EURO IS THE ULTIMATE 'LIVING DEAD'.

So David Cameron has finally halted the advance of European domination of Britain .................. or has he ? Has he, instead, sidelined the UK from future major European economic decisions ? Has he sidelined the UK from the EU ? Has he created a '2 speed Europe' ?

Cameron vetoed whatever it was that France and Germany wanted to do to save the Euro, supposedly because he was unable to gain sufficient safeguards for Britain's financial services industry. In truth, he was, of course, more interested in satisfying his Party and other active supporters, and also avoiding the catastrophe of a UK Referendum on continued membership of the mess that is the European Community, Union or whatever it currently calls itself. Anything that would trigger a referendum would also spell the end of the current coalition government, something which he had to avoid at all cost, so he did. The fact that it was almost certainly the right thing to do is rather irrelevant in political terms.

The whole idea of the European Union goes back to the immediate post-WW2 years, when European politicians were looking for ways to ensure that there could never be another major european war. Bringing countries together in an economic union was then seen as the way to achieve this, and it has since blossomed into the stinkwort that is the 'European Community' of today. Of course, the politicians never let the people know of their ultimate ambitions and thought they could arrive at their destination, of a single European state, by stealth; to a significant extent, they were correct, until now.

The invention of the 'Euro' as a single currency was clearly designed as a way of bringing about further integration between countries; rules that were necessary to ensure that the system could work were, however, avoided, circumvented or simply ignored. The result is the shocking mess that exists today. 17 countries have converted to using the 'Euro', at least several of them never having met the required criteria in any sense that any accountant could accept; of course, governments tend to avoid using accountants and, instead, rely on the vague prognostications of economists to support their often insane ambitions, and this is what happened.

Now we have a political crisis to add to the pre-existing financial and economic ones, but the politicians would rather suffer the torments of 'Dante's Inferno' than admit that the original concept was flawed and needs to be re-assessed. Instead, they continue to discuss ways of shoring-up the impossible structure that is the 'Euro'; those countries already in hock to the 'Euro' see little choice but to stick with it, even if it means eventual meltdown, while the paymaster, Germany, has already committed so much politcal kudos, not to mention money, to trying to maintain this ludicrous enterprise, that a voluntary withdrawal is now politically impossible. The other main player, France is in the invidious position of being a prime architect of the system, and can't possibly contemplate its failure, but is also likely to be its next major casualty; the French political elite also hates the British, so putting 'Boy Dave' in an awkward spot is seen as being an earner of serious 'brownie points' for President (for the moment) Sarkozy. This was done at the recent gathering and has been pounced upon by the French press.

The 'Euro' is dead and Cameron did the right thing, for all the wrong reasons. The largely political solution now being cobbled together by the 17 'Euro' countries will achieve little as, for countries such as Greece, remaining within whatever new rules are produced, will eventually prove as unpalatable as remaining within the old. Addiionally, German electors will eventually decide that they have had enough of paying the debts of Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the rest; the whole project will collapse.

Britain is, whether 'Merkozy' likes it or not, a major power in both finanical and political terms, at least in the small pond that is Europe; we cannot be ignored, nor sidelined. The EU cannot make major decisions without Britain's involvement; it can, of course, develop agreements between different groups of member nations but no such agreements can be made outside of existing treaty arrangements. The 17 'Euro' nations can huff and puff all they like but they cannot develop arrangements that contravene any existing treaty obligations; equally, they upset the UK at their peril.

There could be the creation of a '2 speed Europe' but what would that mean ? How would it work ? If the UK was forced into a referendum and the people decided to leave the Union, what then ? The UK has places to go; the Commonwealth is the largest block of nations in the world, outside of the United Nations. The UK is still one of the world's largest economies and cannot be ignored; the EU is an agglomeration of disparate nations with vastly different, and largely incompatible, economies. Where would Italy, Greece and Portugal, not to mention Hungary, Croatia and Poland, look if the UK borders were to be closed, or restricted, to them ? Germany cannot save them all.

Which would you choose to ally yourself with ?

EXECUTIVE PAY : CLEGG WRONG AGAIN.

I am no supporter of the executives of companies who are paid vast amounts of money for questionable levels of performance. The arguments for and against the inroduction of controls have been well aired in the media, but the reported measures to be be put forward by the Government are a nonsense.

The pay of senior executives is determined by the Remuneration Committee of each company; these committees are composed of non-executive members of the Boards, these member aften being executive members of other Boards. Inevitably, there is the risk of an incestuous relationship developing which leads to a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" approach to pay determiniation. This is fundamentally wrong and should be stopped, the question is "How ?"

