The EU is the carrier of my identity now, and I will fight anyone who wants to take that away from me

Yesterday evening, as I settled down to watch TV (yes, it's a Saturday night, but I don't need thrills right now), I was lucky enough to behold that glorious end to the summer season of classical music on the BBC that we all know as the Proms. 

The Last Night of the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall has a splendidly rousing finale which encompasses all that is good about being British: the spectators are not expected to be quiet, in fact they bring tooters and crackers with them; the lead violinist in the orchestra is, at times, allowed to go off-key during solos; the conductor gives a speech where he/she mercilessly mocks the audience; there are crowds gathered in four other concert locations in the UK which are also incorporated into the event, and everyone waves a flag.

It is the most patriotic outpouring of emotion you will ever see. It is like a cross between the Vienna New Year concert and a Six Nations Rugby match where everyone in the crowd is on the same side. The songs are fervently steeped in British history and culture and anyone who claims to be British should know the words to them: Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1, known as Land of Hope and Glory; Hubert Parry's Jerusalem; Fantasia on British Sea Songs arranged by Sir Henry Wood (during which it is a custom for the audience to pass around packets of tissues during the section known as Tom Bowling), which contains the Sailor's Hornpipe, when the audience bobs up and down, and ends with Rule, Britannia!, which witnesses an extraordinary display by the soloist, who is expected to do something either amusing or spectacular with his/her outfit. It never fails to please each year. It finishes with God Save The Queen in an arrangement by Benjamin Britten, which I think is better than the original, and everyone sings Auld Lang Syne to finish the night off holding hands.

It is the night of the year when we can see everything good about Britain: the artistic talent of its musicians and singers; the rebellious yet good-natured demeanour of many of its denizens, and the depth of affection that people hold for the little wind-swept island off the coast of Europe that once really did rule the waves. The season has taken place 125 times, and is a direct link to the days of Empire, yet the people who attend the concert are open-minded and cultured internationalists who understand Britain's place in the world, which is the reason why for the last three years, there has been a steady increment in the number of EU flags that have appeared at the Last Night finale. In fact, last night, the blue and yellow more or less outdid the Union Jack. So much so, it made the Daily Express explode with rage:

A cut-out from my anti-Brexit group Facebook feed

Oh but it REALLY infuriated the Brextremists on the readers' replies section:

The Express reported that one very disgruntled Twit(ter user) wrote: (1) "Is there anything as weak, as petty or as demeaning to our nation as the waving of EU flags during Last Night of the Proms? Those flags should be burned, along with all other symbols of degeneracy and the power of finance."

A reader called Dave77 said, (2) "Waving a much detested FOREIGN FLAG is the 100% epitome of being a TRAITOR, when you are celebrating a genuine BRITISH FESTIVAL"

The same bozo said in a later post: (3) "I truly have never heard of one single person that was PROUD to be a member of the much detested EU --That could only happen if your ancestry is somewhat diluted in a European fashion maybe."

And finally, this splendid self-own by someone who goes by the name Henpecked: (4) "The remoaners and all this EU flag waving reminds me of 1930s Germany where a certain party rode rough shod over democracy by sheer force of obsession and numbers.
We must not let democracy be defeated by this shabby lot, democracy must always win."

Well I would like to reply personally to all of these "points" raised (if one can call them that):

(1) Firstly, the Twit - actually, my friend, the very reason people feel they should wave them is because they don't like petty parochials like you who can't see the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The ability to wave EU flags at a British event is in fact a sign of open-mindedness and openness to the world, which is what your idol, Liam Fox, is constantly seeking. He, though, makes you think you need to leave an international organisation in order to be more global, and you lot fall for it.

You know, you can go ahead and burn the EU flag if you like - you think it will trigger us in the same way setting fire to a Union Jack would trigger you. Well it won't, because we're not actually the ones who are highly-strung. The EU flag is not a symbol of degeneracy and the power of finance. To me, it is a very personal symbol of belonging.

