Do you like football, Dear Reader? Or ‘soccer’ if you’re a Yank…
Back in 1999 there was a lot of tabloid coverage of an incident involving two players of opposing sides… Red v Blue…
England and Chelsea player Graeme Le Saux lashed out with his elbow at England and Liverpool player Robbie Fowler after enduring much taunting throughout the match.
Le Saux is heterosexual, and he and his wife, Mariana, have two children. Despite this, rumours that he was homosexual circulated throughout his career after he said that he had spent a summer holiday with one of his Chelsea teammates, Ken Monkou. He attributed this to his lack of enthusiasm for the “typical” footballer’s lifestyle, his university background, and the fact that he read a left-wingbroadsheet newspaper, The Guardian.
This led to abuse from opposition fans and even players. He was involved in a running series of taunts with Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler while playing for Chelsea against Liverpool on 27 February 1999. During the game, Fowler repeatedly bent over and pointed his backside in Le Saux’s direction. Le Saux delayed taking a free kick to protest about Fowler’s behaviour and was booked for time wasting. Fowler claimed in an autobiography that at one point during the match, Le Saux shouted “But I’m married!”, which was followed up by Fowler’s quip “So was Elton John, mate!” Le Saux himself said that this never happened, and that Fowler had used ‘dramatic licence’ to make him look funny.
If you’re familiar with cricket, Dear Reader, you will recognise this as a form of sledge. The Aussies are considered the masters of this…
Anyhoo, I hadn’t seen or heard much of Graeme Le Saux for a while. I’d quite forgotten all about him although he’s done some media work since his playing career finished. And according to the Wiki write up, he did some work for a financial institution…
So it interesting to see a clip of the brainiac ex-footballer today Pledging… And wouldn’t you know it, he was talking out of his arse!
“People are obviously making the wrong choices, so we’ve got to help them understand and educate people away from this sort of behaviour, and protect our kids.”
‘Our kids’… ‘OUR kids’… */sigh…* No. MY kids. What they eat and drink is up to US – them, me and Thoughtful Man and no other fucker. Especially not a bunch of foul, well off smuggies and their 21st Century idea of Victorian philanthropy…
*/quizzical expression… Any Old Iron?*
*Ah, Clicky… /nods… Any old iron hoof… Or, as the boys might say, Le Saux is so gay…*
9 thoughts on “A Right Le Saux and So…”
Ah sports’ taunts & their repercussions. Thank you for advising there’s actually a technical term for the art.
Who can forget Cantona’s reaction …
…… and Zidane’s
Sometimes, the combatants don’t even need to be on opposing sides/teams to literally ‘sledge’ …..
Imagine you’re leading the world championship …..
And for Bonus points – lip readers are challenged to provide a transcript of Nicky’s reaction.
The action which prompted a multitude of ‘Teamwork’ motivational poster memes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it “I say old chap, are you injured?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“People are obviously making the wrong choices”
That, right there, is religion. Religion of the Spanish Inquisition model
You don’t believe what I believe and therefore you are not human. Climatology. anti-Brexit, you name it.
It is the same. It is happening again
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which also means it will fail AGAIN. Still the destruction it wreaks in the meantime is wanton…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best part is…we’ll get there. And that thought has the effect of raising another question…
Q: Yeah…we’ll get there…but what condition will we be in when we get there?
A: I must shrug, since I do not know the answer to this question.
However, I can relate to an aircraft landing after a turbulent trip through less-than-ideal weather conditions. I’ve been on aircraft where the ride was so rough and scary, that once we slowed and pulled off the runway? Passengers were clapping and cheering. Keep in mind that this was not during an emergency situation. For all intents and purposes, it was business as usual as far as the flight goes. Just…a little bumpier than most are comfortable with.
