Oh great. Now I’ve got to defend Raheem Sterling

The winger is under fire – for a tattoo of a gun

Well thanks very much, instant reactors of the world. Now I’ve got to come to the defence of one the of slimiest, greediest, most loathsome individuals in the world – the Manchester City and London FC winger, Raheem Sterling. Fan-flipping-tastic.

It continues an apparent theme of this site. In recent times, I’ve come to the defence of Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn. Twice. It’s not always fun, but whenever anybody is being unfairly maligned or mistreated, whatever one thinks of them, one should always come to their defence.

So back to Sterling – I am loath to do this, as he is a repulsive, reptilian creature worthy of a career that spirals downwards towards ignominy and an eventual transfer to somewhere awful and humiliating like the Russian Second Division or the Scottish Third Division or Everton. Of course, these feelings of spite and bile are purely because he was a quality player who left Liverpool. I am unashamedly tribal in one aspect of life – football – and I shan’t be changing that. Indeed, if I ever met the guy I’d probably say hello and have a lovely chat. My football emotions aren’t to be taken seriously and I make no comment on the man’s character outside of football. The greedy little sod. Sorry.

So what has been his alleged crime? Mr Sterling posted a picture on Instagram that showed off his new tattoo – an M16 rifle on his lower right calf. This, safe to say, hasn’t gone down too well in this modern age of hand-wringing over guns, particularly big and scary ones, in the media.

The internet will always collapse in convulsive fits of spasmodic rage whenever any sportsperson does anything vaguely controversial

Now, I’m not going to make any comment on the offensiveness or not of his tattoo. Generally, with some exceptions, I find tattoos to be a bit of an eyesore anyway, but would never dream of telling anyone else what they should or should not have permanently etched onto their flesh. It’s not for me, but knock yourselves out if that’s what you want. Unless it contravenes a known law, you can show it off as much as you so desire.

He has explained its ‘deeper meaning’, which goes along the lines of it being a symbol against gun violence, owing to the fact that his father was himself murdered by a gunman. The positioning of it, on his right foot, symbolises the weapon that he uses to shoot with – not a gun, but his foot. again, think whatever you like about that, but its his decision and his tattoo.

It’s the reaction to it that’s got my back up. The internet will always collapse in convulsive fits of spasmodic rage whenever any sportsperson does anything vaguely controversial, and so that’s barely worth bothering with in terms of a rebuttal. But one particular reaction caught my eye and brought me here to write this defence of Mr Sterling.

A lady by the name of Lucy Cope, who founded Mothers Against Guns following the murder of her own son in 2002, gave the following statement:

“[The tattoo] is totally unacceptable. We demand he has the tattoo lasered off or covered up with a different tattoo. If he refuses, he should be dropped from the England team. He’s supposed to be a role model but chooses to glamorise guns.”

Could she not have ‘suggested‘ he cover it up? Might she not have ‘encouraged‘ him to think about removing it or changing it?

Now, I again make no comment on Ms. Cope, or her organisation. I know little about them. But I want to look at this statement and its purpose, because it seems to me extraordinary – an extreme overreaction with an unfortunate tone.

She is completely entitled to say that the tattoo is unacceptable. I take no issue with that – she can think whatever she likes and say whatever she likes in this regard, it is her opinion. Where she runs into trouble is the next phrase – “We demand…”

Ms. Cope makes a demand of a complete stranger that he either damages his body or hides it in shame. She then sets out the terms of the punishment should he refuse to comply with her demand. Of course, she has no power to enforce any of this, but the mere fact that anyone would use language like this to speak about or to another person about choices they have made speaks to the growing censoriousness that we see almost everywhere.

Could she not have ‘suggested‘ he cover it up? Might she not have ‘encouraged‘ him to think about removing it or changing it? Would not a better approach have been to actually engage him in a dialogue rather than making demands and threats?

I know exactly what I’d think if it were me being attacked. Suffice to say I’d be in no mood for a little chat

I do not wish to call into question the overwhelming emotion that such a person must feel, particularly given the tragic circumstances of her family. I’m sure I might feel exactly the same way in her situation. I also do not question her motive or intent. But this was a public statement made to a national newspaper. This kind of language does not start a healthy conversation, and I know exactly what I’d think if it were me being attacked. Suffice to say I’d be in no mood for a little chat.

It’s why I continue to implore everyone to take a step back and speak with a calm, measured tone. Take the time to think before reacting. It makes for a much calmer and less angry society, one in which we might actually be able to talk to one another rather than shout and make demands of one another. In this case, Raheem Sterling doesn’t need to answer to anyone unless he chooses to do so.

The greedy little sod.

In defence of Diane Abbott

On June 8th, Britain goes to the voting booths, and with the polls starting to narrow between the two major parties, the supposedly inevitable Labour wipeout is far from certain. Indeed, some Conservative sources are briefing that plans are even being made for a hung parliament. With an army of 700million 18-24 year olds primed and pumped to definitely get out of the house and definitely vote Labour, this seems like a sensible precaution to take.

A Labour victory would mean many things, not least of all Jeremy Corbyn taking the keys to Downing Street. What I can’t quite get my head around is Emily Thornberry as Foreign Secretary (although I could have easily said the same about Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson) and – worst of all – Diane Abbott as Home Secretary.

Ms. Abbott has, so far in this campaign, committed a series of excruciating gaffes. These are not isolated incidents, as she has a rich history of cringeworthy interviews in which she invariably comes across as smug, self-serving and completely unbothered about whether she is actually answering a question put to her.

