My date with Jon Gaunt

This evening I shall be in St Albans for An Audience with Jon Gaunt. Sacked by TalkSPORT in November, Jon writes: "I can't wait to get back on stage and tell you what I think about the state of the country and of course TalkSQUAWK!"

He adds: "Lawyers and I are launching a campaign to stop the Tin Pot Hitlers who run social services up and down the country from making up stupid rules on who can foster or adopt - you know, like banning smokers or people who are too fat etc."

No doubt we'll hear more about the campaign tonight. In the meantime I have been warned: "Please be advised the show may contain strong language. Not suitable for under 16s."

An Audience with Ann Widdecombe it's not.

See: Jon Gaunt sacked by TalkSPORT.

Update on Saturday, January 31, 2009 by Simon Clark

"C'mon Gaunty! C'mon Gaunty, my son!" Er, no, that wasn't me. That was the bald bloke three rows back. Then there was Bonny who wouldn't shut up. At first I thought she'd mistaken the event for a hen night. But no, she was a genuine fan. She even recognised one of Gaunty's routines, having heard it before.

Last but not least there was the man himself. "Are you with me?" he roared as I sank deeper into my seat, hoping he wouldn't single me out as he did other members of the audience. I bet he's not like this on Countdown.

Save our pubs ... amend the ban

Yesterday afternoon someone sent me a text message. "Where are you?", it said. "At the Queen's Head in Coggleshall, Essex," I replied, truthfully.

It's early days but we are currently working on a new campaign called "Save Our Pubs and Clubs: Amend the Smoking Ban". (I know, it's a bit of a mouthful, but it does what it says on the tin.) Coalition partners include the Adam Smith Institute, the liberal think tank Progressive Vision and, most important, several branches of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations who represent self-employed licensees in the licensed trade.

Yesterday was our first meeting with publicans. Our host was Paul Lofthouse (above) who runs, with his wife Liz, the Queen's Head in Coggleshall. Paul not only initiated the meeting, he also got the local media interested, including (as you can see HERE) the BBC.

As I say, the campaign is currently in development but as soon as there is more to report (including how you can help), I'll let you know. In the meantime we need to find many more publicans like Paul Lofthouse who are willing to stand up and be counted.

Update on Thursday, January 29, 2009 by Simon Clark

See article in local paper HERE. The story was also covered by BBC Radio Essex.

Live blogging from Brussels

Dick Puddlecote is writing a rather good live blog of the TICAP/UKIP conference HERE. At its best this is what distinguishes blogging from most - possibly all - other media. It can provide an instant record of current events, including conferences like this which are unlikely to be reported by the mainstream media. Anyone with a laptop or mobile phone can do it, so it's very democratic. It's also strangely addictive ... help!

Forest - the first 30 years

Forest was founded in 1979. This year therefore is our 30th anniversary. The first smokers' rights group in the world, Forest was founded by Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, a distinguished World War II pilot who became the RAF's commander-in-chief in Germany and later chairman of the Battle of Britain Fighter Pilots' Association and vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute.

Sir Christopher was the first chairman of Forest. A pipesmoker, he died in 2003, aged 86. He was succeeded in 1987 by Lord Harris of High Cross, another pipesmoker, who retained the position until he died in 2006, aged 81.

In its 30-year history there have been just four executive directors: Stephen Eyres (1981-1990), Chris Tame (1990-1995), Marjorie Nicholson (1995-1998) and me. Several people (Marjorie among them) worked for Forest in some capacity for at least ten years. The record, I think, is 13.

There's something about Forest - and the smoking debate in general - that gets under the skin and makes it difficult to walk away. I don't know what it is, but it becomes less of a job and more of a crusade. It drives you crazy (at times) and it's relentless because the war on tobacco never stops. But there have been some marvellous moments which make it worthwhile.

Later in the year we will mark the anniversary with one or two special events. Plans currently include a parliamentary reception, a one-day symposium, a prohibition party (similar to our hugely successful event at the 2006 Conservative conference), and a gala dinner incorporating the 30th Anniversary Forest Awards.

For further information sign up HERE. Or watch this space.

What's wrong with drinking every night?

Devil's Kitchen has drawn attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph headlined, "Millions of middle-class drinkers putting health at risk with evening tipple".

