Random stupidities on the Rooney issue that don't fit anywhere else:

The supposed effect on children:

"The feeling is undoubtedly that youngsters ape what they see. We have no definitive proof that they do, but anecdotally that is the widespread belief."

So, it's a feeling.  There's no proof. Just a feeling.  The oddest thing is that he doesn't say, "anecdotally, this is what we see," instead, it's just an anecdotal belief.  Which I assume means that everyone thinks it does, even though there isn't any evidence.  So they're not wanting to confront an actual problem, but the appearance of a problem which probably doesn't even exist.

Of course, some football writers, with their extensive knowledge of child psychology, just know it influences children.  step forward Jason Burt:

It will be argued that Rooney has been victimised or harshly treated, because of who he is. It will be claimed that such language is used all the time, that he is not a role model — well he is by accepting the endorsements – that children are not so easily influenced, which is wrong, or that he received severe provocation from the West Ham fans.

Just plain wrong. Useful links to the literature on the subject by the way Jason... And endorsements mean he's a role model?  Not altogether that's true.  If he starts becoming unpopular then his endorsements will dry up, true enough.  But that endorsing a product (not even specified products aimed at children...) carries with it the burden of being a role model - a leap of logic too far - unless he's endorsing a non-swearing product - perhaps some bowdlerised dictionary...

The anti-working-class agenda.

There is a brilliant example of this today in, where else, The Daily Mail.  A whole piece which can barely disguise the author's disgust at Rooney being just so working-class.  It starts badly enough with the use of "Neanderthal" in the headline, then continues:

Wayne Rooney was lazing indolently ... With his Desperate Dan jaw, impossibly thick neck and veins bulging from his prematurely high forehead, Rooney might have been a boxer striding towards the ring

The boxing ring, a more suitable stage for the working class perhaps being the point.  You can feel the snobbery like poison in every word.  Indeed the author of this had just written a piece bemoaning Rooney's ability to go for a lavish holiday ("their self-indulgent, chav-like behaviour  while holidaying at a seven-star hotel") while the middle-class Mail readers couldn't afford to because of the recession.  It's a piece borne of jealousy that these working-class males are taking money that they don't deserve, money that they aren't entitled too or don't have the "class" to use in ways that the middle-class find acceptable or tasteful.  It sounds like Wayne probably should have given this guy a slap.

And to finish a few good pieces - On FA hypocrisy - ignore the over moralising tone if you will, it is Martin Samuel after all:

For this is not the first time Rooney's furious features have snarled an assault into the ears of the unsuspecting armchair viewer.
June 18, 2010, Group C qualifier, England 0 Algeria 0 at the Green Point Stadium in Cape Town. Rooney was leaving the field after the most abject performance of Fabio Capello's tenure as England manager.
Those that had travelled to a far continent in England's name were not happy. Rooney turned to address the camera lens. 'Nice to hear your own fans booing you,' he said. 'That's what you call loyal support. For f***'s sake.'
And the FA did ... nothing. How could they? Like the rest of the country they were waiting, hoping, desperately for Rooney to come good in South Africa. They didn't want any trouble.

And this explaining the FA's thinking, just replace the word "public" with the word "media":

So having checked which way the public mood was blowing, the FA threw the book at him. 

And where this leaves them:

An FA spokesman said that “industrial language” was not being banned, but when armchair lip-readers can discern expletives aimed at officials, logic says the FA will have to act repeatedly or lose credibility.
Lord Burns proposed an ‘arm’s-length’ disciplinary body that enabled the FA to avoid conflict of interest at all levels. Independence might help avoid hypocrisy being added to the FA’s own charge sheet.

And there's this which links the whole thing to our league campaign:

The overall effect is to give the impression that United, should they regain the Premier League title from Chelsea, will be chameleon champions. This side has adapted itself to every circumstance. That, of course, is exactly what is asked of professionals but they commonly falter in the effort to meet those demands.
The league is about coping as much as commanding. There is now an expectation that large sums will be spent on improving the United squad this summer. The outlay is essential but those set to fade out of Ferguson's plans still seem due to be bearing a medal or two as they depart.