Mindless violence and its role in the sporting world

Since my last blog, there have been several major incidents regarding sports, the Boston Marathon bombings, the utmost sense of respect shown by the runners who took part in the London Marathon for those affected by the Boston bombings, as well as the Suarez bite on Branislav Ivanovic that has earned him a 10 match ban. After so much controversy and devastation, the shock and bleakness that followed the Boston Marathon was one met with mass ongoing police investigations as well as scenes of relief and joy stemming from the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Such 'acts of terrorism' had not been seen in years on US soil. Destruction of lives both young and old can only be described as abhorrent and horrific in every segment of its over-riding nature and cause, no matter what reasoning the Tsarnaev brothers had behind plotting and carrying out the attacks. No matter what over-riding sense of hatred or Religious-attributed belief that what they were doing was right has no defence when one thinks of the lives they not only prematurely ended, such as the 8 year old Martin Richard, but also those of whom they also prematurely ruined through life-changing injuries. This blog will show my own opinions on how mindless violence has no role in sport, whether that be through extremist actions such as the bombings in Boston on that fateful afternoon on April 15th 2013, or if you take the other end of the spectrum and note the appalling nature of Luis Suarez's gauging bite on Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday, 21st April during Liverpool's game with Chelsea in the Barclay's Premier League. I want to reiterate do no means do I want to infer that these two events can be placed on the same level of severity, as it would be ignorant and ridiculous to insinuate such a thing, but I am using these events to portray the ranging un-sportsmanship in the world at this moment and how there is and should never have been space for any form of violence in the the world of sport or anywhere else for that matter.

The reaction of the US and everyone else in the World in the aftermath of the Boston bombing was monumental, constant news coverage, photos and information from fellow spectators on the scene so as to crackdown on the perpetrators of this act of terrorism on a wholly public and civilian event. The over-riding act of respect shown by everyone who ran in the London Marathon the following weekend was an event that showed the world to be a grand community from which such a tragedy could only bring overseas communities closer together for the good of the world and so as to prove that strength can outgrow fear in every aspect of the word. From the tragedy of one weekend to the respect and togetherness shown by the runners in the following weekend, it shows how sport can join people from any background and past events to accept individuals for who they are and ensure any attempts to dislodge that security and togetherness would be ultimately put down.

From one major sporting incident to another. Luis Suarez never seems to be out of the spotlight for one contentious issue or another - be it racist abuse and missing handshakes prior to a game with Patrice Evra, or the most recent (and second citation of) biting another player in a football game. Both condemning events have led to Suarez having a culmination of an 18 game ban. Pundits on Football Focus and Match of the Day, as well as managers of Premier League clubs have tried to look at both sides of Suarez, the 'cannibal' and 'genius' and whether Liverpool football club can hold onto a player of such fiery temperament but also 'undoubted quality'. The immediate comparison that pundits and newspapers alike are looking to use in this incident is the infamous Cantona kick on an Eagles fan at the Manchester United vs Crystal Palace game in 1995 which ultimately led to his ban from playing football again as well as receiving a fine of £20,000. Other pundits look to Jermaine Defoe's bite on Javier Mascherano back in 2006 which earned him a yellow card on the day but no further action. With this in mind, is it fair to say that the FA really need to have a re-think as to how they deliver punishment or retrospective action at least? Do they need to gain a real understanding of how to keep punishment for the severity of actions such as Suraez's bite in relation to the image and shadow that football ends up being placed under after such controversial actions by players? In my opinion, it is the case that they need to give a definitive statement regarding the length of bans or the type of action that would be taken to prevent further similar actions as this with some form of continuity to it, rather than seemingly picking out numbers from thin air regarding player suspension length regarding the type of dangerous tackle or action undertaken during matches as it seems they are doing at the moment.

Either way, violence of any proportion, whether it is a bite or kung-fu kick, has no place in football or any other sport. Sport is there to be enjoyed by spectators and players alike, and for action to be so undetermined and random is just confirmation that sport is a confused, problem filled and controversial based environment to play and work in regarding certain actions such as these.

