea is to try and sell our current property enabling us to downsize and  so hopefully be able to release some funding for her. But like a lot of sellers, we cannot move forward until a buyer is found and so the process slows even further. I think a lot will hinge on who forms the next government and what their policies will be and what further impact it will have on the housing market. Will the Bank of England keep interests low, because fear of any increase will further slow down the housing market? Stamp duty tax is another thing that stunts house sales going forward and which is hated by everyone except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nobody wants to pay over inflated prices for property, which has happened in the past, what we want is sensible pricing being achieved, which should help things to get moving. People should also take more responsibility about how much they can realistically afford to borrow. That way confidence should slowly return and  repossessions be reduced. Have you any ideas of what the government can do to improve the housing market, if anything?

Children's Commissioner's comments.

It seems Maggie Atkinson, the new Children's Commissioner, has added fuel to the fire, regarding the Jon Venables affair. She is quoted as saying that "The age of criminal responsibility in this country is ten - that's too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12. In some European countries it is 14." She also claimed we are in "danger of criminalising too many children and young people by locking them up for committing far less serious crimes". Little did she know what a furore her comments would make. Why she chose now to come out with her remarks can only be described as insensitive. Time and time again the general public hear stories about kids seemingly getting away with all kinds of anti-social behaviour. So raising the age of responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age just adds to public concern. Following the backlash her comments caused, Dr.Atkinson tried to distance herself by saying "I wish to be clear and to put into context my views on such terrible atrocities. Some children and young people do commit terrible crimes and are a danger to themselves and to others". She added "It is right, therefore, that these children are contained in secure settings as in the case of James Bulger's killers and more recently the horrific case in Edlington. I empathise with the pain and anguish felt by all the families of the victims involved.Children who carry out such atrocities and other serious offences need to understand the severity of their actions. They should undertake intense programmes appropriate to their age in secure facilities where they are helped to make positive and lasting changes to their behaviour". Not matter how well meaning she thought she was being, her comments have increased the anxiety many people feel about youngsters rights being more important than their own. On a final note, children are aware from a very early age of what is right and wrong, even in the most dysfunctional households.

Music is ageless.

I think most people have an eclectic choice of music. That's why I think music is ageless and  why each type of music has its own attraction. My biggest influences have been Black Soul music, particularly Tamla Motown,  Rythmn and Blues and Rock. I loved listening to Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett, Sam & Dave, Sam Cooke, The Temptations, The Supremes before Diana Ross took over the lead mantle. For me the Rolling Stones stand out miles ahead of the field in rythmn & blues. Status Quo also rank highly in my list of great groups. Eric Clapton is also highly thought of too, as is Oasis (sadly no longer, but never say never), the Kings of Leon, Coldplay, Chilli Peppers, The Killers. Solo singers include Robbie Williams, who always manages to come back with a different style. Even Tom Jones is an exceptional soul singer and can easily blast out the old soul classics. All time favourite females include Tina Turner, Elke Brookes and Areatha Franklyn. This list, as they say is not exhaustive and by no means includes everyone who I like, because there are far too many, including a whole host of classical artists and composers. Long live the variety of music.

Responsibility is a long word, but too often forgotten.

What a sad indictment of society in Britain today, which allows groups of feral youths to harass and torment defenceless people without restraint. The case of David Askew, a 64 year old man with the mental age of 10, highlights how he and his family have been let down by the authorities. Apparently they have been victims of abuse by gangs in the area for the last 10 years culminating in the tragic death of Mr Askew on Wednesday. Gang culture is not solely a British problem, but a worldwide one. Being a member of a gang might give a person a sense of belonging, but with that comes an expectation to prove you are worthy of inclusion to the gang. That usually means a constant "highering of the bar" as far as proof is needed of your capability. There is a pressure put onto youths to be part of a "clique or gang" and to ignore the offer is seen as a insult and so you become a gang victim. Gangs who carry out campaigns of terror, usually pick on the most vulnerable, as in the case of Mr Askew. They know they are unable to fight back and are an easy target and so the reign of terror continues unabated until a tragedy occurs. There is no easy solution to this problem, which is made worse when we are constantly being told that the police are too overstretched to cope and that our prisons are overflowing. Judges and Magistrates are being urged not to send non-violent offenders to prison because they are full. Society will only change if the people take ownership of their RESPONSIBILTIES. Until then, society will not be able to change. Have we all become a nation of bystanders, watching crime take place and not helping to stop it? For a children's sake, let's hope not.

