Beautiful game’s ugly, costly faces

THE media christened football “the beautiful game”. They should now re-name it the “cheating game”. Why do we need to have all these endless hours of TV coverage of a game that is no longer a sport?

The BBC must have spent millions of pounds on sending 272 people to Brazil to cover the World Cup and paying so-called experts vast amounts of money to supposedly educate us on the finer points of the game (Tom Richmond, The Yorkshire Post, June 28).

Nothing can be further from the truth. The limit of Alan Hansen’s vocabulary appears to be “absolutely fantastic”. If they can waste all that money, the BBC should have their licence fee drastically reduced. It is tantamount to stealing the watching public’s money.

Then we have the Premier League’s Player of the Year biting an opponent – not for the first time in his career and having been banned twice for the offence. He then has the audacity to claim that he lost his balance.

Is that the best excuse he can come up having had four or five days to think about it? How about Luis Suarez telling the truth?

Now we have Liverpool FC saying he has been harshly treated – obviously they are worried that someone who has cost them millions could be worth nothing to them.

They should be ashamed of themselves and the only thing that should have happened to Luis Suarez is that he should have been banned from the game for life. What sort of an example is he to all the youngsters who love football? Fifa should also be ashamed of itself.

Professional football has brought itself into disrepute, and unless things change, will continue to do so.

From: Roger M Dobson, Ash Street, Crosshills, Keighley.

WHAT is the matter with the BBC these days? On Saturday, June 28, we were forced to watch the match between Brazil and Chile – not just 90 minutes but extra time and penalties as well. What a waste of prime time viewing.

The BBC needs to be aware that it not everybody wants to watch soccer on television.

Spelling out clear lesson

From: Liz White, Foxen Lane, Mill Bank, Sowerby Bridge.

MRS EA Henry (The Yorkshire Post, June 28) proposes to change accepted spellings to simpler forms. However, her example of changing the word “could” to be spelled “cud” would inadvertently completely change the meaning of the word, as “cud” is what a cow chews. In a language, which has a larger vocabulary than most, it would be a constant problem if spellings were changed to the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps it would help if children were not allowed to get away with spelling mistakes in one lesson, because that one was “writing a story”, and not in another, because that was a “spelling lesson”. Yes, there may be a lot of mistakes made initially, “but at leest mowst childrun wudof lernd thu basiks ov speling evenchully.”

No sympathy for strike call

From: Bob Watson, Springfield Road, Baildon.

I HAVE had little sympathy with Yorkshire Ambulance Service workers in their recent strike actions. However, any vestige of sympathy still left has disappeared following their cynical decision to strike again during the Tour de France weekend (The Yorkshire Post, June 28).

It seems that only 37 per cent of the workforce voted for this unwarranted action. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Quite frankly, they should all be thoroughly ashamed.

Cameron’s future in EU?

From: David H Rhodes, Keble Park North, Bishopthorpe, York.

DAVID Cameron must realise that he might not be the Prime Minister after the next election. With this in mind how can he promise an in/out referendum to the EU in 2017 which he would not be able to implement?

Add this to his firm threat that Britain will withdraw now Mr Juncker is president. Under the pretext of being in negotiations, our membership will continue but it sets the scene of David Cameron appearing to be a firm and skilful statesman.

Should his gut feeling come true next year, then he should be well placed for the “brotherhood” to offer him a lucrative position in the EU. As with Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair, failure and deceit have their rewards.

Just don’t answer it

From: ME Wright, Grove Road, Harrogate.

FOLLOWING receipt of yet more unwelcome phone calls, Diana Priestley (The Yorkshire Post, June 25) asks “How do others deal with it?” During the daytime nuisance period, I suggest letting every call go to an answer phone and that she reply only if the voice is recognised.

Otherwise complain to Ofcom, but don’t be too optimistic – this assumes that you have a computer, plus the ability and will to negotiate the digital morass.

Like the rest of the curiously named “regulators”, Ofcom seem to lack the will or power to act on behalf of anyone other than the money men.