Category Archives: Personal

Pope Benedict UK Visit 2010

Posted by David Hurst on September 14, 2010 1 comments

I’m not a Catholic, but I can understand why Catholics might be excited about the first papal visit to the UK in almost 30 years. What I don’t understand is why he’s bothering to come here. Since Henry VIII formed the Church of England, this country hasn’t exactly been a centre for Catholicism. And, despite the country being nominally Christian, the vast majority of the public are agnostic and have little interest in religion.

I am one of the few with an interest in religion and have spent many years studying the bible. What I have never found in the scriptures is any kind of reference to any one man being placed in charge of the faith of others. Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first Pope. If that really were the case, I ask whether they could ever imagine humble Simon Peter rolling around in the popemobile, draped in expensive garb and jewellery? Would Peter have charged people £25 for a “pilgrim pack” to gain entry to his services (yes, the Pope is actually charging an entry fee)? Can you imagine Jesus doing this?

No, Peter and Jesus Christ ascribed all glory to God, and devoted their time freely to preaching about God’s Kingdom. There was never a charge and there certainly weren’t any “pilgrim packs” on sale for the Sermon on the Mount.

Apparently, ticket sales are slow, and I’m glad that people aren’t buying the tickets. I’m sick of seeing religions making obscene profits out of their adherents. It’s no different to the money changers that Jesus threw out of the temple in Jerusalem. You can’t buy your way into paradise – Jesus told us that. Maybe the Pope needs to spend a bit more time reading his bible and a bit less time being a businessman.

Another reason why I hate Windows – automatic restarts

Posted by David Hurst on September 5, 2010 4 comments

Due to leaving my MacBook Pro and my Ubuntu netbook at work, and the fact I can’t be bothered to walk upstairs to use either of the Macs up there, I have been sat on the sofa, watching TV and browsing eBay on a Windows Laptop. Google Chrome is open and loaded with about 18 tabs of items I want to look at in more detail.

However, dinner time arrives and I leave the laptop open on the sofa and head off to enjoy some Lasagne. By the time I come back, Windows has taken it upon itself to download an update, apply it and restart my computer without saving anything.

How do people put up with this crap? I should be the one to decide whether my computer is to be restarted or not. This stuff doesn’t happen with OS X or Linux.

Just one more reason why I hate Windows.

UK Government asks Facebook to remove sympathy group for Raoul Moat

Posted by David Hurst on July 14, 2010 None comments

Unless you’ve been living in a vacuum, you’ll probably have seen Raoul Moat’s exploits being mercilessly devoured by the British media. The former bouncer got out of prison after serving a short sentence for assault and promptly went after his ex-girlfriend, who had told him she didn’t want to continue their relationship and that she was now seeing a police officer. The following day, staff at the prison called the police and warned them that his girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, was at serious risk of being assaulted by Mr Moat. The police did their usual excellent job, and shortly after Raoul Moat did indeed assault Miss Stobbart… with a gun. He shot her twice in the stomach through the living room window of her parent’s home.

Sadly Chris Brown, her boyfriend (of just one week), ran out of the house armed with an iron bar, and Raoul Moat shot him dead. There’s probably more to this than has been reported in the media – I can’t imagine anyone being foolish enough to take on an angry gunman with just a metal bar for protection.

Then the following day, Raoul shot police officer David Rathband through the window of his vehicle whilst he was on duty, after calling the police to tell them that they weren’t taking him seriously enough. Shooting a police officer certainly got their attention if the previous murder hadn’t, and there ensued an enormous man hunt at a cost of many millions of pounds to the UK tax payer.

Raoul Moat was finally tracked down on the 9 July, where a long stand off with the police resulted in Raoul being tasered (electrocuted with a stun gun) at least twice, before he finally “shot himself” in the early hours of the 10 July. At least, that’s what the police tell us and we’ll probably never know if that’s completely true or not. Interestingly, the taser guns used had yet to be approved by the Home Office.

I can’t envisage any scenario where tasering a man who is holding a gun to his neck could ever be considered a good idea. Electric shocks cause involuntary muscle contractions – not ideal if the person receiving the shock has their finger poised on the trigger of a firearm. In any case, how did they manage to taser him twice without actually managing to subdue and take him into custody? Why not use a tranquiliser dart instead?