Churchill himself said, "We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and... wherever they go in this wide domain... will truly feel, ‘Here I am at home.'" And that's how I feel. Just because your only foray into mainland Europe is to go and do British things on the Costa Del Sol for a fortnight a year, things you wouldn't do at home, like eat a Full English breakfast every day or sing insulting songs to non-British passers-by (although maybe you would), it doesn't mean you have to spoil it for the rest of us - those millions who have made their home in another EU country and are happily settled and integrated there.

(2) and (3) Well Dave, I have news for you: I see Europe totally differently to you. You have never met one person who is proud to be a member of the EU because of the small-town circles you go around in. From the very little information I have gained from your "effort" on the Express thread, it is easy to suppose that you haven't spent too long in the company of more internationally-minded people.

The EU flag is not a foreign flag; it is the flag that represents 28 countries in Europe living side-by-side in peace, and that includes the UK (still). In fact, to me, nobody and nothing is foreign unless he/she/it makes a great effort to denigrate anyone not like them. For me, when I talk about "the north", I mean areas on the Baltic or North Sea, and when I talk about "the south", I mean those on the Mediterranean. I don't get infuriated if someone comes to my town and carries on with their own way of life, because it's perfectly normal. 

I doubt you go to Torremolinos and speak Spanish and eat pinchitos at a chiringuito, so why should a Pole speak English, drink Tetley's and go for a ride to the garden centre on Sundays? In fact, at home, I have BBC as standard TV channel (I have watched German TV for about 5 hours of the ten years I have been here) and drink Marks & Spencer tea. Integration is not what you think - it is the ability to see others as human beings, speak the local language, and not enforce your customs on them.

As for calling the attendees at the Proms traitors, that is really very weak. The fact is, the vast majority of reasonably-minded, balanced people find Brexit to be a betrayal in itself. It is seen by them as a regression of the United Kingdom into a much diminished shadow of its former self. The problems causing people to vote to leave the EU are mainly inflicted on the people by the British government, and it will only get worse when the EU is not there to act as a conscience.

(4) How wrong you are, Henpecked: it is the other way round. We see Brexit as a landgrab by dark and anti-democratic forces. Have you ever wondered why Brexit is being bankrolled by extremely rich businessmen? Because they care not one bit about the ordinary man or woman in the street. They will earn vast amounts of money by pulling the country out of the EU, and to make it happen, they will go to any length. But the best way to make it happen is to recruit the working man. Every revolution has been won by gaining the support of the working man, and every time the working man falls for the trick of the ringleader, which is to curtail his freedoms and get rich off the worker's back. You know the film The Producers, where the writers of a Broadway musical want to make a flop because they'll earn a lot of money out of it? That's really what Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk are up to. And you can't see it. 

I am sure you are one of those people that if the EU eradicated plastic pollution from our seas, you'd be moaning about how "Brussels" is taking away your right to drink tea in a plastic cup, even if you don't. In fact, you complain about everything the EU does, even if it is for the common good. 

No, it is not a panacea or an answer to every problem, but it is the best we have, and we should help it to grow, not attack it for everything it does to help.

So finally, I would like to let you know that there is someone here who is proud to call himself a European, and I know a great deal more people like me. Maybe, Dave, it's the circles I go around in...

The truth takes too long to explain. It's time to rectify that.

The problem with human beings is they only live for 60 to 90 years. That is hardly enough time to learn how to make the world a better place. The other problem with many human beings, although fortunately not all, is their laziness: they have a tendency to strive for simplicity and they like complex explanations to everything packaged in neat comprehensible bundles that they can relate to, whether they are correct or not.

Throughout history, humans have tried to better themselves. They have gone from a short, brutal existence in primitive conditions via controlling fire, harnessing electricity and championing human rights, to supersonic flight, connecting everybody through computer screens and curing fatal diseases. Humans have forever been improving others' conditions, but they have not always raised their standards on a personal level.

What do I mean? Well, look at the vast majority of inventions. They have been created to make our lives better, because we are as a species particularly lazy. We will go to great lengths to reduce the need to go to great lengths. What these inventions, discoveries and adaptations do not do, however, is raise standards of intelligence and behaviour in people. They unfortunately go for the lowest common denominator, and if that's not available, the shortest and crudest explanation. This is what we need to correct now.

