Sunderland 1 Wolves 3

Sunderland 1

Wolverhampton Wanderers 3

After being largely outplayed in the first half of this game Wolverhampton Wanderers stepped up the pace in the second to comfortably collect all three points long before the end. Barring a freak set of results next weekend the Black Country sides 40 points should be sufficient to ensure they kick off next season in the Premier League.

Defeat for Sunderland was their eighth in the last eleven home matches and with just fourteen points from sixteen league games this year they are fortunate that the season has just one match remaining. On a weekend when much was made of Manchester City supporters 35 years of pain it’s worth pointing out that Sunderland have won just one trophy in 75 years and yet there were still over 41,000 at the Stadium of Light to watch a team that seems no nearer than ever to winning anything.

It was the couple of thousand away fans that were celebrating first when ex-Sunderland man Jody Craddock pounced on Stephen Hunt’s cross to half volley the ball beyond Simon Mignolet. Wolves might even have doubled their lead but Jamie O’Hara was unlucky to see his shot hit the crossbar. Having missed a number of chances, and being unfortunate to see Bolo Zenden’s 20 yard shot crash back into play off the crossbar,  Steve Bruce’s side equalised when Zenden’s corner was allowed to travel across the penalty area where Stephane Sessegnon acrobatically hooked home.

Wolves went back into the lead on 54 minutes when Mignolet failed to follow the flight of Matt Jarvis’s cross leaving Steven Fletcher to head home only minutes after the former Burnley man had fluffed an opportunity when put clean through.

The home side should have had a chance to equalise from the penalty spot when a shaping to shoot Sessegnon had his legs taken from beneath him by a poor Hunt challenge and as the Wolves midfielder was also the last man he was lucky that referee Michael Jones missed an obvious infringement.

George Elokobi finished off Sunderland when he headed home O’Hara’s free kick and at the end the Wolves players and supporters celebrated loudly a deserved victory, their second of the season against the Wearsiders. 

We do need education - interview with Hazel Danson of National Union of Teachers

Interview with Hazel Danson, the National Union of Teachers National Executive member for West Yorkshire.

You work in a small school - do such schools face an uncertain future?

I think lots of schools currently face an uncertain future. Small schools are always vulnerable, because per pupil they are seen as more expensive. They do though serve a particular need as they are often at the heart of their local communities, ensure young children are not forced to travel long distances and have a record of providing a good level of education.

Primary school on Isle of Harris, Scotland

All areas of the country, whether in an urban or a rural setting deserve a good local school. Providing one is becoming more difficult. Because as schools are persuaded, for mainly financial pressures, to move over to academy status that reduces the local education authorities [LEA’s] ability to support schools and provide services. The consequence is they can’t look ahead, can’t develop a support plan that takes into account changing demographics and it also means schools that might require intervention and long term support are left to fend for themselves.

It’s a recipe for disaster, but nevertheless the Government seems set on abolishing LEA’s, leaving 25,000 stand alone institutions at the mercy of private companies offering to carry out, at a profit, essential planning, administrative and financial support. Lincolnshire would appear to be the ideal Tory model, as there schools that ring up for support are referred to a list of private consultants. Money that should be spent on teaching will be increasingly spent outside the classroom.

In his October 2010 budget speech Chancellor George Osborne announced that between 2010 and 2014 the schools budget would rise “by 0.1% in real terms, up from £35 to £39 billion.” Children’s education was to be protected - has that proven to be the case?

NO. On school budgets then people are very nervous, and the impact is that many schools are looking to move across to academy status. [1] They are doing it because of a perceived short-term increase in funding. It’s a mistake as there are no guarantees, with the free schools and academy changes then the 0.1% is going into some schools budgets but it’s being used as a bribe - at the moment schools that choose to become academies are getting more money than they should despite the Education Secretary Michael Gove saying no school should profit from such a move.

Free schools are even worse. If you are going to give a group of people a load of money to establish a school where there’s no identifiable need for that school then that money comes from funds that would have gone to local authority schools. I find that grotesque.

In Kirklees what we’ve got is an independent, fee-paying private school who applied and from September will open and will expand as a free school with state money that should have gone to the state schools locally.

That school became a free school because it had falling numbers, as in an economic crisis people can’t afford the fees, and now they can open up without making a charge. As soon as you destroy local authorities ability to plan educational services then you create chaos.

How do you view the government’s announcement of a review into teaching standards?