Thus ends another one of my blogs, including numerous tragic and controversial news headlines, I hasten to add and reiterate that I believe that mindless violence such as the examples I have talked about above shines a negative light and shadow on sport as a whole. As a result of these dark days, sport needs to find a way to resolve these issues and to influence and create what they want to leave behind, influence and a legacy for all those inspired by their sporting heroes.

Jonathan Whitehead

'This was a woman who shaped events rather than was shaped by them' - Nick Robinson

What are the first words that come to mind when you think of Margaret Thatcher? Violence? Division? Loathsome? Loved? Saviour? Legacy of destruction? Iconic? Iron Lady? Enforcer? The Falklands? No Society? Housing crisis? Privatisation? Milk? Unions? A politician who cut across class and social divide? It is safe to say that Thatcher was one of the most controversial politicians that graced the political stage between 1979 and 1990. Her policies divided public opinion gravely, her legacy one which you either appreciated or despised, it is safe to say, depending on how the policies affected you, you grew to either love or despise the woman. Throughout this blog, I will look at both sides of the story relating to one of the most well known woman political figures throughout the Twentieth Century, so as not to leave any stone unturned in my analysis. Though I can see why many turn their heads at what good Margaret Thatcher implemented throughout the Britain as a result of her debatable policies, it is important to view her as the first leading lady, the 'Iron Lady', at a time of great political upheaval and dispute.

In 'The Times' the day after she died they had a 16 page supplement along with 25 pages of detailed articles regarding her policies, the state she left Britain in when she left her position as Prime Minister in 1990, and the public outcry of both shock and celebration as a response to her death, notably in Glasgow.

Such detailed analysis led me to snoop around a bit further trying to find other articles online to link you all regarding the media reaction relating to the death of Margaret Thatcher to show the varied response from reporters, foreign news, and members of the public.

1) Newspapers review the morning after: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22075382

2) Thatcher in her own words: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11734415

3) Thatcher years in statistics http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491

4) Nick Robinson on Thatcher: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/22061962

5) Mark Easton on Thatcher: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/22061962

6) Mixed public reaction to Thatcher's death: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070623 

7) US reaction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22075246 

Undoubtedly, it was Margaret Thatcher's policies that would create conflict, segregation, and split a nation right down its core. In 'The Times', the journalist Michael Savage points at the arguments for and against Thatcher's actions and policies regarding Northern Ireland, the Cold War, the Falklands, poll tax, privatisation, football, city de-regulation, the unions and Europe. In an extensive outlying of her policies, Savage shows how divisive Thatcher's policies were relating not only to foreign affairs but also internal economic and sporting affairs as well. She was to play a highly significant role in bringing an end to the Cold War along with the American President at the time, Ronald Reagan, who saw Thatcher as 'the best man in England'. If it wasn't for the joint efforts of both of these leading politicians, the Cold War could have been continued with an indefinite status of stalemate for years to come. The Falkland Wars gave the spark of controversy that led to people questioning her motives and actions when 255 British military personnel died, as well as the loss of a further 300 lives in the sinking of the Belgrano, the Argentine warship. Both of these events would lead to Thatcher strongly backing the actions up as a defensive course of action in an attempt to save more British lives for the threat it posed them. Nevertheless, it is without doubt that if it wasn't for Thatcher's determinism, decisiveness and rapid dispatching of British troops in early 1982, that the Falkland Islands would have stayed under Argentinean control and Thatcher's Conservatives would not have won the subsequent general election in 1983 with such a landslide victory. In terms of Northern Ireland, it has been seen as a battleground for recent decades; with bomb scares and IRA threats being a constant presence. Thatcher's hard lined approach to the hunger strike of 1981 was seen to be both preparing, albeit unintentionally, the ground for peace yet also condemning any plausible future efforts at creating some form of a compromise - a point sharply underlined as a result of the Brighton bomb of three years later.