What has laziness got to do with it?
Well, look around you. People strive for the latest gadgets and machines to make their lives easier. They want them so badly, they'll go out to work for 8 to 12 hours a day to earn the money to pay for them. It's quite a paradox actually, when you think of it. We invest in clothes driers so we don't have to spend twenty minutes hanging up clothes on a line and wait several hours before removing them. Some of us then hire people to iron them for us.

We buy cars to go shopping even if there is a supermarket just down the street so we don't have to cart a couple of bags of acquisitions a few hundred metres, even if a shopping trolley costs a fraction of the price and the exercise would do us good. We buy kitchen appliances so we don't have to whisk, mix, stir or beat food ourselves, and we programme a destination into a map-reading machine so that we don't have to use our brains to read maps ourselves.

We constantly seek to take the effort out of our lives but we run ourselves into the ground getting there. We strive for simplicity in everything, though, including how we consume information, which is why many people are more willing to accept a snazzy slogan from a demagogue than listen to a full-length explanation from an expert.

In fact, people seem to have grown weary of professionals and experts altogether. And this is where the danger lies - politicians, big business people and captains of industry don't get where they are today by being lazy. The cleverest and most ambitious ones use the language of the lazy consumer to persuade, cajole and steamroll their targets into buying their products or supporting their policies. They can make people dance to their tune and wear clothes according to the weather they make. They get out of bed before they've even got into their pyjamas.

I am not saying this is nefarious behaviour; I am saying that they know how to play people's tunes. And there are a lot of people willing to be led. The fashion industry is the most extreme example of this - some rich tycoon with a clothing idea sends a faithful acolyte on TV to say "this is the latest fashion accessory", and before the Y in "accessory", it is sold out and a clamour for more engulfs the shops. If many ordinary people are willing to listen to this useless information about fashion which, let us be frank, has little or no impact in the whole scheme of things, they will of course treat important topics in the same way. And this goes for voting patterns too.

I would go as far as to say that the brutal treatment demonstrated in public voting shows on TV (the hollow commiserations handed out by the hosts, the cruel wait before the announcement, the gossip on the spin-off shows and in the newspapers, etc.) have made many people collectively immune to the feelings of others. People talk about these victims of fame as if they were characters in a soap opera. Added to that, we see evidence of people filming others involved in accidents or being attacked without intervening. Our civilisation is becoming immune to people's suffering.

And this is also reflected in recent political events.

The first that I can bring to mind is the refugee crisis in the Middle East and its spillage into Europe. Leaders of countries are ordering massive fences to keep out people fleeing for their lives and accusing them of carrying diseases into Europe, or worse, of shielding terrorists in their numbers. The problem is the opposite opinion is not an effective counter-argument - that we should allow these people in regardless is not going to win over many neutrals. This whole débâcle has sunk into mud-slinging and blaming each other for either being too hard or too soft. But those in positions of power are too proud to let go of their pet hates and any productive debate is stifled by the constant accusations. Western politics is sinking to lows that will take revolutions to amend.

Furthermore, we can point to the US-Mexico wall that the current incumbent of the White House is so adamant will be an effective antidote to illegal immigration. And this is where human laziness really reaches its nadir - symbolic gestures are seen as effective solutions to people's ills. For that is what the wall on the southern border of the US will be - a symbolic gesture, nothing more. People will go over it, under it, through it and around it. And symbolic gestures are happening everywhere. They stem from human laziness and unwillingness to investigate too far into something in case it turns out to be wrong.

Take the Brexit bus.



Never was such a succinctly effective untruth so widely used, and accepted, to justify an argument. The other side of the coin, though, cannot be emblazoned on the side of the bus so successfully:



And herein is the underlying problem - the arguments for and against any subject generally have on one side an attractive soundbite that makes perfect sense to people who like their news in short paragraphs; whilst on the other, a complicated narrative with detailed explanations can confuse or bore the average reader. Guess which story is likely to garner the most supporters...