Ultimately, every publicly quoted company is owned by its shareholders and it is for them to decide whether of not they are satisfied with the companies' management. It should not be for the Government to interfere; have we not seen enough of the consequences of Government involvement in major industries in the past ? It is also not for the workers to decide who gets paid what, as is now being proposed by Nick Clegg; the suggestion that there should be worker representation on Remuneration Committees is farcical. In essence, this would mean union officers sitting alongside Board members, being made privvy to highly confidential personal information and being asked to make determinations for which they are ill-suited and inappropriately positioned. The whole idea is a muddle-headed piece of socialist nonsense and why David Cameron should agree to it is a mystery, unless it's as a trade-off for Liberal Democrat acquiescence to more Conservative policies.

To my mind, the answer to Boardroom pay inflation is simple and doesn't require any grand political gestures. Firstly, anyone serving as an executive in one company should be barred from serving as a non-executive for any other or, at the very least, from serving on its Remuneration Committee; secondly, the objectives by which senior executives are assessed should be clear, concise, easily understood and easily measurable. There should be no woolly wording capable of a range of interpretations and the level of performance should be assessed by a body separate from the Remuneration Committee; this body could, indeed, include representatives of the workforce and, even, other interested parties. Finally, ordinary shareholders have to be strongly encouraged to become much more involved in the determination of the extent to which executives have, or have not, achieved their objectives and in the determination of the appropriate level of remuneration. Companies should be required to make it much easier for shareholders to access the necessary information and to express their views, in full knowledge of the relevant facts.

Clegg's proposals are unnecessary and wrong. Workers do not own their companies, except in a few specific instances, and should have no role in determining the pay of their managers; if they are given such power, the result will, inevitably, be anarchy and chaos.

CLARKSON'S TIME IS UP; BBC ON FINAL WARNING.

The furore over Jeremy Clarkson's recent comments is yet another indictment of the BBC and its management.

Clarkson is a character of little talent, but who has made a career out of playing the fool. His 'Top Gear' programme is nothing more than an opportunity for him and his colleagues to behave like spoilt children, being alternately puerile, rude and offensive. No vaguely intelligent person can possibly enjoy watching this drivel, nor will actually do so.

Regardless of the inanity of Clarkson's performances, many people do watch and, apparently, enjoy, his efforts;.no doubt, these are the same people who are addicted to 'Soaps' and 'Reality' shows. Consequently, he has a substantial following of people who have made him very wealthy; he now believes that he can do and say pretty much anything he likes, and get away with it.

Sadly for him, his recent comments have come to the attention of more intelligent voices, people who probably don't hang on his every word and don't giggle at his schoolboy antics and humour. These people have complained in large numbers about his words and both he and the BBC have been forced to issue apologies. For the BBC, this is another embarrassment and for Clarkson it should be terminal.

Not long ago, the BBC was forced to take action after two other morons, Ross and Brand, offended decency on the radio, and Clarkson has been in hot water over his remarks more than once before. It seems, however, that the Corporation has failed to learn from these events, as it's said that the producers of the programme, 'The One Show' (a stupid title, indeed), were well aware of what Clarkson was going to say. Some now argue that all the man did was to behave like himself and what is the problem in that ? In answer, I would say "Everything !", and that, knowing what he's like, he should be sat upon, heavily.

Apparently, Clarkson is a close friend of the Prime Minister; if this is true, I genuinely despair. We all know that Cameron is not exactly the brightest tool in the box, but for him to associate closely with a committed moron like Clarkson would surely be beyond the pale.

The BBC has got it wrong, again, and someone should be fired. Clarkson being Clarkson, is a shocking waste of tax-payers money and he should be exiled to some commercial channel where his puerile drivel is more suited. If Cameron and Clarkson are, indeed, close friends, one has to have serious doubts about the Prime Ministers judgement, again.

OSBORNE FIDDLES WHILE STORM CLOUDS GATHER.

"Boy George" our brilliant young Chancellor of the Exchequer has finally realised or, perhaps, just admitted to the rest of us, that the nation's finances are in a bigger mess than he'd previously believed. His 'Autumn Statement', more of a mini-budget since the days of Gordon Brown, has painted a picture of continuing austerity for years to come, against a backdrop of world-wide financial and economic chaos. We have a larger 'structural deficit' than originally thought, we're going to borrow mind-boggling additional amounts of money over and above the stratospheric sums already announced, economic growth is going to stagnate, at best, unemployment is likely to soar and the state-pension age is going to rise more quickly than previously planned. Life is going to be increasingly hard for very many, and for much longer than we'd been led to believe.

