Social Items

TPQ
Christopher Owens 🎵 Legacies are tough to build, but easy to piss away.


Iggy Pop once said that he always keeps a close eye on the quality of his new albums, as he doesn’t want his legacy destroyed by a string of mediocre late period albums. It’s an admirable approach. One tempered with the suspicion that he realises that the life changing period of his work is long gone but feels like he still has something to offer.

It’s a balancing act that most bands should take on board. Look at the likes of Jane’s Addiction, whose constant reformations/splits and various poor records have soiled their reputation as an inventive, eclectic band.

Discharge seemingly managed to do this within a four-year period, where they went from creating the greatest punk/hardcore album EVER, to making the disastrously received ‘Grave New World’ (truthfully, it’s nowhere near as bad as its reputation suggests. And don’t let anyone tell you it’s a glam album. They’re full of shit).

Albums in the 90’s (the mediocre outings ‘Massacre Divine’ and ‘Shootin’ Up the World’) did little to help change that perspective. But the legacies of those early releases were far too strong to ever fade into insignificance. They laid down a blueprint for thrash, grindcore, crust and powerviolence.

Simply put, they helped change the face of extreme music forever.

So no matter how low Cal sunk the band, they would still matter.

That’s impressive. And quite different from Iggy and Jane’s Addiction.


In 2014, Discharge were at a crossroads.

Having reformed in 2001 with the original line up (giving us the underrated s/t LP the next year), Cal was quickly replaced by Varukers frontman Anthony ‘Rat’ Martin which led to some derision as his vocals were different from Cal’s atonal howl. It took until 2009 for the ‘Disensitise’ LP to come out. Although a great album with Rat doing a fine job, it was barely discussed.

Some (including founding members Tezz and Bones) began to see the Rat period less favourably, believing that the band had become lazy and plodded along without any real purpose. While I would disagree to a certain extent with their assessment (Laverys 2006 was my introduction to the underground, and Rat’s last gig in Dublin 2014 certainly showed them on devastating form), it was a period where seemingly little was recorded.

However, having ex Wasted Life/Broken Bones singer JJ replace Rat worked wonders for them in terms of profile. Young, energetic, ferocious and vocally along the lines of Cal, there’s no doubt that he reinvigorated the band. Signing to a prominent metal label (Nuclear Blast) certainly helped. It was nice to see them being recognised as a current band with something to offer, as opposed to a nostalgia act for the mutually assured destruction generation.


With opener ‘New World Order’, the trademark Bones guitar tone is in place. It’s a sound that has been ripped off by thousands upon thousands of bands. But hearing it from the original source is still invigorating and euphoric. And with former drummer (and brother) Tezz now on second guitar, they just upped the ante.

It’s Discharge, so you know fully well what to expect: a tornado of a song that sucks you in, throws you about and then chucks you to the side when the fun’s over. The main question people will be asking is: does JJ do the job? And I can safely state that JJ finally delivers the vocals the way they should: atonal, guttural, righteous and without any trace of an English accent (which was a bit of a weakness when it came to Rat). It’s exhilarating.

‘Raped and Pillaged’ is thunderous (with a little hint of Southern rock/blues in the little slide before the main riff. The ringing before the solo is mesmerising, sounding like the four-minute warning. Appropriately enough, ‘End of Days’ starts with a sample of Patrick Allen from the “Protect and Survive” instructional video before giving way to a killer bass riff from Rainey. It feels like a rewrite of ‘They Lie, You Die’, but the added melodic lines and solo make it a stunning song in its own right. ‘The Broken Law’ starts off with a nod to doom metal, before beating the listener into submission.


So you’ve undoubtedly got the gist of how it sounds by reading the above. But I’m sure the question you’re asking yourself is: ten years on, where does it stand in the Discharge catalogue?

It feels like the album that should have come out in between ‘Hear Nothing…’ and ‘Grave New World’: it has a bit of metal in there but still retains the trademark Discharge onslaught. The production is clear and concise, everything and everyone is on fire and JJ’s vocals cut through the attack with the atonal, deranged and passionate howl of protest that is needed for this band. If Bones hadn’t left in 1982 and used some of the ideas that wound up on the first few Broken Bones album in the context of Discharge, I think it would have sounded like what we have now.

The next question you’re probably asking is: does it top ‘Hear Nothing…’? Not a hope in hell of that happening. That album was a moment in time: where the cultural climate, songwriting and production combined to make something that still resonates today due to the musical influence the album has had and the cultural climate being as bad as 1982. It’s a shame, but ‘End of Days’ did feature on a few year-end polls so its impact was felt.

