Poppycock, FIFA and other dubious matters

So, the FA (and Govt and Royalty and the outraged writers and readers of many of our national newspapers) didn't quite get their desire and England's shirts remain poppyless; however, the spirit of compromise is alive and well and to be found in a poppy emblazoned on a black armband to be worn by the players on Saturday.

FIFA generally gets a bad press in the UK - and usually deserves it. But time spent this week in the company of a German client and some visitors from Austria had me changing my outraged mind and siding with the FIFA mandarins.

It was in particular enlightening to hear my German colleague say that there was still an issue with remembering the war dead in Germany because the nation was so embarassed by its war past that "honouring the fallen" was actually something that was almost impossible to imagine.

So, despite my own desire - and I think the wish of the Royal British Legion - for the Remembrance movement to reflect sadly on the tragic loss of lives on all sides of the past conflicts; things are not always what they seem and maybe FIFA were right to stick to their guns and not allow an addition to player shirts that could create an unwanted precedent. Such as Argentina playing at Wembley with a Malvinas war dead emblem for example.

I also found it ironic that at the height of this debate, our Government could find time to proscribe an admittedly extremist Muslim movement and prevent their gathering on Sunday in an "anti-poppy" rally which aimed (among other less savoury points) to highlight the numerous civilian casualties during the war on terrorism waged, in the main by US and UK forces.

Let me be clear on this before the hate mail starts. There is no common ground between what appears to be a hateful extremist group and the Royal British Legion and its Poppy day movement. And freedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to incite violence which the Govt has a duty to guard against.

But there are two sides to most stories and we should try wherever possible to listen to both.

Speaking of stories... James Murdoch was telling his version of events to the House of Commons committee again yesterday. He appears to be very consistent and insists that he did not know the extent of the hacking or the reason why the pay-off to Gordon Taylor was so high for example.

Given the number of people who argue to the contrary, one can only conclude he either wasn't listening, wasn't paying attention, didn't understand, didn't care, or simply got confused poor lad. Whichever it was: he shouldn't be allowed control of the cheque book.