The paper reports that "A comprehensive survey claims that middle aged, professional Britons are more likely to exceed recommended daily levels of alcohol consumption than the working-classes, with twice as many drinking every night of the week."

According to Norman Lamb, Lib Dem spokesman on health:

"These statistics lift the lid on the very serious scale of middle-class alcohol consumption, and the potential health risks that this involves. While attention has rightly been on the massive problem of young people binge-drinking, a hidden epidemic among the middle classes has gone unnoticed. The Government has continued to massively under-fund alcohol treatment services, meaning this problem has been allowed to continue unabated."

I mention this because three months ago I was invited to address a seminar in Whitehall organised by the Westminster Health Forum. The subject was "Alcohol & Responsibility" and I was asked to speak about binge drinking and "everyday" drinking.

An extended version of my speech can be found HERE on The Free Society website. But here's a taster:

"I believe the problem of binge drinking has been exaggerated ... We’re told that it’s a cause of considerable national expense; hospital admissions directly linked to excess alcohol have more than doubled in the past 10 years; alcohol-related crimes and accidents have risen sharply; it causes domestic violence; traffic accidents etc etc.

"We’re told that Britain’s drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year; that 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year; that 40% of A&E admissions are alcohol-related, and that between midnight and 5.00am that figure rises to 70%.

"We’re also told that “5.9 million people drink more than twice the recommended daily guidelines on some occasions” as if this is a terrible, anti-social thing to do.

"I’m sorry, but statistics like this – some of which appear to have been plucked out of thin air – leave me immensely sceptical about the scale of the problem."

I then added:

"One reason why the scale of the problem is exaggerated is because the definition of binge drinking has changed: ten years ago, it was “ten or more drinks in one session”. Now, apparently, it’s ten or more units for men, seven for women, which is very different.

"I’ve even seen a definition of binge drinking to be “drinking sufficient alcohol to reach a state of intoxication”. Now if that’s a definition of a binge drinker, I’ll hold my hand up and say that I binge drink at least three times a week.

"Like many people, I often have three or four glasses of wine, or 2-3 pints of beer, in the evening – and yes, it leaves me feeling a little light-headed (some would call that intoxicated) – but I think that’s rather a nice feeling after a hard day’s work.

"Am I a threat to my family, to my neighbours, to society? I think not. Yet if I were to tell a researcher about my alcohol intake I would no doubt become a binge drinking statistic and added to the “growing number” of binge drinkers that - we are told - is becoming such a burden on society."

It wasn't a bad speech but I don't think it impressed the audience (which included MPs, peers and health professionals), most of whom looked a bit nonplussed.

Nor, clearly, did it influence the chairman - a certain Norman Lamb MP, Lib Dem spokesman on health!!

Free speech stubbed out

Last year, as I wrote HERE, I travelled to Brussels to attend a meeting of "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments".

Seconds into the meeting, to which I had been invited, several hands shot up and two or three delegates announced that if I didn't leave they would leave the room. Others nodded in agreement. In the EU, it seems, free speech and tobacco operate on different planets.

Next week, also in Brussels, a group called The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) was due to hold a two-day conference under the patronage of Godfrey Bloom MEP (UKIP). The event was called "Smoking Bans and Lies" and the programme was unambiguously partisan.

Venue was the European Parliament building and I understand that several readers of this blog were planning to attend.

Yesterday morning it was reported that the conference had been moved from the Parliament to a hotel near the Parliament building. Last night I was told by Gawain Towler, press officer for UKIP in Brussels, that the original conference hosted by Godfrey Bloom has been cancelled and in its place is a "new" conference with a very similar programme. (Don't ask me why. I'm only the messenger.)

The "new" conference will be called "Thinking Is Forbidden" and officially it will be hosted not by Godfrey Bloom but by the British arm of the Independence/Democracy Group (aka UKIP). Delegates who were due to attend "Smoking Bans and Lies" will be invited to attend "Thinking Is Forbidden" instead.

The reason for this game of musical chairs seems to be related to THIS outrageous letter which was sent, in December, to Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European Parliament, by Florence Berteletti Kemp, director of the Smoke Free Partnership (which includes Cancer Research UK).