Admittedly, there can be a tendency to look at everything else as insignificant because, once you’ve peaked that highly, where else can you go? An utterly unfair way of looking at things, as the band has turned in some fine work since reforming with the original line-up in 2002. And ‘End of Days’ continues this fine run. Ignore it at your peril.

Discharge: an inspiration to us all.

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

From The Vaults 🥁Discharge ’End Of Days’

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Eight

 

A Morning Thought @ 3132

Alex McCrory ⚑ Today, I lost dear friend and comrade to cancer. 

Sae


I could not bear to look at him in final days so ravaged was his body by the disease.

Nature is merciless and devoid of compassion.

It pains me to talk of my friend in the past tense. I can still feel his presence even though he has passed away.

Who was Sean Clinton?

First and foremost, he was his own man. A true individual.

Unlike others, he never followed the crowd nor pandered to authority for the sake self-advancement.

On the contrary, he believed in thinking for himself and taking responsibility for his own decisions.

In short, he valued independence over subservience.

Sean possessed other attributes that stood him in good stead with his peers.

He displayed unshakeable loyalty, undoubted courage, and stern determination.

He was not afraid to lead from the front—not with loud words or empty gestures—but with action, conviction, and heart.

This earned him the respect of friends and comrades alike.

As a volunteer, he was prepared to stand in the gap of danger despite the personal consequences.

He never sent others to do what he would not do himself.

He believed in leading by example; standing shoulder to shoulder with his comrades.

He was a proud volunteer who refused to hide among the chaff.

When he chose a path, he followed it all the way.

Loyalty was another of his traits. If you were his friend, you had a friend for life.

If you were family, you were protected, supported, and loved without condition.

He stood by people in good times and bad.

In a world where loyalty can sometimes be fleeting, his was steadfast and unwavering.

Courage was woven into his character. Not the loud, dramatic kind, but the steady courage to do what was right.

He never shrank from responsibility. When something needed to be done, he stepped forward.

He understood what leadership is about. He led and others followed.

He courted danger and conquered his fears.

And that’s exactly how he lived.

It’s true he did not suffer fools gladly. He had little patience for dishonesty, laziness, or excuses.

He valued integrity, honesty, and straight talk.

If you spoke to him, you got the truth—clear, direct, and honest.

Sometimes that truth stung.

But it always came from a place of principle.

He expected the best from others because he demanded the best from himself.

As a defender of his community, he was a reassuring presence.

He believed that strength meant protecting what mattered—family, neighbors, friends.

He was someone people could rely on when things got tough.

He didn’t look for recognition. He looked for results.

But above all, he was a family man.

That was his greatest pride and his deepest joy.

Everything he did was rooted in love for his family.

He provided not just materially, but emotionally.

He taught by example; how to be strong without being cruel, how to be firm without being unfair, how to love without hesitation.

His family knew they were safe with him. They knew they were cherished.

His determination carried him through life’s challenges.

When obstacles appeared, he did not retreat.

He doubled down.

He pushed forward.

He endured.

Today, we mourn the loss of a friend, a leader, a protector, and a devoted family man.

But we also celebrate a life lived with integrity and purpose.

His independence taught us strength.

His loyalty taught us faithfulness.

His courage taught us resolve.

His determination taught us perseverance.

No longer does he walk beside us, however, the standards he set shine brightly.

And the greatest way we can honor him is to carry forward the qualities he embodied.

Rest easy, my friend.

You leave behind a legacy that will last beyond the grave.

Thank you for having been my friend and comrade in this life. I could not have wished for better and feel very fortunate.

You were one of the good guys.

Slán go deo, Sean.

Alec McCrory 
is a former blanketman.

Sean Clinton Valued Independence Over Subservience

People And Nature ☭ A review by Bob Myers of Life on Earth (Past, Present and Future!), by Roy Ratcliffe.

27-March-2026

This book made me confront my own prejudices and dogma right from the sub-title, which is “From a Revolutionary-Humanist & Gaia-centric Perspective”. Ironic, since I met the author, Roy Ratcliffe, on-line last year, when we exchanged letters about the sectarianism and dogmatism found in many left-wing groups.