That's golf for you.

"Why don't you play golf with Jim any more?", Fred's wife asked. "Well would you play with someone who moves his ball to a better position when you're not looking, who deliberately coughs half-way through your back-swing and who lies about their handicap?" " Well, no I wouldn't" said his wife. "Neither will Jim".

Why do we British struggle at world sport?

It's a question I constantly ask myself. Take the Davis Cup for instance. Despite millions of pounds being pumped into tennis development in the UK, our Davis Cup squad, minus Andy Murray have slumped down the world ratings following our recent defeat by Lithuania. We are now in danger of playing our tennis at a level equivalent to  what could only described as the non-league standard of football. But tennis is not the only sport we struggle at. The summer and winter Olympic games are at times embarrassing for our teams, although we did better than we have ever done at the last summer games, which is encouraging. Is our lack of success down to lack of talent or lack of proper funding? The United States, Australia, Germany all have a winning mentality and yet we, despite plenty of effort fall way short of their endeavours. We have the football World Cup finals coming up this year in South Africa and our hopes of progressing to the latter stages of the competition are better than usual. That is unless we fall foul (pardon the pun) to the dreaded penalty shoot-out competition, of which we are notoriously bad at, going out of competitions on more than one occasion. Should we provide adequate funding for up and coming British athletes of all sports with a scholarship similar to other countries or is the money spent on such things a vote killer for politicians? I would like to see  sport being actively encouraged and promoted more in schools. I saw the demise of these types of activities when I was at school years ago, whereby you would have a Headteacher with no sporting interests, running down (again pardon the pun) sports facilities. I think sporting activities in schools is essential for the well being and development of children, but competition seems to be a no-go area for some authorities these days. Still, I will try to remain optimist and look forward to the day when the UK start leading the field (oops, there I go again) in every sport they enter or am I being delusional? Anybody agree or disagree or got any ideas how we can improve?

Joke.

The Prison Governor was doing his daily morning rounds of the hospital ward, when he came across an inmate sitting on the floor sawing an imaginary piece of wood, while another inmate was dangling from the ceiling by his feet. "What are you doing?" the Governor asked the first inmate. "Can't you see, I'm sawing this piece of wood in half" he replied. "So what's he doing dangling from the ceiling?"  asked the Governor. "Oh he's barmy, he thinks he's a light bulb" said the inmate. "Well he's going red in the face hanging there, don't you think you should tell him to get down before he hurts himself?" replied the Governor. "What and work in the dark?"

Free speech?

There was me thinking that free speech was alive and well in the UK. That was until I decided to contribute to the BBC's Have your Say column, which had the title  "Should the public be told why Jon Venables has been recalled to prison?" I gave what I thought to be a balanced account on why I thought that the information about his recall should not be released into the public domain. Here is the exact copy of what I posted.

Venables has obviously done something serious enough for him to be recalled back to prison. If so, there is a very good chance he will have to face another trial. If the public are told the reasons for his recall any future trial would be compromised. I personally do not see why the exact details of his recall should be made available. If he was stupid enough to breach his bail conditions then he should be prepared to serve a longer sentence. What worries me is the frenzy the media can whip up with cases like this, which in turn brings out the very worst in human nature. You get the vigilanties, hell bent on reeking revenge on anyone they think is responsible, this could include family, partners or friends. Venables and Thompson served 8 years for their crime, which in Venables case was not enough. To any parent what they did was one of the worst types of crime imaginable, so releasing details of his recall would only make the matter worse.

I was warned that my comments could be classed as "Breach Contempt of Court laws" and because of this my comments were removed. What makes me laugh, is the fact that Jack Straw said when interviewed on television that Venables had done something serious for him to be recalled. So my faith in the BBC has been shaken by their over zealous reaction. Their reputation as being a soundboard for the ordinary man in the street has been damaged as far as I am concerned. I have therefore now removed my details from their records and in future will give their sites the widest of berths possible.

Sky TV.