Every government seems to want to change things. They all seem to fail to recognise that where you have high performing systems it goes hand in hand with well qualified and well paid staff. Places where classroom teachers and school staff are held in high regard. We have had teacher bashing from a succession of governments that have undermined this.

So what you need to improve standards of teaching is to recognise the professional standards of teaching and invest in teacher training and in continuing professional development. That’s not going to happen under the current government as until now most of the provisions made for continuing professional development have been undertaken by local authority central advisory teams of experts coming into schools and delivering high quality training. Most of this is now being cut or will be cut over the next few years.

On pay teachers are having imposed on them a two year pay freeze from September onwards, which with inflation moving towards 5% is going to mean a 10% fall in living standards.  The Government has also announced without consulting us that they’re intending altering the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, which will mean paying more, working longer and getting less. [2]

The upshot is that some might not join the scheme. That then has implications for those  already in it, because the basis of pensions is that everyone contributes in order to obtain the best investment levels to pay for the pensions. It’s very depressing all round.

Can you foresee a situation where NUT members may be forced to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions?

Well we are balloting members of the pension changes so that’s one area.

The union has also been wholeheartedly supporting the strike at Rawmarsh Community School in Rotherham. What happened is a head teacher got into financial difficulties and didn’t manage it properly and then through no failure on our member’s part they were asked to suffer job losses. These were massive and would have impacted strongly on the educational opportunities for children at the school and so members voted for and have taken strike action. They’ve had great local support, as the community understands that you maintain quality by backing and not sacking teachers.

The action has been successful but is continuing in defence of the NUT rep Ralph Dyson, who is now the only one, threatened with being made redundant. We can’t allow those who stand up in defence of others to be victimised, it is kind of logical and the whole union sees what’s happening there.

There are other increasing actions such as in the London Boroughs of Tower hamlets and Camden where in conjunction with UNISON members there has been authority wide action in opposition to the cuts. In teacher’s case we are opposed to cuts in central services and all the support services teams that provide help for children who experience problems with their hearing, traveller children and ethnic minorities.

Local authorities are claiming that such cuts won’t affect front-line teaching but it does affect you when you stack up all the people who are providing the support and curriculum advice.

The aim is to stop the cuts being made to essential services when there is an alternative. It’s well rehearsed that there is an alternative to rapid and deep spending cuts. You look at increasing tax revenues - a Robin Hood tax on bank transactions would increase the amount, which could be spent on public services. You’ve also got tax loopholes that can be tackled and closed, as well as tax evasion and avoidance. Yet at the same time this is happening the government sacks the civil servants who are charged with closing these loopholes.

In a good society you value services that are free and equitable for all. So when you viciously attack people’s access to public health and education, which are the cornerstones to what I feel make a really good welfare state, then we are in a situation where we’ve never been in our lifetimes. It’s an agenda that’s ideologically driven and one I feel is designed to take back many of the gains ordinary people have made since the end of the Second World War.

It’s not just in Britain, however, where education for all is under attack. It’s part of a neo-liberal agenda as we’ve got the World Bank saying that education is one of the biggest untapped profit making sectors.

Why is the NUT opposed to academies as they enjoy the support of all the main political parties?

No they don’t. The Liberal Democrats have voted at their conference to oppose academies, whilst the Labour Party is opposed to the new style and many grass roots members are also uncomfortable with them per se. I think we are seeing a shift in the Labour Party attitude to what is happening in terms of the rapid increase that Gove is promoting.

Free schools have been successful in Sweden - why not here?

Have they been a success? The Government would like everyone to think so but the last Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development report found Sweden has slipped down the rankings. So much so that the government there is concerned about the impact of the free school movement and is currently undertaking a reassessment.

Has parents ‘right to choose’ which schools to send their children to been a success?

Has it seen standards rise? The evidence doesn’t back the idea that market forces, and freedom of choice, will drive up standards. What does is highly qualified and trained staff - both teachers and support staff - a good learning environment, good leadership and management within the school and good support from local authorities. These things improve standards, the idea that schools should compete against each other doesn’t. 

It’s also red herring, what most parents want is a good local school and particularly in areas outside of London and urban areas the sort of choice argument is a diversion as by and large children go to their local school. They don’t have the option of using the tube to get across town to go somewhere with a posher name and a uniform. Is it a success? I don’t think its increased educational standards. 

Did the coalition government have any alternative to scrapping Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme?