The word “Gaia”, to me, immediately conjured up images of people building straw bale houses and trying to grow vegetables, sometimes accompanied by an outlook that seemed to see human society’s survival having little importance. But Roy’s book is very definitely written by someone considering how humanity can survive in a world where our present activity is making life unbearable and unsustainable.
Protest against the Gaza genocide in August 2024.
Photo by Cary Bass-Deschênes / Creative Commons

I had to quickly overcome my prejudice against his “Revolutionary-Humanist and Gaia-centric Perspective”, which obviously stems from not having read more widely on this subject. And I am quite happy to be corrected on any shortcomings in this review.

Roy is not an academic. Like me, he started his working life in an aircraft factory and, like me, as a young man read Marx and joined a “revolutionary party” – not such an unusual thing in the radical 1960s. Over the years he became critical of the prevailing ideologies of “revolutionary” groups, and has done a massive amount of reading and research to write this book.

It is the critical re-evaluation of historical data that makes this book so thought provoking. I read it with the growing excitement that I remember experiencing when I first started to read Marx, feeling all kinds of random, disjointed experiences and ideas fall into place, creating a new outlook on the world.

I can not completely do justice to the book in this review, there is too much there. I just want to encourage people to read it and for it to become part of the collective discussion of “what the hell can we do to get out of the catastrophe that is growing all around us?”

And isn’t that discussion badly needed? All around the world, “anti-capitalist” activists are busy trying to galvanise the masses into action. But after more than a century of such activity, the goal seems further away than ever.

The genocide in Gaza shocked millions of people worldwide and certainly has further undermined the authority of all those who uphold the present “civilisation”, but no-one was able to turn this popular horror into anything that practically made any difference to the plight of the Palestinians. We marched, we protested, got arrested and the slaughter went on – and still goes on – relentlessly. The horrors of Gaza now fade before the new war on Iran.

I welcome anything that makes us reconsider where we are.

At the heart of the book are two interconnected threads: identifying the real place of our species within the evolution of all life, and then a critical assessment of the anthropocentric (human centred) thinking of most current anti-capitalist perspectives, mirroring human thought as a whole.

The book traces the evolution of life from the very earliest moment that inorganic matter combined in such a way that, by absorbing further matter, it could reproduce itself. Roy then goes over the development of all the millions of forms of life that evolved over vast time spans.

These different forms of life – bacteria, plants, fishes, insects, mammals etc – all share a common process, that Roy refers to as N-M-G-R +A-D: N = nourishment, M = Metabolic processing, G = growth, R = reproduction, A = ageing, D = death. From the very first forms of life right through to everything alive today, both plant and animal, this process is common to all.

Furthermore, it is this process which reveals the total interconnectedness and interdependence of all forms of life and the planet on which they live. The N (nourishment) of plants is both the energy from the sun and the inorganic matter of the earth. Plants in turn become the N for other life forms whose bodies in turn, either alive or dead, are recycled as N for other life forms.

Charles Darwin, through his scientific research, made a great contribution towards our understanding of life. However, he was very much a man of his class, the privileged non-working elite, and of his time – with Britain laying hold to a third of the world’s resources. So we get Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” – a notion thoroughly in accord with an elite man in an elite nation.

Darwin saw all life forms battling to survive against all others. However, in his book, Roy outlines that the real history of the evolution of all life forms is the story of interdependence. And crucially there was always a “balance”. Even while life forms continually changed over time, there was always a balance between the nutritional intake of one life form and the rate at which the supply of that nourishment was itself reproduced.

The development of human life did not alter this balance. We often speak of early humans as “hunter gatherers” – but this is the activity of all animals. Humans, over hundreds of thousands of years, existed, or rather co-existed, within the interdependent forms of life.

Some 15,000 years ago a dramatic change took place. By processes we will probably never fully understand, human societies emerged in the Fertile Crescent of the Nile valley that no longer gained their nourishment from hunter-gathering but became settled agriculturalists – gaining nourishment from tending crops and domesticating wild animals.

Again, in ways that are only partially understood, these new agricultural societies developed hierarchies: an elite ruling class, usually a male warrior band and/or administrative class, and then an oppressed labouring class – oppressed either by brute force or slavery, or controlled by necessity, there being no other way to obtain nourishment.

All evidence suggests that hunter-gathers had to labour roughly two hours per day to obtain sufficient nourishment. Those who had to labour in the hierarchical agricultural society usually had to work from sunrise to sunset with a lifestyle no better, and often worse, than human hunter-gathers. The need for some form of oppression is obvious.