^CHVRCHES – Recover^
Yet another reason I drink heavily when I fly in the back of a plane. If it crashes? Fuck it. Nothing I coulda done to prevent anyway…so why even think about it? If I’m flying myself? Yeah…I’m responsible for me, the aircraft, anyone else aboard the aircraft, as well as anyone or anything I might crash into. But when “along for the ride?” Yeah…fuck it…I’m along for the ride…may as well enjoy it. No way in HELL that I’m going to run up to the cockpit and try and wrestle the controls from the pilot just because I feel that he or she is doing an incompetent job from the perspective of the back of the plane. Not that “the back of the plane perspective” is not important. But to think that a pilot does not of the well-being of a passenger and passengers in mind during the course of the/a flight is foolhardy. It’s kinda one of those “we’re all in the same boat” kinda times that seems so vague in our everyday lives. But then again…many simply aren’t looking.
^CHVRCHES – The Mother We Share^
I have no idea why people are sometimes so eager to “get the ride over with.” I’ve always been under the impression that “getting there” is the fun part…all the way from A to B. I guess we sometimes forget those “from” and “to” parts of the point and points.
^CHVRCHES – Lies^
All that bullshit said, I’m still pretty shocked and dismayed at the labeling that is being suggested for “junkfood” in that one vid, and it strains credibility. Or at least, it strains my credibility. But who cares what I think. “They” are only interested in me when I come to their attention. Other than that, they don’t give two fucks about me except when and where “they” do. Not that I want them to, but yeah…sometime? Maybe I do.
Meh…I sent you a new whatever, and have some thoughts in there about it, so I’ll shut the fuck up starting right about now.
^CHVRCHES – Leave A Trace^
(I was gonna put some CHVRCHES in the whatever I wrote today, but I got sidetracked by an idea..so yeah…have some CHVRCHES.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ooh new missive?
I must say that your Twitter link to the Crocodile bit (har har) over at Hat4UK has me quite intrigued. Quite the scorcher of an article. Lots of name-dropping within the context of “flaws and faults and misdeeds” as well as lots of name-dropping within the context of “alternatives” or “alternate pathways.”
I can’t help but wonder if I do the same in my writing. That said, there seem to be a lot of paranoid motherfuckers here and there, looking for ways to feed their paranoia. It’s having the effect of making me paranoid about writing at all.
Anyway…seemed to be a lot of ire in his writing of that post. Change that “ire” to “our”…and I wonder what the result would be. Or is this it? Meaning: Do we already have our result and results.
I tried to comment over there, but it wouldn’t let me, so I’ll put the comment here. (golf clap)
You sound confused. Ever thought about creating a list of people that you hate and their flaws that you hate? I’d really like to read such an article. Maybe you should start with a list of things you hate, then find those things in others and start adding names. (Just,…make sure to leave your own name off the list. We don’t need some silly sod whining and lamenting over their own faults and shortcomings with such a vast ocean of juicy prey so easily available elsewhere via others)
Sorry…but “The Pastor” who has now somehow devolved into “ex-Pastor” because of one single event? I guess we are what we do eh? Or at least, we are what we do which matters to others. But yeah…assuming the story is true, the dude is dead. Which makes him easy prey.
I guess that Pastor wasn’t the only one tiptoeing through crocodiles eh?
>>>>crocodiles have no respect
Says who? 93 out of 100 rivers? Tell me…what else do you believe and why, via how?
I dunno. Just seems like we’ve firmly established that everyone has their own opinion. And I don’t see how “the establishment” can possible continue to rule under the premise of “majority rules” when the representation is non-representative of the unrepresented via the framing of the unrepresented’s representations via “the majority” of the represented. Meaning: Majority rule will fail when the minority is omitted. Now it becomes a matter of “acceptable loss and/or losses.”
“The Majority” doesn’t care, because it doesn’t have to.
^Yello ~ Koladi-Ola — Low Blow^
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the Slogmeister is attacked quite a lot (in comments/spammed) which is sure sign he’s pissing certain entities off. At one stage he had to turn comments off completely. Clicky hasn’t been able to comment there once */shrugs…*