However, she has been much derided for an interview she gave to Andrew Marr this week, derision which I think on the whole is not deserved. The whole clip can be found here and is definitely worth a watch. I want to examine this interview, and show why I think descriptions of a ‘car crash interview’ are well wide of the mark.

Marr opens with a question on why she should be trusted on security, to which she responds (after a brief diversion about Manchester, standard politics which any MP would open with) with some nonsense about having worked in the Home Office as a graduate trainee, apparently giving her the knowledge of “how it works on the inside”. But she then talks about her work with diverse communities and having been a working MP for 30 years, giving her the undoubted experience of seeing how the work of the Home Office affects her community. This is (eventually) a perfectly reasonable response.

He then moves on to chuck an old quote of hers about wanting to abolish MI5, her signature having been found on an early day motion calling for the “abolition of conspiratorial groups, not accountable to the British people”. She responds by saying that she wanted it to be reformed, it has now been reformed, and she would not call for its abolition now. Again, completely reasonable and a straight and clear answer. She even bats away Marr’s insinuation that “the old Diane Abbott has gone” by correctly asserting that it is not her that has changed, but MI5, allowing her to now support it.

The next point is around Abbott having voted “around 30 times against anti-terrorist legislation”. Now, this is one for me that I can’t stand hearing about. I hate it when it is used against Labour MPs, Tory MPs and Lib Dem MPs because it simply isn’t fair. It is also this kind of question and fear of its reprisals that turns perfectly intelligent and thoughtful MPs into self-serving, robotic lobby fodder. Legislation is very carefully crafted, often to try to trick or pressure opponents in a particular way, and so to boil down 30 (what would have been huge and wide ranging) pieces of legislation and use them to imply that Abbott is against anti-terror provisions is frustrating. She may have been wrong to vote against these, but we can’t know without examining each one carefully. Alas, not something that can be done in a 12 minute interview, but I would always urge you to look into these things further (and for complete integrity, do it for the Tories as well when they’re attacked in a similar way).

She makes this point brilliantly when Marr puts his next question, which relates to her having voted against proscribing Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organisation before 9/11. She calmly asks him if he has read the legislation he is referring to (he has). She explains that some on the list were, she thought, freedom fighters and dissidents in their countries, and so could not vote to proscribe them as terrorists. She may be right about this, she may be wrong, but it illustrates perfectly the issue with having one vote to cast on a wide variety of issues in one bill.

To give an extreme example, say you had to vote on a bill that was there to designate Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Lib Dem Party as terrorists, how would you vote? Does that mean you don’t think ISIS are terrorists? (Tory friends, this may not be a good example for you…)

After he puts it to her that “no list is perfect, but this is a pretty good list”, she hits back by explaining that she couldn’t possibly vote for it whilst she considered some of those groups to be legitimate dissidents and voices of opposition in their countries. Whether you think she was right or wrong to vote the way she did, she correctly points out that, “you have to give people credit for thinking about how they vote”. This is a more important quality in an MP than blindly following their party whips, and I have huge respect for it.

We move into murkier waters regarding support for the IRA. I won’t get into too much detail here because I could write for ages, but suffice to say I am not with her (or Corbyn) on this one – I do consider her to have supported the IRA against the British state, and with a group that brought such horrible violence, I don’t think this is defensible. The nonsense about her concurrent change of hairstyle and views are obviously ridiculous, but she dodges the real question, claiming simply that she “has moved on”. This is slippery and doesn’t look good. The only dark spot in an otherwise solid interview.

Next, it is put to her that Amber Rudd “spends 2 hours a day” signing orders for various activities requested by the police – would she do the same as Home Secretary? Her response is, for me, perfect. “If it’s put in front of me and there is sufficient evidence, of course I will.” What more could we ask of her?

On the question of tech companies like WhatsApp that provide communication tools, I couldn’t be more opposed to her. She peddles the same nonsense as her opposite numbers across the house about the companies working with the British government to access messages. She recognises there are ‘issues’ with end to end encryption, but she seems to misunderstand (perhaps deliberately) the nature of the thing…it is either encrypted or it isn’t. If you let the state access it, other people could do as well. I oppose any moves to open these things up, and her use of the Manchester attack to push this point is naked political posturing using a tragedy – something she has had no issue with accusing her opponents of. However, this is her view and it is clear and concise. We are free to disagree, and I do.

The issue of DNA databases is raised, with her apparent opposition to having even guilty people’s DNA on the database put to her. She explains that she has had children in her constituency who have never even been convicted of any crime who have their DNA on there. This seems to be a gross violation and, certainly in that case, I would support her opposition.

The rest of the interview focuses on police numbers (during which she actually knows her figures – a refreshing change) and how she would run the Home Office as a black person (how that is relevant I have no idea, and to her credit she bats it back by saying she would run it as best she could, same as with everything else).

Overall, this was a creditable performance and, despite having disagreements with her on several points, she came across as reasonable, professional and competent. I would have my misgivings about seeing her in the Home Office, but following this, some of those have disappeared.

She has been roundly criticised on social media for this interview, but I cannot see why. Corbyn and Abbott do have serious questions to answer about their past IRA support, but that can’t be the only thing we take into consideration about them, especially given how long ago it was. If we don’t allow people to change and adapt, we only reinforce our own prejudices and push people into corners, and that’s not something we should seek.

She has, in the past, been evasive, slippery and simply ridiculous plenty of times. But those times when she isn’t need to be credited. It is only be doing this that we encourage our elected representatives to do it more often. If this is seen as a car crash interview, why should she ever feel like she should be clear or straightforward with us again? We must give credit where and when it is due. This applies to ALL parties and ALL MPs. If we don’t, all we will get is an army of dreary, whipped Michael Fallons.

And we would deserve it.