Yes it did. The coalition government is obsessed with cutting and I think they want to use the money saved to fund free schools.

You’ve schools in need that were promised funding and these things take hours of time, effort and planning. You had well prepared plans in place and these were just pulled without even the courtesy of a phone call beforehand. It was bizarre. Gove has since been challenged and has lost a couple of court cases, but behind their plans is the fact that the government doesn’t want money being spent over which local authorities have some control.

Now it’s under government control they will allocate it.  Toby Young will be getting his hands on that money for the West London Free School and yet we have still got some schools in the country where the buildings are not fit for purpose.

Is the London Olympics 2012 making an impact on school sports?

It was but the loss of the majority of Schools Sports Partnership funding is a big blow. It’s true that pressure forced the government into a partial climb-down whereby they returned some of the funds, but the cuts will still see many highly developed projects being scrapped.

[1] A survey of 1,471 secondary schools, published by the Association of School and College Leaders during their weekend conference, revealed that almost half are intending to convert to academy status (38%) or have already done so (8%).

Of these, 72% cite financial gain as the reason. Greater freedom and autonomy were mentioned by 58% of the group, and dissatisfaction with the local authority by 24%.

[2] In April delegates to the NUT conference backed a ballot for strike action in the summer term. The moves followed a series of unproductive meetings between the government and the TUC after the former announced without consulting teaching unions that it intended pushing up the retirement age to 68 and replacing the final salary scheme with a career average one.

As each teacher will also be expected to contribute around £100 a month extra the fear according to Jim, a NUT rep in the northeast, is that “not only will older teachers lose out by a considerable sum when they retire but younger people who might previously have considered becoming teachers will now look elsewhere for a better paid job.”

It's fifty years since legal betting shops opened - what's been the result?

One thing you can bet on is that nothing stays the same.  And that’s been the case with gambling in Britain ever since legal betting shops opened fifty years ago on May 1^st 1961.

Like many young men of his generation Gordon Traynor was just fourteen when he started gambling on the horses. Back in the 1940s it was easy enough, within tight knit working class communities, to do so. 

He’d just started working at Seaham Colliery, where the coal seams stretched out miles under the North Sea. 

His dad, Joe - an invalid after being gassed during the First World War - was a daily gambler whose dole money meant he could only ever wager tiny amounts.  Trying to ensure success meant Joe was even prepared to put his staunch Labour Party political principles to one side by daily buying the Tory supporting Daily Express because it had the best racing coverage.

Augmented with the knowledge gleaned from the weekly Racing and Football Outlook - that his son still reads more than sixty years later - the ex-military man would each morning write down his bets on a scrap piece of paper and await the arrival of the bookie’s runner before handing over his stake.

Going to Hudsons Betting Shop would have been a waste of time.  It was open, but only someone with sufficient credit to set up an account and able to do their wagering by telephone could place a bet. That hadn’t always been the case and back in the first half of the 19^th century there existed hundreds of betting shops across the country all happily taking money off those keen enough to gamble on horse racing. 

Victorian morality attitudes soon put paid to this and the 1853 Betting Houses Act shut them down.  Serviced by a network of paid runner’s going to homes, workplaces, pubs and clubs betting continued.  As punters didn’t want to be identified a non-de-plume was necessary to allow for the identity of any winners. Joe’s dry sense of humour meant his was always ‘0-2-L’ I’m having a bet.

It was a day after collecting his first pay packet that Joe’s son took up runner Charlie Cullen’s suggestion to have a bet. “Virtually every male my age and over was having one and you could see Charlie weaving his way in and out of people’s houses each morning collecting the bets,” recalls Gordon

Despite the illegality “no-one saw the likes of Charlie as a criminal”, he laughs. Generally such community attitudes were mirrored within local police forces but “every now and again there’d be an arrest.” On the third a prison sentence could be assured. So in order to try and stay one step ahead of the law it was not uncommon for bookmakers to pay local police officers to tip them off before any planned raids on the homes of their employees. 

Around the same time the government took a more pragmatic line on football pools coupons, which were first distributed outside Old Trafford in 1923. Along with the Football League it had previously tried to suppress this form of betting but now decided instead on pools betting duty of 20%.

As prizes rose 1950 saw Mrs E Knowlson of Manchester become the first winner to scoop £100,000. By 1959 the Football League had concluded a ten-year deal with the pools promoters in which they earned 0.5% of each gross stake, paving the way for football to become the highly lucrative game that we know today.