In her letter, Kemp argues that "this event should not under any circumstances take place on the premises of the European Parliament". She then gives the following reasons:

• "the event appears to be in contravention of Parliament’s own rules of procedure and is detrimental to the dignity of Parliament"

• "the event goes against all of Parliament’s adopted reports and the European Community’s legislation and commitments on this topic"

• "it violates the spirit of the International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control"

There's a lot more of this high-handed nonsense in Kemp's letter and any self-respecting institution would have torn it up and sent her packing. But not the European Parliament. I am told that on on Tuesday 12 January a committee met in camera and decided that permission for the conference to be held within the Parliament building had been withdrawn.

Neither Godfrey Bloom nor anyone else associated with "Smoking Bans and Lies" were told that the conference was on the agenda. In their absence, the committee acted as judge and jury. According to UKIP's Gawain Towler, the organisers only discovered that they were barred from using the Parliament building on Tuesday this week, a full seven days after the meeting.

What has happened beggars belief. I am assured that the venue was secured months in advance. Delegates and speakers have made travel arrangements. Hotel accommodation has been reserved. Video conferencing links have been booked.

And yet ... is anyone surprised? The anti-tobacco lobby is ruthless and will happily suppress any form of debate, or opposition.

Ironically, thanks to these unelected bureaucrats, news of the conference will almost certainly reach a far wider audience than would otherwise have been the case.

Note: as I understand it, "Thinking Is Forbidden" will take place at the Hotel Berlyamont Silken, Blvd Charlemagne 11, Brussels, on 27-28 January. For details/confirmation contact Gawain Towler, Independence/Democracy Group, telephone +32 (0)2 284 6384.

Smoking and employment

Someone has drawn attention, on another thread, to an article by Prof Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health which raises the question of smoking and employment. This is an issue that Forest first highlighted eight or nine years ago when we analysed hundreds of recruitment ads in a number of publications (including the Guardian) and noted the increasing trend for companies to employ "non-smokers only". (Our subsequent report caused quite a stir.)

The press release that promotes Siegel's article is unambiguous: "US experts call for rethink of trend to bar smokers from employment". It continues:

The increasing trend for employers, particularly in the US, to bar smokers from applying for jobs or staying in post should be stopped, until the appropriateness of such policies has been properly evaluated, argue experts in an essay published in Tobacco Control.

As of August 2008, 21 US states, 400 US cities, nine Canadian provinces, six Australian states/territories, and 14 other countries, including the UK, had banned smoking in workplaces, bars, and restaurants.

But in recent years, smoke free workplaces have shifted to “smoker-free workplaces”, with some companies even stating “tobacco free candidates only” in their employment policies ...

These policies aim to cut cigarette consumption, by promoting the need to quit and by making smoking less socially acceptable, say the authors from the Universities of Washington and Boston.

The evidence backs them up. And there is also some evidence to suggest that these policies could boost productivity and reduce absenteeism, they add.

But quite apart from infringements of personal privacy and individual rights, smokers who are sacked or forced to resign many not be able to find other work, which in itself could have a seriously detrimental impact on their and their families’ health, contend the authors.

Smokers will also be unjustly discriminated against in a way that people who risk their health by drinking or eating too much, and exercising too little, are not ...

The authors call for a much wider public health debate, and for proper evaluation of these policies, on the grounds that “the potential unintended side effects ... could be far reaching”.

Michael Siegel writes about the article on his blog HERE. For the full article, in Tobacco Control, click HERE.

How the media works

The Daily Mail doesn't like Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand. That much is clear. Ever since the Andrew Sachs "scandal" last year there has been a never-ending series of articles criticising both men.

Today the paper featured a stinging attack on Brand in which it was reported that the comedian's 'Scandalous' tour is "playing to disappointingly packed theatres".

The Mail is particularly miffed that Brand "does not appear to have a shred of shame or remorse about the outrage he caused". Worse, he "now spiels endlessly on about the unfortunate Sachs".

I don't condone the original incident but given the subsequent headlines, and the nature of his act (which no-one is forced to see), I don't see why Brand shouldn't mention it. Whatever happened to free speech?

Words tumble from the pen keyboard of the outraged hack. Brand, we are told, is "self-obsessed", "shallow", "sordid", "deluded", "one-dimensional", "talentless", "disgraceful". It's enough to make me want to see the show myself.