Has the Sky organisation helped or ruined  sports coverage in the UK? Ok, they have pumped millions of pounds into the sports industry, none more so than the English Premier League. They introduced "pay per view" television, which meant you had to become a subscriber if you wanted to see  sport whereas years ago the general public could watch all the leading sporting activities free and unhindered. I do not deny they have revolutionised the way we can access sporting events, but there is a little of me that hankers for the old way of viewing. I was a Sky subscriber for a number of years, but no longer, because I felt I was being exploited by them. Despite paying over £70.00 per month for my Sky package, I was also being asked to pay "Box Office" fees when I wanted to watch live boxing. Add to this a call out fee of £68.00 should my system breakdown just added insult to injury. I also feel a bit miffed that I can no longer see domestic, Test Match and international cricket live without paying Sky. The once wonderful FA Cup Final has now lost the significance it once had, by I think, a purposeful strategy by Sky to promote other competitions in its place. Football clubs are being asked to change fixture dates to accommodate Sky's schedules, something that angers the fans who book tickets in advance of the games. Some fans also book hotel accommodation too, which in turn are disrupted by changes. I am not naive enough to believe we will ever go back to what we once had prior to Sky's dominance, but I hope the monopoly they currently enjoy is curbed sooner rather than later.

Are prisons working?

What do we want our prisons to do? Do we want them to be places of punishment or places of rehabilitation or a mixture of both? Having worked in prisons several years ago I know first hand the problems that exist there. The different regimes, the different type of prisoner, the lack of suitable facilities for training and the shortage of qualified trainers. There is also the question of overcrowding in prisons, which has always been a problem despite efforts to reduce the inmate population. I think the general public  have a growing concern about how much of a deterrent prison is these days. Everyday we hear stories from the media highlighting the luxuries inmates have and how they are living the life of Riley. Let me assure you, the reality of life in prison is far from that. Most prisoners I found, just wanted to keep their head down, do their bird and get out as quickly as possible. The recidivist criminals are a different problem. Prison is a way of life to them, something that gives them an identity that they otherwise would not have. Rehabilitation is looked upon by them as a distraction to their day to day activities. For any first time offender prison life is a traumatic experience and most never re-offend. This is where rehabilitation should be paramount, so that something useful can be achieved whilst they are doing their sentence. There is no simple solution to how we deal with crime and punishment, especially in light of the Jon Venables case, which has resurrected all the horrors of the Jamie Bulger murder. Should he have been released so soon? Obviously not, but his counterpart Thompson, appears to have learnt how to conform to society. There is a clamour now for details to be released of why he was recalled to prison. Personally I don't feel they should be. He has obviously commited a serious enough offence to trigger off a return to prison, so there is every likelihood he will have to face another trial. That's when the details should be released, so that any future trial is not compromised. So, the question is, do we have a return to a more  austere type of prison regime, so that it is seen as a true place of punishment or do we increase the prison budget and build more prisons that have facilities to rehabilitate rather than punish prisoners? Whichever course we take, it is going to be a long process that needs careful thought to go into it rather than any knee-jerk reaction from politicians who have one eye on a forthcoming election. 

Smoking.

One thing that irritates the hell out of me is listening to smokers whinging about the smoking ban. They blame this on the demise of pubs, saying that since the ban was introduced more pubs have closed down than ever before. Absolute tosh. Do these misguided, arrogant so and so's think that everyone who likes to drink in a pub, smokes? WRONG. In fact the majority of pub goers do not smoke. It is now a pleasure to go into a pub, restaurant, cafe, cinema, football match, theatre etc, etc, without being choked by some inconsiderate individual exhaling their poisonous fumes over everyone. What smokers fail to comprehend is how disgusting smoking is to non-smokers. Years ago I took on working behind the bar of a pub to supplement my income. I had split shifts especially at the weekend when I was expected to work 12noon to 2pm & 7pm to 10.30pm on Sunday. That meant once I finished the afternoon session I had to go home, shower and change my clothing ready for the evening shift. Not because I was dirty but because my clothes reeked of tobacco fumes. In fact I had to put the clothes straight into washing machine to stop the house smelling of stale fags. In addition to this I started with a very bad cough that I couldn't shake off. This was due to inhaling other people's smoke. Ugh. It was only after I left the job that the cough disappeared.Yet even now, we have idiots complaining that their rights are being contravened by the ban. What?? Our non-smoking rights have been contravened since time began. It only takes one selfish smoker to pollute a building, so imagine the effect when they congregate together and produce a large poisonous atmosphere. Another job I had was to help people with disabilities find employment. What annoyed me more than anything was when someone came in to see me complaining their disability was asthma and yet they would not give up smoking. They then went on to tell me what jobs they could not do because of their "disability". Suffice to say my efforts were channelled towards  the more genuine jobseekers and not the apologist smokers. What I find ridiculous is the extent some smokers go to have a quiet drag somewhere that they shouldn't. Yes I have smoked. I started from the age of 13 up until I was 24. It's not easy giving up, I tried several times before I finally succeeded, but it can be done if you are determined. What gave me the impetus to pack it in was because I was playing football and training regularly. I developed this persistent cough, which I couldn't get rid of. I thought to myself why am I trying to get fit and still smoking? The two just did not go together, so I packed it in and I have never smoked to this day. It is only when you stop smoking that you realise what effect it has on non-smokers and how uncomfortable it makes them feel. My father died from emphysema and my father-in-law died of lung cancer both as a direct result of smoking, so I know first hand what this horrible habit can do to people. So I applaud the decision to ban smoking from public places. The fact that pubs are shutting down at the rate they are is not down to the smoking ban, but more down to the fact that booze can be bought cheaper elsewhere and that our drinking habits have changed. Cafe-bars are the new meeting places. Too many pubs have failed to change and move forward. I have no sympathy whatsoever with smokers because like badly managed pubs they will die out sooner rather than later.