It seems like extraordinarily harsh treatment of a man who clearly had severe mental instabilities, that would only ever have had one outcome. Some people are upset at the way this has been handled and as a result a Facebook group in sympathy of Raoul Moat has emerged, which David Cameron has rushed to denounce and is seeking to have Facebook remove the group. He may well have been getting all chummy with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder – report here) recently, but I think he’s barking up the wrong tree here. Facebook is hardly about to start censoring its users’ activities – not unless they are in breach of Facebook’s terms at least.

In fact, it’s pretty outrageous that Mr Cameron or anyone in the UK Government should be seeking to stifle free speech in that way. Raoul Moat is certainly not a “legend” (as described on said Facebook group) and he may well have been a “callous murderer” (as Cameron put it), but I think some of the sympathy being shown is not necessarily for the actions of the man, but the way he came to a miserable end that might well have been avoided. The more sensationalist comments are no doubt posted by people who are simply hoping to provoke a reaction. Regardless, free speech and free thought are essential foundations of civilisation. We are not robots. We are not all the same. Some people say things that we find vulgar, offensive and distasteful, and we must let them say what they will because that is their right. Allowing them to say their piece, however unpleasant, is not the same as condoning or supporting their beliefs. The UK Government has no right whatsoever to police the Internet or freedom of speech – though of course they keep on trying.

In any case, much sympathy must go to Mr Moat’s family (who are completely innocent sufferers), to the family of Chris Brown and to Samantha Stobbart and Pc David Rathband as they start on the slow road to recovery.

Perhaps in future, the police might take more notice of proffered advice from their colleagues in the prison service.

An Open Letter to the FA and Team England

Posted by David Hurst on June 28, 2010 2 comments

Dear Sirs,

In light of the recent abject failure of the England team at the 2010 World Cup, the English public deserves answers to a number of questions. I suspect that these answers will never be forthcoming as all involved hurry to cover their collective arses and appoint an official England scapegoat. Who shall it be this time? The manager?

Fabio Capello
Why do you persist in appointing foreign coaches to the England job? Mr Capello can barely speak English, so how can he possibly deliver a stirring team talk to the players? Where is his track record of working with English players and teams? Are you seriously expecting England fans to believe you are incapable of selecting a suitably qualified English manager for the role? What about Harry Redknapp, Sam Allardyce, Roy Hodgson, Terry Venables, Stuart Pearce et al? And why on earth did you give the man a 4 year contract without even first seeing if he could do the job?

Clearly, Mr Capello is at least partially to blame for the dismal performances. His stubborn refusal to build his team around the best players has drawn confusion from the fans, the media, the pundits and even foreign players. There are tribes of people deep in the Amazon jungle as yet untouched by civilisation, and even they know that Gerrard needs to play behind Rooney and not on the left wing. Mr Capello picked his blinkered old fashioned 4-4-2 system and doggedly stuck to it in spite of the clear evidence that it simply wasn’t working.

I may not be a FIFA qualified coach, but it’s plain to see by looking at the world’s best teams, that you build the team around the key players, and not around a system. England’s best players are Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and John Terry (although you’d be forgiven for mistaking them for Sunday League amateurs based on performances at the World Cup), and the team should be built around these players. John Terry should be allowed to play in the exact position he plays for his club. Why would any sane manager make him swap sides to a less familiar position for a crucial game against Germany? Why is Gerrard constantly pushed out to the left wing in order to accommodate Frank Lampard in the team? Gerrard is the better player, put him in the middle behind the strikers where he knows how to play. Lampard can play behind or warm the bench until needed.

Rooney has been hyped up mercilessly by the media. Sure the guy has talent, but he is not Ronaldo or Messi, and he needs decent service, from say, Gerrard playing just behind him?

And who is England’s best goal scorer at the moment? Peter Crouch. Why did he barely feature at the World Cup? Instead, we played Emile Heskey – a great player, don’t get me wrong, but not a striker or goal scorer. We already have a guy who can play off the strikers – Gerrard. Crouch would have given more alternatives and more goals than Heskey.

So, Fabio is definitely culpable here.

The Players
All the players should take a long hard look at themselves and their contribution at the World Cup. With the exception of David James, not one of them can hold their head up high. If I was in charge of England, I would sack the lot of them and bring through the youngsters. In 4 years’ time, they will be a more cohesive and dedicated team than this bunch of overpaid underachievers could ever expect to be.