As it happens, a friend of mine used to work for the Mail. One day she was given the job of interviewing US comedienne Joan Rivers and it was made very clear that she was expected to do a hatchet job.

The problem was, she got on rather well with Joan and liked her - a lot. But if I remember correctly, she still had to put the boot in, which upset her at the time.

I find it hard to believe that a bright young cosmopolitan journalist could be as offended by Russell Brand as the report in the Mail suggests. Then I remembered Joan Rivers.

Update on Thursday, January 22, 2009 by Simon Clark

The Times reports that "Jonathan Ross returns to TV with Bush jokes" (see HERE). How lame is that? Surely some Obama jokes would have been a bit more cutting edge? And courageous.

How America has changed

Last word (from me) on Barack Obama's inauguration. I agree with those who thought that his speech was good but not great. (Two days later does anyone remember as much as a soundbite?) Does it matter? Not really. A "great" speech would have only fuelled unreasonable expectations that one man (or government) can change the world. (Are you listening, Gordon Brown?) People have to accept that there is only so much that presidents, prime ministers and governments should - and can - do.

Nevertheless you would have to have a heart of stone not to share the joy of millions of people as an African-American was sworn into office at the White House for the first time in history. Many had travelled hundreds, possibly thousands, of miles to be there. Many more were residents of Washington and I suspect that a lot of them, especially the older generations, couldn't believe what they were seeing.

Twenty-five years ago, when I made my first visit to America, I was a guest of the Young America's Foundation, a staunchly Republican outfit whose slogan is "The Conservative movement starts here".

I was one of 20 young Europeans invited to spend 14 days in Washington. (My roommate, Michael Fry, was and is a journalist and historian.) Each morning we listened to or engaged with a high profile politico. After lunch we were taken on the series of excursions. I remember going to the White House (where Ronald Reagan was in office), Capitol Hill, the Washington Monument and so on. One day (my favourite) we visited the old colonial capital of Williamsburg.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that rarely if ever did we rub shoulders with any black people. In fact, it came as a surprise to be told that the majority of the population in Washington is non-white. The reason this wasn't apparent is because, as I later discovered, we were staying in what was effectively the white quarter, and each day our coach would take us from there into the Capitol Hill/White House area which, again, was dominated by white people.

The only time I saw a significant number of black faces was through the window of our coach when - for the first and only time - we drove through a visibly run-down area. Groups of people were milling around the entrances to various apartment blocks and I remember being told that in the summer, at night, many black Americans in these neighbourhoods would sleep outside because - in the absence of air-conditioning - it was too hot to sleep inside these crumbling, concrete buildings.

That was in 1983. To all intents and purposes segregation was still in place (if not in force) and for a black man, educated or otherwise, the road to the White House must have seemed like a million miles, and littered with obstacles.

Whatever happens during Obama's presidency, his election demonstrates that nothing is for ever. America has come an incredibly long way and if you believe, as I do, that freedom and racial equality are inseparable, we should be grateful for that.

Obama's "toughest task"?

The credit crunch, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ... it's good to know that these problems pale into insignificance when Obama confronts his number one enemy. Or, as an article in The Times put it yesterday: "Can Barack Obama kick his nasty habit? One of the toughest tasks facing the new President when he steps into the White House is quitting the cigarettes."

Full article HERE.

Introducing ... Dawn Primarollup

Rod Liddle, a former Smoker-Friendly Journalist of the Year (Forest Awards) and a guest at our Revolt In Style dinner in 2007, appeared on The Politics Show (West) yesterday. Subject: the government's proposal to ban the display of tobacco.

An edited version of the pre-recorded interview appears on the BBC website HERE. It's worth watching. However, the online version is rather different from the broadcast version because it omits a substantial chunk of the interview, including this exchange:

DAVID GARMSTON (presenter): And when are you going to pack up the fags?

LIDDLE: I don’t know. I might give it a year. I rather enjoy it, it is very pleasurable. And of course one does look a lot cooler when you’re smoking a cigarette. You can’t get away from it.

GARMSTON: Dawn Primarolo will be watching this programme now and there will be smoke coming from her ears at your suggestion.

LIDDLE: I wonder, has she ever smoked?