Kristian Digby.

I was saddened to hear of the untimely death of the television presenter Kristian Digby at the age of 32. What a waste of talent. He was a natural when it came to presenting property programmes on TV, including To Buy or Not to Buy. He even accomplished a long held wish of his to build his own house in East London last year, which was shown as a sequel to his other programme. He will be sadly missed by many, especially in our household.

RIP Kristian. 

House for Sale latest.

It is now 39 days since I put my mansion on the open market for sale and as yet I have not had a single person round to view it. I suppose when you use the internet to sell your house, you allow prospective buyers to view the property from a distance. Not only do you put all the details appertaining to the property but also add exterior and interior pictures too. Thus there is no need for them to visit your house personally. Like I have reported earlier this is the first time I have dispensed with the services of the traditional estate agent and gone for the cheaper, more cost effective, on-line estate agent. The only thing that the latter lacks is local knowledge and the ability to hold a list of prospective buyers in the area who they can canvas with your property details. But my main problem with high street estate agents is how do I know they actively promote my sale. I say this because I observe countless numbers of properties, which have been on the market for months and longer. Do they give up on these and hope the sellers try elsewhere? Who knows. I know it is still early days for me, but it is still a frustrating time waiting for someone to come along and buy. Even then the process could take weeks for the contracts to be exchanged. So I am going to have to dig deep into my reserves of patience and let things take their course, even though it is against my Aquarian nature to be patient. So come on you buyers, get yourself down here and make me an offer.

Bridge v Terry

Well the famous meeting of the two protagonists took place over the weekend when City played Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. As it turned out City came out it with all three points following their 4-1 win. Bridge made the decision earlier in the week of withdrawing from any participation in England's World Cup bid. This decision has split fans opinions on whether his decision was right or not. Personally, I think he has made the right choice, because it is not only the prospect of having play in the same side as Terry, but the fact he would have to spend time with him socially too, which could last a couple of months. For me, Terry represents a very poor role model for young fans, as does his other team mate Ashley Cole, the one player Bridge was asked to replace. Terry's arrogance in this sordid affair merits no praise at all and his reference to Bridge as being a "bottler" shows a complete lack of intelligence. This was the same Terry who a few years ago was involved in an unsavoury racist incident, which went to Crown Court. OK, the Chelsea fans who think he is God have their opinion, but for me taking aside his extra marital activities, I do not think he is that good a footballer, particularly at international level. In fact he looked very third rate against City, lacking any decent pace and being caught out time and time again. But that's enough about him and his Chelsea clique. Bridge on the other hand deserves a great deal of credit in the way he has gone about conducting himself. Not only has he had to endure his private life being emblazoned across the media, he has had to concentrate on his job too. OK, there are some TV pundits who think he could come to regret his decision not to play for England, especially as this looks like this is the best chance we have had since 1966 of going the whole way to the final. I still think he has done the right thing, because let's face it, if Cole recovers from his injury, which looks very likely, Bridge would only be as a back-up to him. Credit should also goes to him for making his decision in plenty of time for Capello to make alternative arrangements. Capello too should be given credit for the way he handled the captaincy situation, informing Terry that he thought he was unsuitable to lead the national team and going further by saying he would not regain the captaincy whilst he remained in charge. Hear, hear to that.