Was anyone actually surpised when

they heard Harry Redknapp had been arrested? I mean, the fact that he looks and talks a bit dodge, and has the gene splice of a PI, a used car salesman, and a sniffer dog, is why we like the chap afterall. He somehow fits into our idea of what a football manager should be like. And wide. God is good ole 'arry wide. "the p'lice confiscated the wifes' compooter. I bought her it last christmas, and the silly mare only learned to turn to on last month. The rozzers won't find nufink on there. Nufink." Ok, he might not have said silly mare. What you might note here is that I wrote Harry's words in the vernacular. Like BBC writers do when they do scripts for gritty police dramas where people say guvnah, or guv, when talking to their boss. While the failure to do this gentrifies speech, the act of doing this seems a bit patronising really. But how else I am going to capture how Harry Redknapp talks when it is how he talks that endears him to us?

Also arrested was Milan Mandaric. Who, before getting into football, had a career as a"Lord Of Illusion " on late 1980s kids' cartoon Defenders Of the Earth. De-fen-ders. Sorry, I've been waiting for a chance to get that gag in for ages and no talk of magic at Leicester City was going to do it.

Not overly talented journeyman Faye has also been arrested. Ensuring he'll be remembered more for his agent fees than anything he'll ever do on the pitch.

As I was out the country last year the whole saga pertaining to the Panorama documentary passed me by. I reckon that anyone charged on the basis of the charges mentioned on the programme will use the fact that it was broadcast as as a defence should they ever face trial though. I mean, it does prejudice them a bit doesn't it? At least their lawyers will say so. This will lead to fun come jury selection when they are trying to avoid bias.

"did you ever see the panorama programme?"

"do you support either Leicester, Portsmouth, Newcastle, West Ham, Southampton, or any other team that has anything to do with the accused?"

"how about any team that regularly plays against them"

"do you like football in any way shape or form?"

Basically only those completely unexposed to football will be able to reach a neutral decision. Which means only my mate Steve who doesn't own a telly, and a scottish hermit, will be eligible to stand on the jury. And the government will use this as an excuse to introduce the no trial by jury for fraud cases law. A law they have been trying to introduce for ages because they think that juries are too stupid to understand complex financial matters.

Of course not. The jury will only be asked, for example, to disregard what they may have heard about Harry Redknapp already. To which the people will reply "who is Harry Redknapp?"

Like my girlfriend did when we were watching the news last night.

Also correcting the BBc (again!)

Non football related this one. As I was reading the BBC website the other day I noticed that they branded the Uruguayan Tupumaros as a "violent Marxist" group. This is erroneous. So I sent the Beeb this letter. "I was reading your country profile on Uruguay. Generally speaking it is a good overview. I must object however to the description of the Tupumaros as "violent". The Tupumaros were famously non-violent, although they did perpetrate illegal and unlawful acts. The British ambassador Geoffrey Jackson, kidnapped by the organisation, is a sound witness as to their non-violence. Perhaps the phrase "unlawful Marxist" would be be better. I think when discussing these matters it is important to distinguish between revolutionary organisations that use violence against the general population and those that don't (even though they may commit crimes in the name of their cause). If we fail to make this distinction we end-up branding all radical groups as "terrorists" and risk justifying the unjustifiable and disproportionate. This is of particular importance when writing about Latin American history. " The website now reads "urban Marxist". Which should well be down to my letter, I think/hope. As director generals have resigned over lesser erors obviously offending the queen is more important than accurately describing Latin American history. Of course "urban" does not really mean anything in this instance. It is a geographical term not a sociological term. Even if it conjures up borderline legal/shadowy activity. Or groups of kids in Dalston litening to to MOBO award nominees. There is also no information on the tupumaros activities either- how they used to rob banks and give money to the poor, rather like Robin Hood. Imagine for example if the Merry men were described as a "rural anarchist group", when we all know they are folk heroes. Notions of neutrality and objectivity depend on context and ideological convenience, so it seems. Hamas for example "are described as a terrorist organisation by the US, EU, and Israel." The Israeli government is not. Despite the fact that both kill civilians in the course of military operations. Traditionally this was down to the fact that the Israeli government is legitimately elected, but since Hamas were given a democratic mandate by the Palestianians the distinction remains. This confirms what we already know. What constitutes terrorism is dependent on the ideological and tactical concerns of those in power. Semantics are important. The West, and its allies, are engaged in a War On Terror. Yet what this means is woefully loose. The plurality that makes up the mass mind falls into line, or at least silence, behind the definition. The electorate are left dumb as to the real military objectives of the foreign policies they are responsible for franchising. The media, our representaives of free speech, limit our capacity for independent thought through "good journalistic practice". To quote Ian Hislop, who I have always secretly thought was a thoroughly good fucker- "if this is democracy then I'm a banana."