For the first time, one life form began to disrupt the N-M-G-R +A-D balance of interdependent life. From the earliest hierarchical societies right through to today, this form of human organisation continually tends to consume resources at a quicker rate than the environment can reproduce it.

Firstly was the elite’s own massive over-indulgence and accumulation of resources. Secondly, class societies needed all the means of coercion to enslave the mass of the population, either physically or in other ways. Armies, palaces, castles, pyramids, temples, all play a part in oppression. Thirdly, the mass hierarchical societies, controlled by an idle class, procured resources in ways that soon depleted and exhausted the local environment.

Those doing the work, who would know only too well of this, were excluded from any decision making about their activities. With failing crops and reduced yields, the masses would then be forced by the elites into wars and empire building to continue the search for resources. To feed the people of Rome the legions had to plunder vast territories.

Many of the main features of our present day society existed from the birth of class society. Capitalism simply turbocharges the process.

Roy’s book contains many quotes from ancient texts, describing the barbaric face of the rapacious elites’ military actions, the wholesale massacre of entire populations, mass rape and brutal tortures. From ancient times till present day wars in Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, hierarchical elites show their capacity for butchery.

The book looks at this facet of class society, an activity unknown in any other species of life. Even those animals that hunt for prey only do so to eat. There is no natural equivalent of the mass murder by one form of life against any other let alone against its own kind. But over and over the book stresses that this characteristic, like much else, is not an essentially human trait, but the product of hierarchy with its particular and “unnatural” N-M-G-R +A-D process.

It is ironic that ideological supporters of class society usually designate this as “civilisation”, while non-hierarchical humans are termed “barbarians” or “savages”. The book looks extensively at the rise of class society and the effect this has on human culture.
Roman soldiers advancing, as imagined by the early 18th century painter Aureliano Milani

With the development of human consciousness, of speech, of socialised culture there arose, not surprisingly, the idea that we humans are exceptional, different to every other form of life. Once hierarchical societies develop, where a section of the population no longer has to work and is free, not only to ensure the maintenance of their privileged position, but to write and philosophise, this exceptionalism becomes qualitatively different.

Pondering the nature of their existence and origins, privileged men created stories that enshrined this “exceptionalism”. The Gods looked and behaved like them, and, while the Gods had created the world and everything on it, they had done so only in order to provide the environment for humans to exist and survive.

Humans were special – there was us and then there was a subordinate “nature”. Everything else on earth was there only for the elite’s use and exploitation. Indeed the ruling classes extended this outlook to include the rest of humanity. The mass of people are, like the animals and plants, only there to be exploited.

You listen to Trump’s oil chant of “Drill baby, drill”, or his recent appeal to speed up the mining of the sea bed for rare minerals, and you wonder how does he ignore the implications of these activities, the plight of millions of people whose lives are going to be, or already are, being made impossible by climate change and the degradation of the environment?

But Trump’s “culture” is a product, not just of capitalism, but of many thousands of years of elite thinking.

In his book, Roy traces the development of this human “exceptionalist” and anthropocentric outlook, and the way that it goes hand in hand with a tendency to massively over-inflate human powers and intelligence. Billionaires think that their wealth allows them to do whatever they want, whether this is the sordid activities of Epstein and hundreds of his pals, or Elon Musk’s dream that he can escape a polluted world by living in space. In his book, Roy frequently uses the term “narcism” to describe this outlook. Both Trump and his erstwhile chum, Musk, have this in spades.

In their world of privilege there is no limit to their swaggering boastfulness and arrogance. They exist as “supermen” freed from all earthly constraints.

But they, like all of us, are bound by the real restraints of all life on earth. We need to breathe, drink and eat. Yet we, one of the most recently evolved life forms, are exhausting the resources needed for existence and changing the environmental parameters within which life is possible. The failure of this reality to make any impact on how society conducts its activities now threatens our existence.

Roy insists in his book that a future for humanity is dependent upon us understanding this past and present, and finding ways that we can organise our own N-M-G-R + A-D process in such a way that no longer sees everything as just “something for us”, but as an integrated whole of which we are part, and on which we are dependent. We have to tailor our consumption and production techniques to sustainable levels.

For hundreds of thousands of years humans existed, including in non-hierarchical cities, as part of this interdependent process of life, without disturbing the balance of consumption and production of all other life forms.