It’s likely that the 1853 Act would have gone earlier if Labour had retained power at the 1951 election, but the Conservatives’ stronger ties to religious institutions meant they needed to tread more carefully before, under Harold Macmillan, they brought in the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act, which took force a year later.

The changes were welcomed with the Daily Mirror saying ‘ABOUT TIME!’ above its leader column. Headline writers had a field day. ‘BETTING SHOPS START LIKE WINNERS’ came from the same paper, which added that bookies had got away to ‘a good gallop.’

And they’ve kept up the pace since.  Estimated, at today’s value as worth just over £600 million in 1960, this industry’s turnover has risen, according to the Gambling Commission, to £5.7 billion in 2009-10, taking in casino’s, bingo, arcades and of course the rapidly growing online betting market.

William Hill has the most betting shops, with Ladbrokes a short head behind. Together with Gala, Betfair and the Tote they account for more than 80% of the 8,000-plus shops that employ the equivalent of 40,000 full-time employees. Betting on horses continues to be the stable fare, with 60p in every £ waged.

George Gifford from Thirsk has been a regular gambler on the horses for four decades.

“I do it because of the buzz, especially when I win. I also like to think I am reasonably shrewd and I have never managed to let it get out of control although I have had a few bad weeks when I’ve lost a lot of money.

“You need to study recent form, look at the jockeys on the horses and the racing conditions and only bet what you can afford to lose.”

Currently unemployed and keeping his gambling to a minimum, he’s aware betting habits are changing. He’s noticed fewer people entering betting shops - with two dedicated horse racing TV channels gamblers prefer to bet online at home.

Gambling on dogs is the second most popular form of betting but is being caught up by football, which last year was worth £450 million.

With ITV, Channel 4 and 5 having stepped up this season their coverage of the nation’s favourite game the advertising opportunities that have been taken up by the big betting companies make it just a matter of time before footballers outpace dogs in the total betting stakes.

Gordon Traynor fears young people watching the adverts may find themselves attracted to gambling before they know the possible dangers.

Such concerns were one of the reasons the previous Government acted when those working with problem gamblers lobbied hard in 2004 as the Gambling Bill made its way through parliament.

As a result the rules were tightened up such that slot machines were removed from locations children might use such as cafes, and placed in amusement arcades. The result was a quite dramatic fall from 4.9% to 2.0% in problem gambling amongst adolescents.

This is double the figure amongst all age groups, although the 0.9% figure it has to be pointed out is up 50% since 2007. And as this equates to 450,000 people who have problems then is enough being done to prevent people getting into trouble and helping them when they do so?

According to Tom Kenny, senior executive at the Association of British Bookmakers, the answer is yes. He said; “Bookmakers are mindful of our wider social responsibilities and for that reason we contribute £5 million annually on a voluntary basis to fund research, education and treatment. We also have a self-exclusion programme whereby customers who feel they are getting into trouble can exclude themselves.”

Although 16,000 people did so last year more than half then broke the agreement. Much lower down the scale close to 300 people excluded themselves from bingo halls in 2009-10.

Mark Griffiths from Nottingham Trent University and Britain’s only Professor of Gambling Studies isn’t against gambling. He enjoys going to the casino and points out that it’s often a lot cheaper than going to watch Nottingham Forest. But he feels that no one should be complacent that less than 1% of the population could be described as having a gambling problem.

He says: “Gambling is a compulsive behaviour like alcohol, and yet while there are lots of health messages and warnings about the dangers of drinking that’s not so for gambling.”

Griffiths regularly receives calls from people needing help and remains concerned that only one NHS Trust has established a specialist clinic to support problem gamblers. GPs looking to help are left referring people to clinical psychologists.

There are however 200 plus Gamblers Anonymous groups and knows Gamcare, a national charity providing support to problem gamblers, handles over 35,000 calls a year and helps deliver over 20,000 counselling sessions each year.

According to Adrian Scarfe, Gamcare clinical training and development director, there has been a significant change in those needing its services since it was established 13 years ago. Previously it was mainly males from lower working class backgrounds. Now there are more women who need help, and the problems have crossed ethnic and religious boundaries, with 30 per cent of its London callers being from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. College students are also becoming hooked.

“The means by which people can now bet is now more varied and this is reflected in the changing demographics of those who require our help,” says Scarfe.

But few want a return to the pre-1961situation Griffiths would not want “to spoil the enjoyment of the vast majority of people who gamble without experiencing any problems.” 