GARMSTON: I don’t know.

LIDDLE: Wouldn’t surprise me if she had, a few roll-ups. Dawn Primarollup. [laughs]

GARMSTON: [laughs] Rod Liddle, we’d better leave it there. Thank you.

Amusingly, the programme then cut to a live interview with Primarollup Primarolo which began with Garmston saying:

"Well, Dawn Primarolo is with me now. Dawn, I wasn’t laughing. I was coughing from the fumes from his ciggies."

And Primarolo's response?

I don’t care when you laugh. He can be irreverent. What does it matter to me? I’m not asking him to like me. I’m not even asking him to agree with me, but, you know, he’s entitled to his view. He likes smoking, but the truth is that seven out of ten smokers want to stop smoking and they look to the Health Service to help them do that, so, you know, 87,000 people a year die of smoking-related diseases. It’s an important issue.

Prim by name, prim by nature. Later in the interview the minister for public health admitted that "I have smoked, yes ... but it was quite a while ago and I don’t smoke." So that's alright.

Stopping short of prohibition

Money Week reports that 2009 could be a landmark year for Big Tobacco. In America "Congress will soon pass an aggressive bill that will bring cigarettes under the control of US health authorities. Strict rules on advertising will be introduced and the path will be paved for Congress to raise federal cigarette taxes by 61 cents, to $1 a pack."

Interestingly, though, "The bill prevents the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from ever banning cigarettes". I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. Full article HERE.

John Mortimer 1923-2009

I was sorry to hear that Sir John Mortimer had died. Mind you, he was 85. A year or two before his own death, aged 81, in 2006, Forest chairman Lord Harris exchanged correspondence with Mortimer. Unknown to us, the creator of Rumpole of the Bailey (a wine-loving, cigar-smoking barrister) was already confined to a wheelchair and unable to attend a press conference at the House of Lords where we were launching a challenge to the Chief Medical Officer on the subject of passive smoking.

Mortimer was a champagne socialist and Ralph was an outspoken free marketeer. Nevertheless, Sir John still found time to wish us well and confirm what we already knew - that he was fierce opponent of the government's anti-smoking policies. Here, lest we forget, are some of his more memorable quotes:

"Nonsmoking? I absolutely hate that. I'm not particularly keen on smoking. I'm not particularly good at it. I used to smoke and then I gave it up, partly because I don't like dirty ashtrays. But I forced myself to take it up again when the Government said it would ban smoking in public places." (The Times, 16 February 2008)

"Do you know, I'm so irritated with the ban I've forced myself to smoke. I don't really want to, but now I have to. This ban is absolute rubbish. These people don't realise the limits of government. They should run the legal system and see that the drains work. But you're told how to cross the road. And what to eat. For heaven's sake - think of something more important." (Scotsman, 4 March 2007)

"I went to a pub recently and found I was the only person left indoors because everyone had gone out to stand in the freezing rain to smoke and catch pneumonia. I love smoky bars, and I think what this government has done is awful." (Observer, 6 July 2008)

But if you really want a taste of life with the Mortimers, read THIS enchanting interview with his second wife Penny in the London Evening Standard in 2003. Here's a taster:

From the outside of Penny and John Mortimer's house situated down a dirt-track road, everything looks still and quiet. The gate says Beware of the Dog but there are, seemingly, no dogs. Everything is still. The heat is shimmering off the green slated roof of the 1930s rambling cottage John Mortimer's parents had built for them all those years ago. When I knock on the door no one comes, so I just open it, walk in through the kitchen and look through the glass of the Mortimers' conservatory.

What I see before me is a mid-morning equivalent of the Mad Hatter's tea party. Penny Mortimer is sitting at a large wooden table smoking madly and chatting on the telephone. A man in smart, but born-to-serve, black trousers and a white shirt seems to be Hoovering the flower beds. Another young man in sunglasses is picking up cigarette ends from under Penny's feet, and a slim, gorgeous young woman is lying sunbathing on the lawn. She is smoking and reading a book.

John Mortimer, now 80 years old, is seated in his Sunseeker, which seems to be a cross between a golf cart and a motorised disability chair. There are four bouncy dogs rampaging over everything. "Oh, go away!" Penny yells at them in her throaty, distinctively smoky rasp.