And that is the disadvantage of those who seek to explain the truth and justify their answers in more detail - they can easily be drowned out by heckling from the opposition, or mocked for their unwieldy explanations. Short, snazzy slogans are the domain of commercial retailers and sports teams, but the political classes are getting in on the act, and taking their ideologies, warped or not, to the wider public. Unfortunately, and I don't think I am going to gain many friends by writing this, but there is a large section of the population that is easily led by simplistic messages that claim to be able to improve their lives, the very basis of commercially successful strategy. Taking this out into the real world is both reckless and unfair. The truth becomes blurred by people wishing it true, no matter how false it is.

The BBC has recently set up a Permanent Reality Check team to look into stories and claims that have been flagged as containing an element of untruth or spin. As you will see from its detailed clarifications, the answers are more complicated than the text they were originally packaged in.

If we are ever going to break the cycle of untruth, we have to simplify the message of truth. how could Brexit have been prevented? Simple, positive messages showing the benefits of the EU would have garnered a lot more support than the Osborne-Cameron fear campaign. Take the Facebook group WhyEurope - they have been developing positive slogans in support of Europe for a while now, and many of them bring the positive side of the story into a far more easily comprehensible light:

"Europe because...
We all have better things to do than waiting at borders."

"Europe because...
You receive the same medical care abroad as at home."

"Europe because...
I don't want to pay custom fees on Amazon"

"Europe because...
it's like being rich - you have 28 different places to live."

"Europe is like a window...
Often invisible, but you're gonna miss it when it's broken."

If only this group could have got this type of message out before the Brexit referendum... But of course, these positive features do not ring with people who aren't as greatly affected by them as they are by more pressing needs, like their health, social security, employment and domestic lives. Which is why their disenfranchisement will lead them to seek scapegoats and form up behind a cheerleader who will promise them sunnier times ahead, even if that may clearly not be true.

Populism does not need to speak the truth; it needs to press the right buttons. Which is why Donald Trump and his team could think up non-events like the Bowling Green massacre that never was, and the much-derided Sweden incident. People want to believe in Area 51 cover-ups and refugee rape stories in Germany. They want to believe it so badly because they are desperate to be right for a change. They have spent decades being told they are at the back end of society, misfits, plebs, rabble, and now the Establishment is teetering on the brink of self-inflicted destruction, those who get out of bed early on the opposing side are seizing their chance.

The only way for the current political class to salvage this is to shine an equally positive light on the future rather than the incessant sad music being they play while forcing through austerity policies on the poorest of society. Governments insist there is no money for schools, public transport, healthcare, welfare and job creation, yet there is ample money for defence and meaningless vanity projects. The current batch of politicians like Schäuble, May, Juncker, Rajoy, Hollande and recently Renzi and Cameron, seem (or seemed) to be doing very little on the surface to quell the fears of the impending downfall of Western civilisation, just carrying on as normal while all around ordinary people are growing tired of hearing about the closure of hospitals here and the reduction in police there, while third countries that are not so friendly to the West are now so obviously trying to infiltrate the system by subterfuge. People are looking for a sign that everything is all right and these dark times will pass.

If the West is serious about keeping up its standards then it needs to find some visionaries and statesmen and women from somewhere. The space is full of politicians acting like glorified civil servants, more worried about their own opinion poll rating than doing what is needed to re-calibrate the situation; any shining lights are extinguished by being marginalised by power-hungry politicians or disillusioned by the rigidity and intransigence of the political system.

It's time someone with a positive vision and two very sharp elbows stepped up before the populists get there first.

How much did it cost, Mr Putin?

So Russia has won the right to host the World Cup in 2018.

Take a look at the following press freedom rankings of the candidate countries:
The Netherlands (3)
Japan (12)
Belgium (14)
Australia (18)
The UK (19)
The USA (20)
Spain (39)
Portugal (40)
South Korea (42)
Qatar (120)
Russia (140)

Now, considering the alleged backhanders and oiled palms that took place in the bidding process, I regard it as a badge of honour that England was last in the votes. Australians should feel proud that their democracy came last in their own election for 2022.