Gordon Traynor, who left the pit in his 20s to become a successful singer, “still has a little bet and it doesn’t do me any harm even if I lose.”

One Newcastle left winger certainly worth commemorating - Thomas Spence

The life of land reformer and political activist Thomas Spence is now commemorated in his home city of Newcastle by a plaque on the Quayside where he was born, in 1750, and later ran a school.

One of net maker Jeremiah Spence’s nineteen children Thomas Spence entered the world in turbulent times with land clearances and industrialisation pushing people off the land and into the factories. 

After initially working alongside his father Spence became a teacher. Disturbed by the poverty he saw all around him it wasn’t long before he began to agitate for improvements, publishing and selling at just fifteen years of age The Real Rights of Man. This was inspired by a lawsuit between the freeman and Newcastle Corporation over the use of common land and was to be the first of many pamphlets Spence was to be involved with until his death in 1814.

He agitated for all land to be held in common ownership by each parish. People were to be given their own plots on which to grow the necessities of life with profits from the rents to be employed to support local services such as libraries and schools.

Having secured the vast majority of land for themselves in 1066 and during Henry the VIII’s reign with the dissolution of the monasteries the large landowners, were not going to allow Spence’s idea’s to gain the converts he needed to turn theory into practice. By 1794 he was in court facing high treason charges where he took up Thomas Paine’s arguments against hereditary aristocracy by following it to a natural conclusion in arguing for the end of private property in land. He was given seven months at his majesty’s pleasure, but imprisonment failed to curb a man whose favourite slogan was “dare to be free”.

Further spells in prison followed as Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger sought to eradicate radical ideas in Britain by suspending Habeas Corpus on many occasions. Nothing though failed to dampen his enthusiasm to improve the lot of the workingman, leading him to publish the Grand Repository of the English Language in which he outlined a new phonetic system of learning under which the written word resembled that of the spoken.

According to Sheffield University Professor Spence “Wanted to give the working man a chance to read as he was convinced that once they were able to do so they would want to overthrow the tyranny under which they toiled.”

Newcastle born poet Keith Armstrong and founder of the Spence Trust is “delighted that there is now a plaque on the spot where this great man of principle lived and worked. I hope that those who have never previously heard of Spence will take the time in the future to find out more about him.”

According to Newcastle Labour Councillor Nigel Todd, who heads up the Workers Educational Association in the North-east, it would be great if more people did find out about Spence as the “issues he tried to resolve over two hundred years ago remain in place today with the vast majority of land still owned by very few people, who are the descendants of the major landowners from back then.”  


A fact which means that today Britain has the most imbalanced land ownership package in the world, with 64% of all land owned by just 0.28% of the population. To make matters worse, most are beneficiaries of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy programme of farming subsidies.

Bolton Wanderers 1 Sunderland 2

Bolton Wanderers 1

Klasnic 87

Sunderland 2

Zenden 45, Muntari 90+2

“We needed a bit of luck,” said Sunderland manager Steve Bruce afterwards. They certainly got it because as his Bolton counterpart Owen Coyle summed up succinctly the home side “missed a host of gilt edged chances.”

Not that there was anything fortunate about the away side’s injury time winner with Stephane Sessegnon slipping a superb pass beyond Gretar Steinsson where substitute Sully Muntari hit a precise powerful shot beyond keeper Jussi Jaaskelainen and the despairing dive of Zat Knight. Queue ecstatic celebrations amongst the 4,000 travelling army behind the goal as Sunderland grabbed their fourth away victory of the season.

Bolton had fashioned an equaliser with just three minutes remaining when their two substitutes combined with Ivan Klasnic accurately heading Rodrigo’s cross past Simon Mignolet. They should then have won the match but after Mignolet had kept out Rodrigo’s effort, Phil Bardsley somehow touched Kevin Davies five-yard shot over the bar. 

The Wearsiders had taken the lead on the stroke of half-time when the unimpressive Gary Cahill foolishly appealed for offside allowing Bolo Zenden to move onto Sessegnon’s fine through ball and advance thirty yards before taking the ball round Jaaskelainen and plonking it into the back of the net.

Bolton had earlier hit the bar through Daniel Sturridge, who in the second half did poorly with two penalty box opportunities, and might have taken an earlier lead through Matt Taylor whose close range effort was smartly blocked by Mignolet.