By outlining the evolution of life on earth, and then the emergence of hierarchical societies with their increasingly destructive forms of N-M-G-R+A-D, Roy lays the basis for a discussion about how can we transcend capitalism or better, how can we transcend hierarchal societies. He looks at the emergence in the 19th century of revolutionary scenarios, but shows that their anthropocentric view of the world allowed them to see revolutionary change coming from a “top-down” process – where the “enlightened” would lead humanity to a new society.

I remember as a young, enthusiastic “Marxist”, telling people that a communist society could meet all their needs. I saw the future as a world in which all the already developed means of mass production, put in the hands of the workers, could solve all society’s ills. We could all live in a world of plenty.

But with climate change and resource depletion, can a viable future come from the producers simply taking control of present production facilities? We have to think again about what we mean by “revolution” and what world we are trying to achieve.

In the final chapter, Roy writes about the impossibility of “top down” plans for revolutionary transition, and instead advocates for relatively small scale, egalitarian, eco-sustainable communities, within existing hierarchical mass societies, who would then be the pioneers of any post-hierarchical ecologically based modes of production, before, during or after the existing system collapses.

I think this needs much more discussion, how does such activity relate to widespread opposition to class society taking many different forms.

Roy’s research and thought about the past of life on earth doesn’t make him into a fortune teller. Nor is it likely that the way forward will come from a single brain; it’s a collective, practical project needing to involve all of oppressed humanity.

Roy rightly says that the understanding of human life being an inseparable – and not superior – part of all life is an essential prerequisite for a new, sustainable future. But how most people will come to this understanding will be a complex process and one hard to plan. We have to have totally different forms of production, we have to have very different expectations of consumption.

More than anything we need “new” human beings whose brains are not filled with the shit of class society. A world in which there really are more important things in life than getting the latest brand of Nike trainers.

Yet here is the dilemma. In his book, Roy looks at the political revolution of the new, aspiring English capitalist class, led by Oliver Cromwell, against the old feudal aristocracy. But this came only at the end of a long process in which capitalists forms of production and exchange slowly developed within feudalism. These developments created and trained the embryonic new class. It had its schools, its writers, its ideologues, its morals and habits. For more than two hundred years this network of people and the production processes they controlled, slowly grew. The overthrow of the feudal monarchy came only at the end of this process, allowing the new class to take full control and their system to dominate.

How does this past reality chime with our present situation? We have no areas of socialised production, no places where people can form new relations, new cultures based on collective productive activity. Capitalism, with all the power of technology, seeks to suppress and destroy even the most marginal attempts to create other ways of living.

This is where a discussion, taking on board everything Roy has written about, is so necessary. If we look at the growing tempo at which the elites are turning to war, police oppression and the hatred of the “other” and contrast that with the intellectual and organisational preparedness of an opposition, then the future is bleak.

Despite my revolutionary “optimism”, I fear for the future of my grandchildren. We have just seen the formation of Your Party, a new British left movement. Even if such a party could take “power” and get it hands on the machinery of state – how can this stop the destruction arising from the very nature of hierarchical society?

The social disintegration taking place all around us is going to continue and accelerate. We live in a world where “politics” and “government” appear to most people as being the place where everything is decided and where change can be made, so understandably people will try to address their problems in that arena.

Against – or maybe within – this effort to alter the personnel of the elite, we have to try to find the space to begin to create the embryo of a new classless society.

How this can happen is difficult to imagine. But look at what happens anytime there is a disaster, a flood, a fire, an earthquake. Communities appear on the scene overnight to try to help one another. The “state” often doesn’t appear for days if it appears at all and then always to undermine this self help.

Can we turn this natural humanity of the oppressed into forms of permanent mutual assistance and survival in the face of social breakdown? During the Greek financial meltdown we saw little possibilities. Bankrupt factories where the workers talked to the local communities to find out how their needs could be met rather than producing commodities for private profit.

Roy’s description of who we are and where we have come from is an important element in thinking about this question.

📚 Life on Earth (Past, Present and Future!) is available from Amazon and also other online bookstores.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Desperately Seeking The Pioneers Of Post-Hierarchical, Ecological Production

Caoimhin O’Muraile ⚽ Last week in TPQ my article titled Where Did it all Go I stated “the subject of VAR is for another day” which to keep continuity is today. 

Not only does this absurd system of refereeing an Association Football match make a mockery of the man in the middle, the Referee, and the game the poor sod is charged with pretending to officiate over it also has much more sinister economic benefits for a small number of people. These economic benefits for those whose only interest is profit at the expense of the game constitute other reasons for getting rid of the system from a fan's viewpoint. It is also a reason why it is here to stay. The problem is many of those who profit also influence the powers that be who will decide, irrespective of what the paying fans think, whether this farce remains or not! 