Fans paid thousands of pounds to be in South Africa to support England, and in return the England players simply couldn’t be bothered. As one of the German pundits aptly expressed, if England has some of the best individual players in the world, why can’t they win anything as a team.

The FA
The players don’t play as a team because money gets in the way of the pride that should be on display when they pull on that shirt. Money in the Premier League prevents the team from getting together as often as they should. Look at how many games the South American national teams play compared to the few miserable friendlies England arranges (usually against hopeless opposition, and usually with two completely different teams in the first and second halves, ensuring no team spirit is ever built and nothing is ever learned). The vast sums of money the players earn ensures that they need never worry about winning a national game. The FA could never supply a win bonus of sufficient size to motivate any of these players.

Young English players can never progress through the ranks because the Premier League has become a bloated corporate animal having very little in common with the actual game. The influx of foreigners is embarrassing. How about investing in the English youth? Why not limit the number of foreigners included in games? Why not make it mandatory for every Premier League and Championship club to field 1 or 2 home grown under 21 players in every game?

You are responsible for the collapse of English football. You created the conditions in which the game can only flounder. You employed the overpaid foreign managers, who will never have the passion of a home grown manager. You ruined England’s World Cup and shamed a nation of fans.

The senior members of the FA, the manager, and the senior players must all resign. Bring in people that actually give a toss. Change must be brought in. Without this, England will forever be a footnote on the history of the game.

Not good enough.

Plastic bags – the greatest evil the environment has ever known? Or, just a bag?

Posted by David Hurst on April 28, 2010 2 comments

Shopping has changed. No more do courteous sales assistants ask you if you would like a bag. You are either expected to remember to bring your own, or buy a “bag for life”. Enter the acute discomfort of asking for a bag, only to be met with a frown from the eco-sensitive sales assistant, or an additional charge.

This is all part of some mandate from on high that shops cease to provide plastic bags. As per usual, no sensible thought or recourse to proven science has been applied before shovelling out the legislation. Indeed, most of the data and statistics that exist regarding plastic bags and their damage to wildlife, ecology and marine habitats, are widely inaccurate or mis-reported.

The reality is that plastic companies had produced both bio-degradeable (degrades in the ground) and oxo-degradeable (degrades in the air) plastic bags long before this nonsense was introduced. Taking Tesco as an example, their plastic carrier bag will start to degrade after about 18 months and will be completely degraded in 2 years. I can confirm that this is 100% accurate. I have an old Tesco carrier bag in my garage that is starting to degrade and it literally disintegrates if you touch it. If one of these bags finds its way into the environment, it will degrade. This has significant benefits in particular for marine mammals. Fair enough, the oxo-degradeable bags won’t degrade in landfill, but that’s not really the point.

On the other hand, the big plastic/vinyl bag for life carrier bags are neither bio-degradeable or oxo-degradeable.

Sometimes I remember to take bags with me when I go shopping. Certainly, when we do our major household shopping each month, we take our own bags. But if you’re out and about and need to buy a few items for lunch, you may well be in need of a bag, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay for one, or be treated like an eco-villain for taking a fresh one.

These new degradeable plastics use very little energy to produce, when compared to the bags with the supposed longer life. They are made from a by-product of oil refinement that would be otherwise burnt off. They are easily recyclable, completely re-usable, not to mention lightweight and strong. If we all used plastic bags, and recycled them properly, this would be an ecologically sound proposition.

The problem is human laziness and the propensity of the powers-that-be to deliver over-the-top legislation that simply bludgeons the problem and only turns it into a slightly different problem. It’s nothing more than an over-reaction to inaccurate data, rather than a well thought out and scientifically relevant policy. I will continue to use, re-use and recycle my plastic bags, thanks very much.

B Road – what does the ‘B’ stand for? Bumpy? Broken? Bad?

Posted by David Hurst on March 29, 2010 2 comments

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am a keen motorcyclist, and there’s nothing we motorcyclists like more than a far-reaching ribbon of ultra smooth tarmac. Britain has some amazing rural routes with lovely bends and fabulous scenery, but it doesn’t have too much of the aforementioned high quality surfaces. Indeed, our rural B roads are only resurfaced on average every 79 years. This is just about twice as long as the recommended resurfacing interval of 40 years. In fact, our road network is now in need of a whopping £8.5billion spend just to bring the road surfaces up to a minimum standard.