For Sunderland Bardsley should have done better but left unmarked he headed Jordan Henderson’s free kick over the bar from six yards. That was also the distance that C Y Lee managed to miss from for Bolton on 74 minutes and although the home side did finally grab the equaliser they deserved it was Sunderland’s never say die spirit that won out at the end.

Celebrating Sunderland fans at the end of the match 

Should royalty be laid to rest?

This article is taken from the Big Issue in the North magazine dated April 25th. Please try and buy the magazine as it's one of the best around. 

Britain’s only had one brief period of Republicanism in the last thousand years. However as monarchy supporters get ready to celebrate the Royal Wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton on April 29^th that doesn’t mean there’s no one prepared to argue its case.

When Britain’s future King emerges newly wed from Westminster Abbey he’ll just be able to see the statue of a man who chopped off the head of one of his predecessors.  That was back in January 1649 when King Charles I was executed during a Civil War fought to decide whether parliament or royalty ruled.

“Off with their heads” has been reported as the chant of students as they abused the future Charles III and his wife during demonstrations in London in December against the raising of tuition fees. Oliver Cromwell’s appearance outside the Houses of Parliament stands as a reminder of a revolutionary time in the nation’s history.

If it hadn’t been for Cromwell’s subsequent suppression of the demands of the Levellers, a loose alliance of radicals and freethinkers, to abolish the House of Lords, introduce annual elections and redistribute land, that revolutionary movement may well have sent the country down a more democratic path.

Formed in 1983 Republic can count amongst its 12,000 supporters the author Sue Townsend, Caroline Lucas MP, comedian Jo Brand and film-maker Ken Loach. The organisation wants to end any constitutional royal family role, replacing them with an elected Head of State similar to the Irish Presidential system. Axing the monarch, accompanied by the introduction of a written constitution, would be done with the consent of the British people through a referendum.

Tower of London 

Republic’s spokesperson Graham Smith accepts most people wouldn’t currently vote to bring to an end an institution that’s evolved over hundreds of years. He claims that as many as twelve million adults in the UK are in favour of a republic but have their “regularly ignored” by the media. He particularly accuses the BBC of being “institutionally biased in favour of the Royal Family.” Armed with a specially commissioned ICM opinion poll showing 80% of the nation appears indifferent to events on April 29^th he believes the wedding coverage should be “toned down to reflect reality.”

James Edgecombe, Chairman of the British Monarchist League established last year in defence of Queen and Country, doesn’t agree saying: “Whilst there’s not as many street parties as on previous Royal occasions I feel that’s more to do with bureaucracy and the time of year. But you can bet that thousands will go to London to see the special event. Meanwhile millions, who wouldn’t watch the wedding of a president’s grandson, will witness it on the television.”

Even if true should that be a cause for celebration? Aren’t the outdated values of elitism, that many feel the monarchy embodies, holding Britain back? Not according to Edgecombe, from Doncaster: “In a world of constant change it’s comforting that there is the monarchy to provide a sense of stability and continuation. Also the Royal Family, through many of their charities, seek to help the least well off. They also often serve as important role models for people.”

Considering Prince Charles is known to have spent the night before his 1981 wedding to Lady Diana Spencer with a “blonde woman”, who was almost certainly Camilla Parker Bowles, his current wife, is that really the case? And what of Prince Andrew’s well publicised relationship with businessman Jeffrey Epstein, who recently spent over a year in jail for soliciting prostitution from underage girls?

Edgecombe dismisses these points on grounds the Royal Family are “only human.” He defends Prince Andrew’s choice of a paedophile friend on grounds that this is not "as serious as the fact that the Prime Minister of Italy is facing trial for allegedly paying an underage girl for sex."

Critics of the Duke of York are not so willing to forgive, especially as he’s currently representing the country as a UK special representative for trade and investment. Yet when Chris Bryant MP called on Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with his services this was rejected on grounds he was “doing a good job.” Which wasn’t the case with Bryant said Speaker John Bercow as he reprimanded the former Foreign Office minister for even raising the subject in the House of Commons on grounds that any references to the royal family must be “rare and very respectful.”

That would certainly mean former Fife Labour MP Willie Hamilton would be thrown out of the debating chamber if he were around to repeat his frequent 70s and 80s attacks on the royal family. These included calling the Queen “a clockwork doll” and Prince Charles “a twerp”, all as part of his support for a republic and the ending of the Civil List under which the monarch has their expenses for performing official duties paid by the taxpayer. This is currently £7.9 million annually, around a fifth of the total estimated £38.2 million costs when transport, security, property maintenance and other sundry expenses are included.