I do not mind whoever won, but the way the day progressed frightened me - is this a sign of the future? I would prefer my country to have press freedom and my human rights respected than win the right to host a football competition in which even the goals scored might not be given because FIFA refuses to allow TV replay evidence.

I hope the UK press is galvanised into running a deeper-than-deep investigation into the dealings of that self-appointed, self-important, self-deifying group of stuffed suits.

There are three places the UK press needs to look:

1. Why did Blatter say China invented football? I knew the writing was on the wall then. After that, he gave a less-than-convincing speech on the need for the losing countries to accept the decision of FIFA. In other words, "we've been doing things behind everyone's backs and we're really worried about the reaction of the losing bidders."

2. Why did 5 members of FIFA tell David Cameron that they could be assured of their votes which then never materialised? Blatter's speech to FIFA delegates just before voting may have had something to do with that, where he told the voters to remember the recent criticism directed at their organisation when they cast their votes.

3. The last place the UK press should look is the pockets of every FIFA member, to make sure they're not getting too full.

I, for one, would welcome this media intrusion. I didn't mind the fact that England lost the voting. I never thought it would win. But the manner in which it happened suggests there was something not right in the voting process.

This is also a mirror of the intransigence which FIFA deploys in regard to their refusal to allow TV evidence to assist referees. It is a powerful hint that it is not in their interests to allow certain results to interfere in the smooth coronation of the world champions.

I have always had a dark brown suspicion that World Cup winners were not always the teams that played the best. Now I am wondering how much it costs a country not just to win the right to host, but to win the World Cup itself.

Well, why don't the larger countries get together and break away from FIFA, set up a rival code and then see who blinks first... Spain, Portugal and Italy would relish the chance to join a breakaway group with England. Then the Germans and Dutch might feel a bit lonely as the biggest European footballing countries still clinging to FIFA. And as the only two larger countries left, a little like the Scottish football league, the Celtic and Rangers of world football, Argentina and Brazil, would not take too long to switch suits either. Then the torrent would come led by France, the Czech Republic, Japan and Scotland. In the end, only Switzerland, Qatar and Russia will be left. They can set up a proper, fan-based democratic football union run on the basis of what is really good for the game.

It'll never happen though. Too many threats from FIFA will see to that.

Now let's get back to playing (mainly) honest sports like cricket, golf and rugby.

Ten reasons to love the BBC

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been a part of the national fabric for many years now, and since her inception has withstood not only the test of time, but has carried out her duties with magnificence and ultra-professionalism. She is the broadcaster many national television companies try to emulate. The one which comes closest, in my opinion, is the VRT of the Dutch-speaking Belgian community. So what has the BBC given us?