There's another lady, who seems to be called Maria, ferrying coffee and champagne backwards and forwards from the house and another one, slim, older, wearing white with a halo of blonde curly hair, kneeling down on the ground preparing what seems to be a foot bath.

"Ah, hello!" says Penny when she sees me. "Come and have a coffee. Or some champagne. Or a cigarette. Or all three."

Entropa - symbol of free speech

It is reported that "The Czech EU presidency has apologised for an art installation it commissioned that lampoons national stereotypes" (see HERE and HERE). Sadly, even the artist David Cerny has expressed regret. He has no need to. This is the most wickedly funny artwork I have ever seen.

Normally you would have to drag me kicking and screaming into an art exhibition. This, however, is something I would happily cross the Channel to see. As The Times reports:

Entropa, a garish depiction of the 27 member states created to mark the Czech Republic’s presidency of the EU, revealed its full glory when it was switched on. The eyes lit up on the vampire representing Romania, Greece glowed red with bushfires and Italian soccer players began to masturbate with their footballs.

If the EU can't see the funny side then we really are better off out. Actually, I suspect that the installation - currently on view at the European Council building in Brussels - will be a smash hit with visitors from all over the world.

Entropa is a welcome symbol of free speech. It demonstrates that political statements don't have to be hectoring or boring. They can be funny as well.

How ironic that genuine liberals in countries like Britain now look to former Eastern bloc states like the Czech Republic for inspiration and leadership.

Apologise? I should think not.

Football and the free market

The media is awash with the story that Manchester City hope to buy Kaka, the Brazilian footballer, for £100m from his current club, AC Milan, and allegedly pay him £500,000 a week.

Yesterday I shared the view - expressed by Paul Kelso in today's Daily Telegraph HERE - that in the present climate £100m for a footballer is "obscene" or, at the very least, "pretty smutty".

This morning I read a piece by Martin Samuel, chief sports writer for the Daily Mail, who was himself the subject of a recent big money transfer (from The Times) for what is rumoured to be a £400k salary.

Samuel takes a rather different tack to Kelso - and the majority of commentators - which possibly explains his exalted status among sports writers. And he has completely won me over with his arguments. Here are some edited highlights:

Here is what we need to remember about football: it is meant to be fun. It is meant to entertain. It is meant to brighten your day. Watching it should be a positive experience ... So, Kaka to Manchester City. What's not to like?

But, ye gods, there are some miserable people out there. The death of football, one bloke called it. An impossibly rich man attempts to spend £100million of his personal fortune to bring a truly great footballer into our game in a way that opens up the domestic competition, and this is a bad thing?

We raise ungrounded fears and make specious criticisms. Yes, £100m could build a hospital, but it is not the job of the royal family of Abu Dhabi to build hospitals in Great Britain. If your hospital is rubbish, has run out of beds or is riddled with bugs, your issue is not with Manchester City but central government, via your local health authority. And, believe me, central government wastes money on projects with the potential to bring considerably less pleasure to the wider public than taking Brazil's best player on a nationwide tour, funded by outside money.

'Football,' said Danny Blanchflower, 'is about glory. It is about doing things with style and a flourish, not waiting for the other lot to die of boredom.'

Bidding £100m for Kaka - even if, as is likely, he stays at AC Milan - reminds us that this game is meant to be amusing, exuberant and dizzying. It is meant to distract from drudgery rather than add to it, to pursue excellence and adventure rather than settle for what is anodyne and conservative.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this. Manchester City isn't responsible for the credit crunch or the recession. If the club's owner Sheikh Mansour wishes to spend his own money pursuing a rich man's dream, that's a matter for him. It is, after all, a free market.

Is there a downside, asks Samuel:

Yes, but not one that impacts on the neutral. There is a distinct feeling that Manchester City are attempting to put on the roof before putting up the walls and that is no way to run a successful football club.

Attempting to marry Kaka and Robinho to a defence that cannot cope with Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup is clearly a plan fraught with danger. Central defenders and a holding midfield player are still needed, so City followers have every reason to lurch from delightful anticipation to disquiet.

So a sleepless night for them, and for Mark Hughes, the manager. For the rest of us, what do we care? Knock yourself out, Sheik. Let's see what happens.

Full article HERE.