This is hardly just an issue affecting bikers. Poor road surfaces increase the dangers to all road users and increase the damage inflicted upon our vehicles. Sadly, the powers that be choose to spend their time and money focusing on speed limit reductions and enforcement that have no discernable impact on road safety. Even as we speak, there is a campaign afoot to reduce the speed limit on rural roads to 50mph. Given that the majority of road traffic accidents on rural roads occur at speeds below 50mph or above 60mph, this change will make no difference to accident statistics. Rural roads will likely be difficult to police anyway, unless (as I suspect) the change is just an excuse to bang up a load more speed cameras. All this limit change will do is cost money and ruin our landscape. At the moment rural roads are by default set at National Speed Limit (60mph for car or motorbike), whereas if they are set at 50mph, there will need to be vast numbers of speed limit signs installed. This represents a vast expense and an unnecessary blight on our beautiful countryside. In most cases, the roads themselves dictate the naturally safe speed limit and this is often well below 60mph. But I digress…

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) believes there to be more than 1.5million potholes in need of repair on UK roads. This figure has been dramatically affected by the recent cold weather, and is only likely to increase as winters become more extreme, and funding for road maintenance continues to be cut. As with many things in life, prevention is far cheaper than the cure. This is certainly true in the case of road re-surfacing, where basic re-surfacing costs about £14 per square metre, whereas full reconstruction costs a whopping £70.

How much does the government net from road tax? £47billion! More than enough to maintain our road networks in exemplary condition and vastly reduce the number of road deaths and accidents as a result. The problem of course is that most of this money goes nowhere near the roads.

When will you sit up and take notice of the sad state of neglect of our rural roads? Will it be before you round that corner on your bike only to be met with a giant pothole that sends you and your bike sliding down the road or into oncoming traffic? Will it be before you hit that broken surface in your car and are unable to brake effectively causing a collision with another road user?

Why is the transport network so low on the agenda?

Roadside memorials – at what point should the line be drawn?

Posted by David Hurst on March 25, 2010 2 comments

One of the sad downsides to the wonders of the combustion engine is the number of road deaths that occur each year in the UK. Whilst the figure could be reduced if the British Government stopped propagating spin and misleading facts about the causes of road accidents (all in support of their cash machine speed camera policy), there will always be a small percentage of road users that wind up dead.

Along with the increase in road deaths, I’ve also noticed a growing trend for relatives to make little roadside memorials for their dearly departed. Many of these are fairly dignified affairs with a photo of their loved one(s) and a few flowers, and many are removed after a month or two. Others seem to linger and expand.

There’s a classic example of this on the A3088 just outside Yeovil that I pass regularly, and over the last two years I have watched it grow from a fairly modest photo + flowers setup, to a full-on multi-coloured shrine. The grass around it is mown, flowers are regularly tended, photographs are attached to a tree and a rockery seems to have appeared upon which are placed various objects and toys.

I make my comments as an outside observer, and mean no disrespect to the deceased or his family and friends. Losing a loved one is an impossible thing to bear, and I do feel for all involved.

That said, the shrine that is so lovingly tended by the relatives is surely built upon land owned by the Highways Agency (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here anybody)? Does this mean that I can go and erect any structure of my choosing next to an A road? Perhaps a nice pergola with some vines and a bench? I doubt it.

I imagine it would take a very brave person at the local council to remove the shrine – the local press would revel in the sickly sentimentality and jump at the opportunity to have a go at the powers that be over a “sensitive issue”.

So, I wonder where it will stop. Will our nation’s roadsides become festooned with rockeries, gardens and mini photo galleries? Surely, gardens of remembrance and shrines do not need to be built on the actual site of the accident? Where should we draw the line between what constitutes an acceptable roadside memorial and what doesn’t?

Perhaps it would be better if the shrine didn’t have to be built in the first place. Road safety is not solely a speed issue as the Government would try and have us believe, and the sooner they stop their ludicrously blinkered approach, the sooner roadside shrines would become fewer.