Personally, I agree with former Everton youngster and Manchester United Ace, Wayne Rooney, in demanding the removal of VAR once and for all. It is the curse within what remains of the so-called modern game after these know nothing powers that be have fucked around with the rules to a point where the game is unidentifiable with the one I and many others grew up with. For example they have made it impossible for a human referee to judge with the naked eye if a player is offside thus making demand for VAR and SAOT or some other form of assistance inevitable. These rule changes making life impossible for the match officials are part of a process which involves VAR making the game more of a farce dependent on technology than a game. Back in the seventies and eighties they would not have got away with VAR because football fans then, the genuine article, took a more proactive part in decision making often by invading the pitch. If this so-called new technology had been in place back then the game could well have been made unplayable! There is room for technology, no doubt about that, for example the little device available to referees indicating whether the ball is over the goal line or not but there is no need for VAR to decide this important decision. The small machine the referee wears on his wrist and gives a signal if the ball crosses the line for a goal is a progressive piece of technology.

VAR has given football two sets of rules depending which division a team participates. The so-called Premier League has VAR at all grounds for every game which the fans cough up to cover the expense of at the turnstiles. However, in the Championship (formerly the second division), after the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials) the organisation representing referees, linesmen, and fourth officials, presented VAR it was rejected by the clubs. They voted to adopt goal line technology as outlined above but not VAR. This means two sets of playing conditions and rules exist in the game, one set, involving VAR, in the top flight and another set for the other 72 teams making up the English Football League (EFL). In the FA Cup it becomes more problematic. In the 2025/26 season VAR and SAOT (Semi Automated Offside Technology, another farce they have quietly introduced) only came into play from the fifth round onwards. This is another sign of the elitist nature of the modern game because most teams enter the FA Cup much, much earlier than this round. It is expected, though not a given, that by the fifth round the competitors will be from the PL or the Championship the former using VAR for every game in the league. Championship sides do not use VAR and therefore must adjust to the new rules should they qualify for the fifth round. Two sets of rules only one game, another fuck up to make money for the high-tech companies, and puts lower league clubs who still use human beings to referee at a disadvantage should they reach round five of the FA Cup when VAR takes over.

Football supporters are opposed to the system but their opinion seems not to count. It appears that “three quarters of Premier League fans are against the use of VAR” according to the Irish Daily Mirror Monday 30th March. “Nearly 8,000 supporters took part in the Football Supporters Association poll to assess attitudes to the technology”. This was a sizable number of supporters, considering many of those attending games today are tourists and not fans in the traditional sense at all, so finding 8,000 genuine supporters to participate was an achievement in itself! 

The results show just how unpopular it has become with more than 97 per cent (ibid) of respondents opposing the statement that VAR makes watching football more enjoyable, while more than 90 per cent disagree that it has made the match-going experience better.

When supporters were asked:

if they support the use of VAR, meanwhile (ibid), 76 per cent said they do not, with more than 70 per cent disagreeing that it has improved the overall accuracy of refereeing decisions.

Fans feel that the time taken to reach decisions “remains a source of great frustration” with fewer than three per cent:

of those polled agree that decisions are reached in a reasonable amount of time, and an overwhelming majority do not feel they are now being made more quickly, despite efforts to speed up the process. More than 90 per cent also feel the technology has removed the joy of goal celebrations.

Supporters surveyed did however come down on the side of goal line technology – not including VAR – which “was backed by more than 93 per cent”. The feelings of supporters are clearly anti-VAR and fans want rid of the infernal nuisance or, to be blunt, the fucking waste of time, energy and space. Will the voice of these supporters be listened to? No, like fuck they will, such killjoys interfere with the huge profits made by technology companies!

One of the major obstacles to the removal of VAR are profits and has little to do with improving the game of football. This pretence of match improvement is what the authorities hide behind to justify the continuation of VAR, a proven failure, claiming to have the fans on side. This is clearly wrong if the Football Supporters Association survey is anything to go by a representative group whose opinions only count, it would appear, if they agree with the so-called authorities. On this and many other occasions they do not therefore their views are ignored, such groups are probably considered a ‘fucking nuisance, trouble makers’ by the football authorities and tech companies when they make the ‘wrong call’.