For John Masding of the Royal Society of St George, an organisation claiming to be ‘England’s Premier Patriotic Society’, it’s money well spent. Getting rid of the Royals “would destroy a huge part of our heritage that brings in many tourists from around the world, helping generate a huge income for the country. “ 

It’s a familiar argument and one that Smith disputes. Firstly by estimating an annual cost for the monarchy of £183 million, and then saying there is “no evidence to suggest tourism revenue is reliant on Britain’s undemocratic constitution, which includes not knowing how much tax the Queen pays as it is secret and entirely voluntary.”

What’s also not known is how much she’s worth. In the Sunday Times’ first Rich List in 1989 she was valued at £5.2 billion. It was a figure that rose to £7 billion in 1992 but which over the years has been continuously downgraded to the current figure of £290 million. Even at the lower level it’s a large sum for Prince Charles to inherit on his mother’s death.

Nevertheless Smith is more than happy for him to it and also retain the Balmoral and Sandringham estates with their combined 90,000 acreage. 

He’s also happy to wish Prince William and Kate Middleton “all the best for their big day.” He’s aghast however by the Queen’s invitation to the King of Bahrain, especially only weeks after he ordered his troops to open fire on pro-democracy demonstrators. He wants the invitation withdrawn and doesn’t want taxpayers, especially during these straightened economic times, paying the bill for the wedding.

Neither does he want the pair subsequently playing any role in the nations affairs “by privilege of birth.” He’s asked them to concede their rights to become king and queen in order to pave the way for the formation of a Republic.

But does it matter if, as Republic accepts, the monarch is little more than a figurehead for the nation? Smith believes it does and that abolition would mean “there can be elections for a president who can act as our constitutional protector and arbitrator of our political system.

Prime Minister’s have vast powers of patronage and the power to declare war. None of which is subject to any proper scrutiny. Not so under a republic. Getting rid of the monarchy will start a radical reform of our political system to make it truly democratic.” 

Blackburn Rovers 0 Manchester City 1

Blackburn Rovers 0

Manchester City 1

Dzeko

A late and first Premier League goal for Manchester City’s record signing Edin Dzeko puts the FA Cup Finalists in pole position to grab the final Champions League place next season from fifth placed Tottenham Hotspur.

It was a deserved victory for Roberto Mancini’s side but the result leaves Blackburn Rovers staring at the relegation trapdoor and with no victories in eleven games and with matches at West Ham and Wolves to come then victory at home to Bolton Wanderers on Saturday is absolutely crucial. Lose that and it’s difficult to see Steve Kean’s side surviving.

City might have taken the lead after three minutes but with Paul Robinson beaten David Silva’s 20 yard drive came back into play off the inside of the post. With Adam Johnson looking lively fullback Gael Givet experienced a difficult first half hour as the home side struggled to stay in the match and there was relief when Michel Salgado cleared Gareth Barry’s header off the line.

However with David Dunn playing some neat passes Blackburn were able after the half hour mark to seek some relief and Chris Samba might have done better with a headed opportunity. He certainly should have with his second headed chance on 40 minutes but with Joe Hart beaten the big central defender missed by a whisker. It meant the sides ran off with neither having troubled the scorer.

Yaya Toure saw his header palmed away by Robinson as City surged forward on the restart. Yet with Phil Jones playing marvellously at the centre of the home defence Rovers were by no means overawed, although Silva might have done better with his shot on the hour mark.

On 71 minutes Dzeko replaced Johnson and three minutes later he delivered the killer touch. It came after a desperate attempt by Jones to clear Silva’s cross landed at the £27 million man’s feet and with Givet advancing he curled the ball into the net past the despairing dive of Robinson. Cue ecstatic celebrations amongst the 4,500 travelling fans whose constant chants throughout the game of ‘Who put the ball in the Munichs' net?’ is unlikely to be welcomed warmly by the Football Association at next months Cup Final.

Only once did Rovers seriously look like they might grab a draw, Jones heading over with just four minutes remaining. It’s strongly rumoured that when Indian company Venky took over Blackburn in December they didn’t realise that English Football extended beyond the Premiership and that a club doing badly could be relegated. Certainly it’s almost beyond belief that they would have replaced experienced manager Sam Allardyce with Kean if they knew anything about football, and Championship football beckons.