Schumacher denies that F1 is boring

Posted by David Hurst on March 25, 2010 1 comments

Did you watch the opening race of the 2010 season? Did you manage to keep your eyes open the whole race? If you did, well done. I drifted off a couple of times and I don’t remember that happening since the last time Herr Schumacher was in the cockpit of one of the cars. Of course he doesn’t think the new rules have made F1 boring: the seasons when he was driving for Ferrari were dull as the proverbial ditch water.

The new rules stipulate that the cars may not refuel during the race, therefore all the cars have to start with a full tank of fuel. Some bright spark thinks that this will somehow increase excitement and overtaking. I don’t see how. There isn’t much overtaking in Formula 1 at the best of times, so the added tactical interest of working out who would be re-fuelling on which lap made the whole thing a bit more interesting. It allowed teams to only lightly fuel the car to make a big weight saving, which could then be turned into positions on track, provided they timed the re-fuel stop right.

Another new rule states that the first ten cars on the grid have to use the same (partially worn) tyres that they qualified on. I think this could have a small field levelling effect, but I don’t see how it will add to the excitement of the race from a spectator’s point of view.

I’ll reserve full judgement until I’ve seen the Australian Grand Prix.

Internet Explorer – the world’s most popular browser?

Posted by David Hurst on January 13, 2010 5 comments

Question: is Internet Explorer the world’s most popular browser?

Let’s look at the stats for the major players (correct at January 2010)…

(EDIT: no doubt these stats will be completely inaccurate by now, particularly given the massive security flaw in IE that allowed Google email accounts to be spied on by Chinese hackers, and the subsequent warning from the German Government that people should find an alternative browser to use)

62.69% – Internet Explorer
24.61% – Firefox
4.63% – Chrome
4.46% – Safari
2.40% – Opera

Internet Explorer still has a considerable lead in the market share (although this is steadily decreasing), but this is simply because the PC buying public are force-fed the IE browser as it comes built into their Windows installation. So, Internet Explorer is certainly the most used browser, but I wouldn’t say it was the most popular, particularly when you consider that Firefox is not shipped with major operating systems (it is usually the default browser in most Linux distributions, but Linux as an OS only has 1.02% of the world market). So, in order to be using Firefox, the user has to have actively voted with their feet and installed the Firefox browser, rather than use the default browser forced upon them by Microsoft. In my opinion, this makes Firefox the most popular browser, if not the most used. I don’t think you can call something “popular” if it’s something that’s foisted upon people – people who probably don’t realise there’s an alternative.

Some might call this semantics, but for me it’s about getting to the core of the issue. Serious computer users, and anyone with any sense or IT knowledge, will most likely not be using Internet Explorer.

IE as a browser is the worst of the five listed above. Microsoft resolutely refuse to abide by standards set by W3C and others. When W3C compliant code doesn’t work as expected in Internet Explorer, the Microsoft support stance is that their browser is flawless and it is the developer who is at fault. This means that web developers everywhere are having to develop code twice: once to standards, and then a second time to adapt it for Microsoft’s flaws. Microsoft’s arrogance beggars belief! It’s equivalent to buying a car that doesn’t support highway standards, then when you complain to the company involved that your car doesn’t work with the road network in your country, they just turn around and say “change the road network to suit our car”. What a joke!

Worse still, IE is the principal reason for many of the viruses and trojans that plague Windows users (but not Mac or Linux users). Do a Windows update and you will notice that it runs through Internet Explorer. This means that it is possible for a remote computer to access your files and setup details, and update those files and configurations via your web browser! Microsoft may occasionally patch and secure it, but this is a totally flawed mechanism that will always have vulnerabilities no matter what they do.

If most Windows users were told the truth about Internet Explorer, I think the market share data above would be very different. If you are currently using Internet Explorer, I strongly suggest you try Firefox, Chrome or Safari – they’re all free, faster than IE, standards compliant, feature rich and more secure than Internet Explorer.

Microsoft is losing it’s global dominance, albeit very slowly. Apple are selling more computers than ever – in fact every quarter they post record sales of Apple desktops and laptops. Linux has also properly arrived in the mainstream – the latest version of Ubuntu is exceptional. Consumers are getting more savvy and will start to demand better. Why should you have to put up with a virus-riddled, unreliable dog of an operating system when the competition is more secure, more stable, faster and cheaper?