VAR is highly profitable for the technology companies which is why the football authorities dare not even hint at getting rid of it. Though highly profitable for these companies VAR represents a huge cost to football and the clubs involved. Once again evidence the interests of the game are being “sacrificed on the altar of big business”. Companies providing VAR such as Hawk-Eye innovations, part of Sony, have seen profits surge thanks in no small part to VAR. In 2024 reportedly profits for the firm behind VAR:

surpassed €24 million, approximately £20 million, with revenues exceeding €93 million largely driven by football. While the tech providers make a profit VAR is expensive for those using it. 

The clubs have to facilitate the use of VAR and this expense is passed onto the long-suffering fans at the turnstiles. Put bluntly, and if the above survey is any indicator, the supporters are being forced to pay for something they neither want or can see any benefits from, a little bit like paying for a stairlift in a bungalow! No wonder the huge tech companies who also influence what is said about their product on football magazine programmes like Match of the Day and various satellite television programmes take no notice of supporters' wishes. Commentators increasingly sound supportive of VAR simply because they dare do nothing else. Agree with it or find another job is probably the policy, not perhaps the BBC or BSB but the technology companies who, no doubt, have fingers in the economic affairs of the TV companies.

VAR is a curse to the game, not the only one granted but certainly the worst offender, which should be enough in itself to dispose of it. Do that and the ridiculous offside rules can be modified, liberalised, as can what constitutes a tackle and what is deemed a foul, decisions for the referee and only the referee. With the huge profits made by the technology companies the views of the paying supporters can take a running jump! More fucking fools those who pay to gain admittance to games, matches no longer refereed by humans but technology and the profits generated by such so-called progress. As Artificial Intelligence advances and the use of AI increases the game will soon by refereed entirely by computers and, who knows, perhaps even played by Androids which would avoid the expense of paying players wages!!   

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

VAR ⚽ Will They Get Rid Of It? No, Of Course Not!

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 3131

Pádraic Mac Coitir 🏴This morning I was sent a number of texts letting me know my good friend and comrade, Seán Clinton, died.

Seán Clinton
Seán was diagnosed with cancer a number of months ago and when he was up for a yarn I'd call to see him.

I first met Seán in the H-Blocks of Long Kesh where he was on remand and with me being on the camp staff I was able to get around Republican wings. I took to him right away and it may well have been the fact we were two cynics with strong opinions!
 
When we were released from gaol in the 1990s I'd occasionally meet him and most of our conversations were about the state of the movement and the direction in which they were going. It was a very frustrating time for many of us but we just got on with things.

In more recent years we would meet more often with a few others and discuss everything from Irish Republicanism to Imperialism and of course the genocide in Gaza. He was very well read and although serious he could be great craic.
 
When Seán was diagnosed with cancer I'd call to see him occasionally. He was younger than me and as we sat talking he'd tell me yarns about growing up on the Ormeau Road and like many who lived there he put up with harassment from the cops and Brits. He'd been set up a number of times for assassination by unionist gangs but he was very fortunate to evade them. I found out more about his personal life such as his love for boxing and other sports.
 
It was clear he was very close to his family and no doubt they'll be heartbroken at this time. He had a lot of friends and comrades and we too will miss him. This photo was taken at Lasair Dhearg's commemoration in Milltown cemetery on Easter Monday and although he wasn't well he spoke with others who knew him from prison and his involvement in struggle.

I was looking through my photos and came across this one from three years ago. 


It was a cold, but bright day when the two of us were walking around Milltown and I told him of graves that I'd found recently and one was of Joe McKelvey's father. We often spoke about McKelvey and the many other Irish Republicans buried in Milltown and this grave is the only British war grave I would talk about. The irony is that Patrick McKelvey was buried there in 1919 and his son Joe was in attendance. He was shot dead by Free Staters in 1922 and buried two years later in the Harbinson Plot which is literally a stone's throw away from his father's grave. Seán and I would often talk about that period.

Padraic Mac Coitir is a former republican
prisoner and current political activist.


Seán Clinton 🪶 Serious But Great Craic

Jim Duffy ✍ One aspect of the shooting which I had not realised is that the Secret Service have not been paid since February. 

Their budget has not been approved by Congress.
 
The security put at the venue was not the top level security it should have had, but a slimmed down security - possibly because the Secret Service had not the money to do the top level security.
 
