Our Government's misguided definition of an 'informed decision'

Apparently, Europe Minister David Lidington, when asked about the decision to send out the increasingly infamous EU Referendum information booklet (yes, the one that cost £9.3 million to create and which was printed in Germany rather than here in the UK), said this:

"I am spending time virtually every day now signing replies to Members of Parliament who have enclosed letters from constituents where those constituents have said they feel they do not yet have enough information on which to take an informed decision and they would like to have some more please," he said.

Clearly he doesn't seem to understand what it is that has got so many people hot under the collar.
You see, like so many of the constituents that Mr Lidington is referring to, I too would very much welcome enough information on which to make an informed decision about the UK's continued membership of the EU - indeed, I believe that such information has been conspicuous by its absence.
I'd love to see some sensible, rational economic data, for example, clearly showing me how much the UK pays into the EU and how much it gets out; I'd love to see a balanced critique of how long it might take the UK to reach a trade agreement with the EU if the UK decides to leave, and what the implications could be to our economy in the interim; I'd love to know what the Leave Campaign plan to create in place of the awful Human Rights Act (one of my pet hates because it is such a poorly drafted law).
And so on...
So in that respect, I'm fully in agreement with Mr Lidington that I don't yet have enough information on which to make an informed decision. Indeed I, for one, would have no qualms (except about the printing of it in Germany) about the government spending taxpayers' money on a leaflet that provides a sensible, balanced explanation of the potential risks and benefits of EU membership and an EU exit on issues such as the economy, security, trade, migration, etc, etc. In fact, I'd positively welcome it.
But that's exactly what we haven't got!!!!
Instead, Mr Lidington, along with Mr Cameron et al, seem to believe that an 'informed decision' is one based only on one side of an argument, and it's that utter arrogance and complete disregard for 'fairness' that I (and a lot of other people, I suspect) find really, really infuriating.

Why were Brazil so bad? I have the answer!

Well, I watched it and I have to admit, I'm gob-smacked.
Whichever way you look at it, 7-1, at home, is a monumental thumping…and the 1 only came in the 90th minute…and only after Germany had missed a glorious chance to make it 8…

Anyway, whilst countless TV and newspaper pundits have all gone into frenzied analyses, blaming the absence of Neymar and Thiago Silva, bemoaning Brazil's 'lack of shape' (whatever that means) and shaking their heads solemnly at their inability to 'function as a unit' (whatever that means as well), I'd like to put forward an alternative theory as to why Brazil were so utterly, utterly shit:
It's all about the names.

I mean, just look at some of the fantastic names that won the World Cup for Brazil in 1970:
Pele, Carlos Alberto, Rivelino, Jairzinho

Then there's that awesome team that should have won the 1982 World Cup (but got their pockets picked by Italy's Paulo Rossi):
Socrates, Zico, Falcao, Batista, Edevaldo

And what about the 1994 World Cup winning team:
Ronaldo, Bebeto, Romario, Zinho, Leonardo

And in 2002, when they won it again, we had the likes of:
Rivaldo (though he's a bit of a knob! refer to my post on 16th June for details), Ronaldinho, Gilberto Silva, Roberto Carlos and the excellently named Vampeta

Now, compare those fabulous, evocative names with those we saw at the Belo Horizonte last night:
FRED, OSCAR, BERNARD, JO and, perhaps the most ridiculous of all, HULK

They are just crap names, aren't they? They certainly don't strike fear into the hearts of the opposition; I mean, Fred and Oscar are characters on Sesame Street, for fuck's sake!! And no-one but no-one should be allowed to use the name Hulk unless they are eight feet tall, green, angry and generally beating the shit out of an oil tanker.

So, my advice to the Brazilian footballing authorities is simple. Get to grips with the names which players adopt and apply these three simple rules:
1. All names must end in a vowel (and no, Jo doesn't count based on rule number 2) - let's face it, it's a millions times better when a commentator screams 'Rivelinooooooooooooo' as the ball hits the back of the net than it is when they try to do it with 'Bernardddddddddd' - go on, try it for yourself.
2. All names must have at least two syllables, but no more than four. Never just one.
3. The only exception to rules 1 & 2 - when the guy actually looks like he could be a Greek Philosopher!

Socrates