Beats me why anyone would choose to use IE or Windows. My business partner swears by a PC with Windows… well actually, he swears at his PC with windows. A lot. There is continual talk of “rebuilds” (re-installation of Windows and wiping of the hard disk), whereas my three and a half year old Apple MacBook Pro is still going strong despite never being re-installed, and never having any anti-virus software whatsoever installed. It’s a no brainer.

It’s time to get Ruud, Rafa…

Posted by David Hurst on January 7, 2010 1 comments

It’s January, and that means it’s transfer window time. If you’re a Liverpool fan like me, this is usually a time of sheer frustration and this season is certainly no exception. The club has followed up last season’s excellent showing in the league, with a display of sheer on-pitch ineptitude that one might expect from a lower league team with part time staff, but certainly not from the likes of the overpaid superstars that call Anfield home.

As a club, Liverpool has shown a degree of patience with its managers that is all but non-existent in the English Premier League, and this is a trait that does the club, its staff and its fans much credit. However, enough is enough. I for one am fed up with seeing Rafa spend great flipping wodges of cash on players that he tells us are amazing, and yet completely fail to deliver the goods. I suspect this is largely down to the fact that Mr Benitez seems adamant that the best way to develop his players and team is via a squad rotation system that ensures they don’t get a regular game or any kind of opportunity to settle into anything approaching a rhythm. Often, these players show flashes of brilliance, but no kind of consistency, and then thanks to the ludicrous financial situation, are shown the door and sold on for less than the club paid for them a year previously.

So, having got rid of arguably England’s finest striker in Peter Crouch, and shooing off other goal scorers with proven track records (Robbie Keane and Craig Bellamy), we are left with one striker. Probably the finest striker in the world, but he is just one man. Inexplicably, we passed (again) the opportunity to have Michael Owen back, so now we are in a position where we must sell players in order to have enough money to buy someone new. The squad needs strengthening throughout, and we maybe could have done this had Rafa not gassed over £20million on Aquilani, who has so far managed just 5 outings for the club.

Then, I saw in the rumour mill talk of us getting none other than Ruud van Nistelrooy from Real Madrid. That would have been brilliant! Some would say that at 33 he’s past it, but I’ll have you know the Ruud Boy has stuck in 46 goals in 68 appearances for Real Madrid. It’s a complete no-brainer: Ruud wants first team football for the World Cup, and he won’t get it at Real; we need a cheap striker who knows the Premiership and can hit the ground running. But, no, it doesn’t look like it will happen. Instead, by all accounts, we now have Maxi Rodriguez on his way over who has a rather less impressive record of 32 goals in 121 appearances for Atletico Madrid, and no Premiership experience. He’s 29, played most of his career in Spain, and in all probability won’t adapt to the Premiership even in the unlikely event that Rafa actually gives him a regular run out.

What’s even more sad is that unless we get a big offer for a player, our January signings will be just Maxi and possibly one other loan signing (and that won’t be Ruud).

I really hope I’m proven wrong, but I doubt it. If Liverpool don’t muster a top 4 finish this season, then Rafa must go. If we don’t win the league next year, then Rafa must go. He’s had his chance and spent vast amounts of money bringing in player after player, and with a few exceptions, most of them haven’t worked. How much more time and money do we give this guy?

I say give the job to Ian Rush.

And for those interested, here are a few of Rafa’s Kop Flops:

Josemi – £2m – 16 starts in 18 months
Antonio Nunez – part of the Michael Owen deal, and easy to see why Real wanted rid of him
Fernando Morientes – £6.3m – formerly brilliant, but a short spell playing for Rafa soon cocked that up
Jan Kromkamp – lasted half a season before scarpering back to the Netherlands
Mark Gonzalez – £4.5m – spent a year on loan just to get a work permit and was gone after one season
Craig Bellamy – £6m – actually scored better than 1 in 3, but he also fell by the wayside
Ryan Babel – £11.5m – showed some signs of promise, and probably just needs regular football, but by all accounts he will be shown the door this month
Jermaine Pennant – £6.7m – not good enough for Arsenal, and not good enough for us, despite some flashes of brilliance
Robbie Keane – £20.3 – came to play for Rafa and wrecked his career, didn’t get nearly enough action to stand a chance of surviving longer than the 6 months he did, before being sold for a massive loss
Gabriel Paletta – £2m – useless defender that made only 3 appearances
Andrea Dossena – £7m – now our 3rd choice left back, great value, not

There are more, but I’m just too depressed to carry on…