The evacuation of cabinet members and leaders was also chaotic. Their secret service were not in the room. They were kept in the back room. So when reports of the shooting came in, they had to rush in, then clamber over people lying on the ground, and tables, to get to the person they were supposed to protect. Had the attempted assassin, or multiple assassins, got into the ballroom it could have been a massacre as senior figures were shot before they were gotten to by the secret service.

The more information that comes out, the worse the security looks. I was wondering why the secret service leaders were pushing the narrative straight away that the performance had been exemplary. It smelled fishy. The only reason people go overboard praising the security in such case is to try to set the agenda and distract from major security failures. They hope the media and politicians buy the narrative and don't ask questions.
 
Another issue was the slow evacuation of Trump. It appears he didn't comprehend what was happening and wouldn't move. They struggled to make him understand he needed to go. It shows the dangers of having a president showing clear evidence of dementia. Dementia patients often can freeze and not know what is happening.
 
Medical issues can cost a president their life. It did with President Kennedy. When hit the first time by a bullet, he should have laid down on the seat, as indeed he was trained to do. However he couldn't as he was unable to move as he was wearing a back brace, given his extremely bad back. It meant he couldn't get down so was a stuck in place, with a frame holding him up, for the next shot. He probably would have survived if he hadn't been wearing the back brace, as he would have fallen either onto the seat or the well of the car and avoided the fatal head shot.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

The Slow Evacuation Of Trump

Seamus Kearney 🎤 'For who forgives the accursed crime of black treachery?
Rebellion, in its chosen time,
May freedom's champion be.'


The day after the rap at the door from the journalist Greg Harkin on 10th May 2003, Scappaticci was summoned to a clandestine meeting with his military handlers at his holiday home in Portaferry on the County Down coastline.

They suggested strongly that a furniture removal van be organised and sent to the family home to remove him, his wife and children into the safety of protective custody, but Stakeknife was having none of it. Instead he told his handlers that he could 'brassneck it out' and figured that the IRA leadership would aid him in his denials because of the current peace process. He already had an insurance policy in place as he held an enormous amount of sensitive information on the IRA hierarchy and they knew it. Therefore, he was prepared to take his chances in the roll of the dice.

Freddie Scappaticci decided to apply the age old maxim, 'The best form of defence is attack', so made the first move by contacting the Republican Movement himself and arranged a meeting with two senior IRA personnel, one of whom had suspected him thirteen years earlier of being an agent in the Sandy Lynch affair. As he set facing both men the tension in the room began to rise, until Scappaticci blatantly denied the allegation that he was the agent Stakeknife. On hearing this the two senior IRA officers were given an opening and took it by simply advising Scappaticci to issue a firm and public denial in which the IRA would not contest. In other words a 'gentleman's agreement' was reached which served both parties. The meeting ended.

Next in his line of vision was the Republican base in West Belfast, the ordinary men and women who had shouldered and endured the long war. If he was to remain amongst them then he had to dupe them into thinking he was on their side during the struggle. Therefore on the 12th May 2003 he gave an interview with the Andersonstown News and issued a firm denial of the allegations against him which placated a sizeable section of people who accepted he wasn't Stakeknife but just 'a hard working Republican, stitched up by a venomous British gutter press'. As far as Scappaticci and his FRU handlers were concerned the ploy was beginning to work.

On 14th May 2003, a meeting in his solicitor's office on the Falls Road took place, attended by the renown journalist Brian Rowan, with the IRA's Director of Intelligence and the Adjutant of Northern Command monitoring proceedings in a building opposite. As pre-arranged Scappaticci issued a public statement in which he denied that he was a British agent and with that approach expected the latest piece of theatre to bring the curtain down on the press who had hounded him thus far. To copperfasten the dual arrangement between Stakeknife and the IRA leadership a number of statements were issued from senior Republicans who slammed the press for being so gullible into accepting British intelligence propaganda, and by doing so muddied the waters by claiming the allegations against Scappaticci were' bizarre and without proof'.

However, this act of deception was never going to work for a journalist who watched as Scappaticci spewed out his lies to a waiting audience in a solicitor's office on the Falls Road. Stakeknife along with the IRA leadership had carefully engineered the deception and in so doing had duped their own people, but it would take a feisty and courageous woman to finally corner and out manoeuvre this slithering snake who had escaped justice for so long.

Seamus Kearney is a former Blanketman and author of  
No Greater Love - The Memoirs of Seamus Kearney.

Stakeknife 🕵 The Rise And Fall 🕵 Act XVI

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Six

 

A Morning Thought @ 3130

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)