Poetry Corner Three

The Death of the Pen

To whom it may concern,
(and it certainly concerns you).

I am writing to express my displeasure,
Though rhyme can never measure,
The depths of dispair, that nobody cares,
The pen is dying you see.

It leaves me somewhat despondent,
That the bulk of our correspondence,
Is all of the type, I'd much rather write,
The pen is dying you see.

I believe it prudent and better,
To quaintly craft a letter,
But those days are gone, and it's painfully wrong,
The pen is dying you see.

I rejoice in scribed nostalgia,
Inked words engraved with grandeur,
But no longer are stamps, replaced by email accounts,
The pen is dying you see.

Although it's departure I lament,
Without pen this poem I present,
No ink has been spilt, It's coffin I've built!
The pen is dead.

Poetry Corner Two

Time

The hands of Time sludge through the clock,
A flutter of productivity as seconds grind to a near stop,
This much rehearsed drill, all present, all in file,
We chip away Time's rough edges, no regard for reconcile.

Would you unscrew Time's sturdy wings?
Could you prelude the disorder it brings?

The hands of Time surge round the clock
A stutter of productivity, you wish it would stop.

Poetry Corner...

    A thunderous crescendo of crashing keys,
                               punched in haste, most rapidly.
    The calm click, quiet and serene
                               in thoughtful reply, for all to see...
    He sent the email and spiralled away.

Standing Out From The Crowd

The crowd play a vital part in sporting events. Commentators and pundits frequently state the importance of a football team playing at home and how it gives that side an advantage. The friendly home crowd is to spur on their players to triumph over the away side. But sometimes a hostile away crowd can be just as inspirational.Yesterday at the French Open, Andy Murray fought back from a set down to overcome Richard Gasquet 1-6 6-4 6-1 6-2. With Gasquet being a Frenchman, Murray was facing more than just his opponent at the other side of the net. The hostile French crowd applauded ballistically with every Gasquet point and jeered Murray throughout the encounter. There were boos when he reached to his back injury after losing points, there was calling out when he was preparing to serve, and even cheering when he missed a first serve. Murray however seemed to feed off this atmosphere and used it to propel himself to a superb win. He entered the arena to an intimidating welcome from the French crowd. Murray set his stall out for the match by returning this gesture with a knowing smile. Where others might have gone into their shell, Murray embraced the hostility of the crowd towards him and revelled in playing the pantomime villain. After the match he said, "I started to use the energy from the crowd in a positive way and turned it around and played very well the last few sets.

"I wouldn't say it got too much. It was almost like playing a football match. And I like football. It's the most fun I've had on the court in a while."

Murray demonstrated how important the crowd are in sport. He was able to convert their negativity towards him into a positive outcome for himself. 

Gasquet has twice now lost to Murray at the French Open after leading in sets. Perhaps the pressure of expectation from his home crowd is too much for him. Perhaps playing at home isn't such an advantage after all. 

Too many twits on Twitter?

It seems these days everyone has got a Twitter account.

I remember when Twitter was new, innovated, and exciting. One great thing about it is that it's a great tool for interaction with people you wouldn't normally have access to. For example, let's say you are a big fan of a certain musician. Being able to tweet them, and perhaps even getting a reply, is almost like being backstage! For them it allows them to engage with their fans and followers on a much more personal level.

However, for every good tweeter on the site there seems to be two twits. There is a misconception that we have a freedom of speech to say what want, no matter how extreme online. People think you can say anything to anyone on Twitter, which encourages the online imbeciles. The truth is, you can't say anything to anyone on Twitter, or any other public communications network.

I was scouring Twitter earlier today when I came across a number of tweets from former professional footballer, and current Talksport broadcaster Stan Collymore. Stan has been racially abused on the social network and has reported those doing so to the police. One particular tweet he sent today caught my attention. Stan tweeted,

"Its time govt put tv/radio public service announcements as to what constitutes illegality on social networks. These kids don't have a clue."

It struck me that this is completely true. I myself was not aware of any specific legislation to counteract the abuse people receive online. However, Stan correctly points out that section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 deals with the issue of "improper use of public electronic communications network", like Twitter. People who have been reported of sending grossly offensive material, be it racism or any other form of menacing messages can be convicted and imprisoned. Click HERE to view section 127 of the Communications Act.

I agree whole heartedly with Stan's view that more should be done to educate what "constitutes illegality on social networks." It seems that too many people think they can say what they want and get away with it.

People should know that anything they say or do in the public domain carries a consequence. I commend Stan for reporting those abusing him on Twitter, and highlighting the issue to his followers.