1. She was the number one morale booster in the Second World War, providing radio broadcasts to the Allied Forces overseas as well as assuring Charles De Gaulle could send radio messages back to France from his HQ in London. She remained on air all through the dark days of the Blitz while all around was being bombed, and she (probably) was the main reason why Londoners kept their spirits high, providing entertaining shows as well as important radio transmissions on the situation as it stood. But she turned disastrous events like the Dunkirk withdrawal into spectacular acts of bravery by stressing the audacity of the shippers who crossed into enemy territory to collect the defeated men.
2. She actually started experimental TV broadcasting before the Second World War but stopped at the outbreak of war as it was feared the transmissions would interfere with other signals and make it easier for the enemy to use the signal as a guide. A Mickey Mouse special was on at the time the signal was abandoned and one of the first programmes to be transmitted when TV was resumed in June 1946 was that very same feature. But first up came Jasmine Bligh, who apparently said, "Good afternoon everybody, do you remember me?" Another show a little later in that period featured an announcer, Leslie Mitchell, who, referring to the war, said, "As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted..."
3. Discovery, development and execution of young talent has always been the main reason the BBC has stayed in touch with the modern world and yet it has some of the oldest traditions the the media world, for example the BBC Proms season, the largest classical music festival in the world. As for young talent, she has never ceased to let the most up-to-date screenwriters, playwrights, comedians, radio broadcasters and TV presenters have a free hand in their airtime. One of the earliest, and most celebrated, would be the Goon Show which ran for nine years from 1951. It was even exported to NBC in the USA. From that one show, fifty years of comedy was born which tried to copy it, outdo it, or evolve from it. Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe, Peter Sellars and Spike Milligan were the comedians behind the Goon Show and the successors to that show would be Monty Python, the Pink Panther, Not The Nine O'Clock News, and many others.
4. Bringing great events to our homes is a talent only the BBC knows how to do. When I watch coverage of historical occasions, sports tournaments or breaking news on other channels, there is often that little something missing: continuity. On the BBC, it seems to glide from one place to the next as though it was an effortless act of logic. But in fact, it is simply because of the meticulous planning done by the backroom staff. Some of the most memorable events have been shown live on the BBC over the years, for which we don't give enough thanks: the BBC was the first broadcaster in Afghanistan after the recapturing of Kabul; the Queen's coronation was the first major live broadcast anywhere; and guess who refused to leave Belgrade when the Kosovo war broke out?
5. Major sporting events have been the greatest pull over the years, none more so than the popularisation of previously obscure sports like snooker, golf and darts. The BBC has been at every Olympic Games since they were first reported on; she has been at Wimbledon every year without fail; she has been the champion of the smaller event too, bringing us rowing, curling, decathlon and making household names out of Sir Steve Redgrave, Rhona Martin and Daley Thompson.
6. She has played a part in the intrigue of modern politics, never afraid to ask difficult questions, never avoiding to interrogate politicians until they succumbed. On one famous occasion just before the general election of 1997, Jeremy Paxman, also known as The Rottweiler, asked the then prisons minister Michael Howard the same question thirteen times on TV, each time receiving an evasive reply. The BBC has been known to get on the nerves of US presidents, who are often quizzed politely by American press and television journalists. However, the fundamental reason behind it all is that she assures us that the questions the general public would most like answered are put to the interviewee.
7. She has supported some untried talent and given it airtime, like allowing John Peel to play unknown music on his radio show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel and bringing some of the Edinburgh Festival discoveries to wider audiences. Some of those are: Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson. Many performers are found through the Cambridge University Footlights - probably the greatest talent factory in the world. To name but a few, Sir David Frost, Clive James, Ben Miller, Eric Idle and Griff Rhys Jones, and most on the list above from the Edinburgh Fringe.
8. She is paid for by, and solely by, the British people, through a licence fee which costs about £120 per year. That's TEN POUNDS A MONTH! And people still complain... But complaints are also aired on the BBC. Points of View, a weekly programme airing people's grievances, gives us an insight into the kind of letters and emails she receives from her viewers and listeners.
9. She runs the most visited website in the world which is not a search engine or an online email provider. The ones above her are Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft affiliates. In fact, she has TWO entries in the top ten - her news website and her homepage. And what a website it is. You can listen to radio on there and see the news, like any other serious broadcaster. But you can also learn languages, read about history, gardening, astronomy, travel, literature, finance, sport, weather, education, science, health, technology and anything else you can think of.
10. Her efforts over the years have brought us some of the most memorable television. I could name them all, but here are a few:

BBC Wildlife: The BBC has the largest collection of wildlife and nature footage at her offices in Bristol, and along with the unforgettable voice of Sir David Attenborough, has made us delight in the habits of the meerkats, shed a tear for the solitude of the polar bear, wonder at the meticulousness of the bird of paradise and bring into our homes the phenomena of our planet.

BBC News: Every hour of the day someone somewhere is working on an article for BBC News online, filming for a news report or editing a documentary. She has more reporters worldwide than any other broadcaster and is to be found in more homes and hotel rooms than all the rest.

BBC Films: Billy Elliot, Wild About Harry, My Summer Of Love, Match Point, Mrs Henderson Presents... Need I say more???

