Ian O'Doherty: No, no, no. That's gone too far.
Published 14/11/2012 | 06:00
Footballers today – what the hell is up with them?
Some are so busy preening and looking good for the cameras that you get impression that the average Premier League dressing room contains more beauty products and cosmetics than you'd see backstage at a Victoria's Secret show.
I suppose it's healthy that the modern professional footballer is willing to embrace his metrosexual side, no matter how uncomfortable it might make the fans feel.
But there are limits.
I was watching the Sunday Supplement on Sky the other day and it featured the great Oliver Holt (pictured).
Holt is one of the finest observers of the game in Britain and is a reliably prickly presence.
And he was wearing a hair band to keep the hair out of his eyes.
He. Was. Wearing. A. Hair. Band.
Now whatever about footballers wearing hair bands when they are playing, you know things have gone completely snooker loopy when even the football writers are copying them.
That's a straight red card, mate.
Aha! So that's the reason
Like many people I looked at both sides of the argument about the referendum.
More importantly, I looked at the people making those arguments and was filled with a sense of . . . myeh.
However it was interesting to hear Kathleen Lynch fuming about the low polling numbers on the radio yesterday as she condemned those who didn't vote and said they were an affront to democracy.
Now I would have thought that a fundamental aspect of democracy was the right to sit a vote out if you wanted, but obviously not.
So, what was the reason for the low turnout?
Well, Joan Burton (pictured) has one theory.
She reckons people didn't bother because they had "family commitments" such as bringing their kids to football and so forth.
So, a vote on children's rights was largely neglected because people were busy . . . looking after their own children.
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
I just wish I could figure out what it is.
Really? Are you really sure about that?
Sunday was, as you know, Remembrance Sunday.
Some of us wore the poppy and some didn't – and that's the way it should be.
Now, while I think we should wear it, I fully respect the likes of James McClean and Jon Snow and their decision to abstain.
After all, insisting that people wear something against their will is completely anathema to what the thing represents in the first place.
Having said that, some of those who are against the sporting of the poppy have some rather odd views and it certainly brings the nutters out in force.
I wrote about this in the Weekend Review in this paper and got some interesting responses.
Perhaps my favourite was from one reader who informed me that: "I will not be wearing a poppy and will make my views known to anyone I see who is wearing one. Wearing the poppy is the same as wearing a swastika on the streets of Tel Aviv."
Um, so what about Jewish people in Ireland and Britain who wear it?
I guess by using this guy's logic they are morally the same as the Nazis.
Bad Jews! Bold Jews!
The parallels between RTÉ's recent scandals and the crisis in the Beeb at the moment are fascinating – a combination of groupthink, institutional arrogance and deciding a story before finding the facts has left both broadcasters in trouble.
And following last week's disastrous Newsnight, both Sally Bercow and journalist George Monbiot are in trouble after they posted the name of former Tory grandee Lord McAlpine on Twitter.
This was in relation to completely false allegations about McAlpine on Newsnight.
McAlpine is now threatening to sue and one media lawyer says: "Are you responsible for what you publish on Twitter? Yes you are."
What? From my experience on anti-social media I thought it was mandatory to say the vilest, most obscene, most incorrect stuff about people you could think up.
Well, as long as we're being reasonable . . .
You gotta love the religious Right in America, they are reliably bonkers.
Now a pastor at a 'megachurch' in Texas has come out and claimed that Obama is "paving the way for arrival of the anti-Christ".
Robert Jeffress says that while he knows Obama is busy paving the way, he isn't actually the anti-Christ himself, oh no.
That's because: "When the real anti-Christ arrives he will have much higher poll numbers."
Sounds like someone is a bit of a sore loser, doesn't it?