Education is everything.

Goal Line Technology in Football

Over the weekend I watched two different sports live on television. On Saturday morning I watched the English Premier League football clash between Bolton and QPR, and on Sunday afternoon I viewed the Six Nations rugby match between France and England. Both games had me enthralled and intrigued in equal measure.

The football match was a tense encounter between two teams fighting against the pitfall of relegation to the Championship. Neither team could afford to lose, and whoever did would face a large struggle to protect their Premier League status. It was a game where everyone had to be on top of their game, including those officiating. Unfortunately that was not the case.

With the match still scoreless, QPR were awarded a corner kick. Defender Clint Hill got the run on his marker and powered a header way beyond the goal line. Bolton keeper Bogdan flung himself behind his line and managed to get a forearm onto the ball, which then bounced clear of the goal via the crossbar. QPR players celebrated this crucial goal, but it was not to be. The linesman who was looking across the line in question said he could not see it. Within seconds the Sky cameras were showing replays which clearly displayed that the ball had crossed the line.

Bolton went on to win the game 2-1, leaving QPR floundering in the relegation zone. This decision had a clear impact on the outcome of the game. With the use of technology a goal could have been awarded in a matter of seconds. An incident like this would NOT have happened in a rugby match.

During the pulsating encounter between France and England there was an incident when French player Wesley Fofana went over for a try, with his feet teetering the touchline. The referee immediately asked the simple question to his video assistant, 'Is there any reason for me not to award a try?' The answer was no, you may award the try. Done. Cleared up. The correct decision established in a matter of seconds. Why hasn't this happened in football yet? Rugby has had this mechanism in place for years now. Cricket uses technology to obtain the correct decisions, tennis uses technology to obtain the correct decisions. So why does a sport with such a vast global appeal and audience not? It is ridiculous that football is being left behind by tennis, cricket, and rugby.

It's way out of line that we can't establish when it's over the line!

Must The Show Go On?

Following a performance together at last years EMAs, Queen + Adam Lambert have announced they are to headline this summers Sonisphere music festival.

This marks a return to Knebworth for Queen after playing their last show with Freddie Mercury there in 1986. But with only two of the remaining band members performing (bassist John Deacon has long retired from the industry) is this really a good idea, or have Brian May and Roger Taylor gone slightly mad?!

I remember first being introduced to Queen's music back in 1997, when I was just nine years old. My dad had the first Greatest Hits album on repeat during a car journey to Manchester. I was instantly hooked, singing along about girls with fat bottoms, bicycle races, and another one biting the dust. Now standing at 23 years of age my love the band hasn't wavered. As a bass player myself, John Deacon has become an idol figure for me. Not a day goes by where I don't pick up my Danelectro and jam along to a Deaky line!

And herein lies the dilema. I really, really love Queen's music. I was just unfortunate to born in an era when the band's live appearances had stopped after the tragic demise of the greatest frontman in music history due to AIDS. So for Queen fans like myself the Sonisphere show is the only chance we will get to see half of the band play those great songs. I mean, what a thrill it would be to see Brian May perform heroics on his homemade guitar, and Roger Taylor pounding away in perfect rhythm on his drumkit!

But at the same time the absence of Deacon and Mercury would create a huge void that quite simply cannot be filled. With only half the band on stage, is it really Queen at all?

So why did May and Taylor agree to the headline slot? Well, it certainly isn't due to the need for a bit more cash! Is it to celebrate the memory of Mercury? An attempt to bring Queen's music to a new generation? Or maybe the two ageing rockers can't resist the opportunity to get back on stage in Queen mode, hopelessly addicted to the thrill of rock n' roll!

Lambert has an impossible role to play in the show. Despite being a hero in my eyes, Deacon's bass lines can be replicated. Freddie Mercury on the other hand simply cannot. Lambert has to try and give his own performance to the songs and not get drawn in to attempting the impossible impersonation of Freddie. Either way he will be criticised by Queen fans. I am not a fan of his at all, but what was he meant to do when Brian and Roger asked him? I'd imagine it would be near impossible to turn down the chance to perform those great songs alongside those great musicians.

So where do I stand on the matter? I think if I had the money I would go and check the show out. Although it won't be the Queen of old, I still feel the chance to see some of the band perform is a enticing one. Some fans have been upset by this collaboration, and it is certainly not an ideal one. Things could be worse though, it could be Dappy up there with them!

The problem we have when it comes to Queen is that we want it all, and we want it now. But without John and Freddie it is just not possible.