BBC Drama: Silent Witness, Life On Mars, Jane Eyre, Rome, Spooks, Pride and Prejudice, Bleak House, Doctor Who?, The Virgin Queen, Waking The Dead... ditto.

BBC Personalities: John Motson (football commentator), Gary Lineker (broadcaster and ex-footballer), Terry Wogan (broadcaster, radio DJ, Eurovision presenter), John Simpson (news reporter), Alan Johnston (news correspondent recently released from Gaza), Daniel Craig (now James Bond), James Nesbitt (accomplished actor) Dame Judi Dench (Oscar-winning actress), Catherine Tate (comedian), Anne Robinson (dangerous primetime quiz redhead), and I'm sure I could sit here until morning writing more but I won't.

Simply because if you don't know the BBC, you simply haven't lived!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Eurovision: time to pull out or throw some out

I promise, this is my final article on the Eastern European Song Contest...

...and the final time I watch it until they change the voting system. OK, the best song always wins, and this was in no doubt tonight, as Serbia's simple act made a change from the usual circus acts we've been witnessing since Dana International. In some ways, Marija Šerifovic's performance was a little like Katrina and the Waves: a solid voice, an anthem which always does well, and the conviction to say who she is without trying to play to the crowd with little gimmicks. But on the other hand, every country in the top ten found its way there through its geographical position and its friends or expats. And this is what gets on my nerves more than anything else.

I was listening to Sir Terry Wogan on BBC1 and I got the feeling he's had enough of it. It's not about the song any more, it's about where you live. The crowd booed each time a neighbourly vote was cast. Russia, who could send Vlad Putin's cleaning lady along, will always get maximums from it's neighbours, to some of their inhabitants' great shame. The Baltics have up to 40% Russian expats, and there's nothing more those expats like than embarrassing their host countries' indigenous population.

I don't mind a little light patriotism, but blatant vote-rigging is definitely out. I agree that Marija Šerifovic's song was a worthy victory, and Ukraine genuinely deserved high scores, but honestly - does anyone believe that Russia, Belarus and Turkey should have been in the top six? I am from the UK, so I'm guaranteed to see my country in the final anyway, but I'm just disappointed that countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Andorra and Poland didn't make it to the final because of the alliances throughout Europe. OK, there are alliances in western Europe too, like Malta, Ireland and the UK, or Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Turkey, the Scandinavians or the Iberians, but it's disappointing when so many good songs don't get far because of block voting.

Anyway, here's what I would do from now on:

No more semi-finals, where the original members can get humiliated. Let's have regional song contests (possibly by jury), with the top 6 going through to the final. I would do it along these lines, keeping some together and splitting some up:

Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Israel, Bulgaria, Serbia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro

Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic

Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Switzerland, Austria, Romania, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Andorra

Let them all battle it out amongst each other - they wouldn't be so friendly then, would they? Then in the final only those countries which qualified can vote individually with a double-pointer for a block vote of all those who didn't make it.

Germany, France, the UK and Spain automatically go to the final as they pay for the event. And here lies the irony - the subsidisers of the whole thing consistently get left out in the cold because of the huge block voting. It only takes one of those broadcasters to say "OK, we've had enough", and the whole thing will be in trouble. Maybe Russian TV should now do its part and become a major sponsor, seeing as it's the one with the most points accumulated since the decade started.

Another thing I noticed, which I felt was unfair, was some acts were miming. If they weren't then there was some serious time difference between the mouths opening and the voices reaching us...

Either change the voting system or watch the quick demise of this great European institution.

Final scores (notice the ones in bold and underlined):
Serbia 268
Ukraine 235
Russia 207
Turkey 163
Bulgaria 157 (how?!)
Belarus 145
Greece 139
Armenia 138
Hungary 128
Moldova 109
Bosnia/Herzegovina 106
Georgia 97
Romania 84
Macedonia 73
Slovenia 66
Latvia 54
Finland 53
Sweden 51
Germany 49
Spain 43
Lithuania 28
France 19
United Kingdom 19
Ireland 5