Thatcher's rule was to be undermined and pressurised from all involved and affected by her policies regarding poll tax, privatisation and the trade unions. Poll tax led to Thatcher losing substantial support in Scotland, the mining communities and many low paid workers. This dissatisfaction ultimately led to the rise of a mass protest on the 31st March 1990 involving 200,000 marching and opposing this enforced tax. On the other hand, privatisation of industries such as oil, rail, electricity and water led to the exploitation of customers and worsened service in search for high profits. However, it is important to note that because of this, many companies that were smaller in origin around the time they became privatised are now a lot more efficient, and subsequently, more successful. In regards to the Unions, Thatcher's attempt at 'taming' them could only be seen as destructive, divisive and controversial. It led to the demolition of trade unions for a generation, eroded any rights that the workers had previously and left unemployment at an all new high. It was seen as an unforgiving action from which Thatcher lost the support of the trade unions and miners throughout Britain during her designated post as Prime Minister. Yet, through this backlash, she showed that a once disgruntled and economic society could be governable once again, even if this meant creating a great deal of unappreciated and despised rulings and limits on local political activity.

The final points that I want to make in relation to Thatcher and her rule throughout the 1980s was her relationship with football, or more importantly football's relationship with her. During her stay in power, there were three major incidents that rocked the support she had from the working and middle class segments of society: the fire at Bradford City's 'Valley Parade' stadium on 11th May 1985 which killed 56 people, the Heysel disaster of the 29th May 1985 when 39 Juventus supporters died before their European final game with Liverpool, and the Hillsborough Disaster on the 15th April 1989 which led to the deaths of 96 supporters. With each of these disasters still fresh in every football fans minds, it is safe to say that however the leading figures within the country at that time were to react, in this case Margaret Thatcher, would be  scrutinised down to the last word and the course of longing for justice and answers would forever prolong over the shadow of football and politics. The Hillsborough Disaster has most recently been in the news for a renewed diagnosis as to what really happened on that fateful afternoon in 1989, with slogans going up around Anfield in recent seasons with the message 'Expose the lies before Thatcher dies'. The result of the latest inquest into the Hillsborough disaster over the last year has finally led to friends and families of those killed in the Hillsborough Disaster a sense of relief and reassurance as to knowing what happened and why it was kept under wraps for almost 23 years. Thatcher's connection with football was always a weak one at the best of times, and with her statement regarding Britain not having a 'society' (admittedly at the time the reaction to this statement was taken out of context), her desire to rid football of hooligans, the relationship would forever be one of a loose fit nature between Thatcher and football supporters.

So concludes another one of my blogs, on one of the more controversial topics around at this time. I hope that I have given both substantial arguments both in support and against Margaret Thatcher's policies and statements during her time in office as Prime Minister. It can be easy to ignore the success of an individual by their mistakes or misguided policies (no matter how good that persons intentions were), but it is an infallible certainty that if it were not for Thatcher's hard lined approach to both foreign policy and business acumen then the Falkland Islands would not have been liberated, and the Cold War would have lingered on for longer than it did with an even greater threat of nuclear war. Admittedly, I can wholly understand the reasoning behind many sectors within society taking a mass dislike in Thatcher's policies and stance on economics, trade unions and tax. So whether you agree with nicknames put upon Thatcher such as 'The Milk Snatcher' or 'The Immaculate Misconception', or desire to look at the respected and admired 'Iron Lady', I say each to their own, but I feel it strongly wrong and extremely sinister to celebrate one of our own Prime Minister's deaths as if she were somewhat on the same playing field of evil as Mao, Hitler or Stalin.

Now, time to watch the Iron Lady and see how Meryl Streep portrays 'The Iron Lady'.

Hope you enjoyed this latest blog, comments are appreciated if you have any thoughts on mine.

Jonathan Whitehead