What is worst about all of this is that our political leaders continue to treat our ailing economy as nothing more than a plaything, something for them to use against each other when it comes to the next General Election. They either don't understand how serious things are or aren't bothered because of the protection offered to themselves by their exalted status and wealth. While the banking crisis has not made matters any easier, and the Eurozone crisis may yet cause its own catastrophe, the heart of the matter in this country is decades of mismanagement by a succession of Governments that have insisted on spending well beyond their means in pursuit of some economic nirvana of never-ending growth and stability. This was always doomed to failure and all that has happened is that the failure has occurred a little earlier than would otherwise have been the case due to the troubles elsewhere.

Much of the western world has been enjoying a much better lifestyle than has been justified by its actual economic performance; the gap between reality and actuality has been filled, for many, many years by borrowing, both state and personal. In the UK, we have paid ourselves far too much for doing far too little; we have established state run schemes to allow the indigent to draw incomes in excess of those enjoyed by many in work, thus discouraging work and creating an environment in which all the 'mod-cons' are seen as essentials rather than luxuries to be earned. Children are granted their every wish for the latest 'I-Phone' or computer, everyone has a car and a 50" television, all in a world of unsustainable consumerism largely paid for by the Government.

We complain that we pay too much in taxes, but how else can Government pay for its profligacy ? The country no longer exports anything significant except 'financial services'; large-scale manufacturing died years ago, beaten into submission by the greed of workers and the greater efficiency and lower costs achievable in the far-east. What we have now is the left-overs; mostly an unskilled workforce taught pointless and useless subjects at school and, laughably, university, who have no jobs to go to. We provide very little that the rest of the world wants, or needs, to buy and what we can provide is frequently too expensive due to the pay expectations of workers. It is painful to hear some of the recent interviews with empty-headed youngsters unable to find work; they see having a degree as a pathway to work, seemingly regardless of the nature of the degree. They complain that they can't find work in their 'chosen field' but seem unwilling to accept anything else; they blame 'the system' or 'the government' for their predicament and seem to be unaware of their own responsibilities.  

Government ministers witter on about improving education and creating more job opportunites etc., etc. This is all hot air and wind. Our children are no longer being educated at schools, but taught 'life-skills'; they don't do languages or history or geography in any understandable fashionable, but do learn about climate change, the evils of slavery and NAZI Germany, and the plight of the 'third world'. They have little or no discipline in class or at home; at school, they are given 'predicted grades' well in advance of taking any exams, thus limiting their expectations and efforts - achievement of the prediction is all that is expected and real effort is unnecessary. Worst of all, they are kept at school, or college or wherever, for longer and longer, supposedly to gain a better education but, in reality, to keep them out of the jobs market and, thus, out of the unemployment figures. This is an insane approach dreamt up by some civil servant working in the bowels of some ministry and who hasn't seen the light of day for years. By the time these children have finished their 'education' there are no jobs for them to go to, or they're too old or don't have the right skills, and they end up unemployed anyway, having cost us a fortune to get nowhere.

Real job opportunities are few and far between. As pension age increases, vacancies will dwindle; jobs in the public sector are being dramatically reduced, with the vast number of non-jobs created in recent years simply being scrapped; for the private sector, our school leavers and graduates are largely unsuited, having none of the necessary skills, drive or enthusiasm. How does a degree in Journalism fit anyone for a real job ? Or one in Tourism or any of the other myriad of wholly pointless, and largely non-academic, subjects on offer at today's plethora of so-called Universities ?

Within a few years, all of this will become so clear that it will seem obvious to all. By then, we'll all be very much poorer, and there'll quite probably have been civil disruption and disturbance of a type not seen in this country for centuries. Osborne and his mates have talked glibly about the increased borrowings in future years without ever explaining how it will all be paid back; the answer, of course, is that it won't be, not in real terms anyway. The pound will be slowly devalued and the value of the debt will fall; this means interest rates will remain higher than they would otherwise be and industry will remain in the doldrums. We will be saddled with this problem for far more years than this, or any other, Government will ever admit.

There is only one way for this crisis to be resolved and that is to admit that Governments have spent far too much of our money in order to buy our votes; this has given us all an inflated lifestyle that we have not earned. The answer is to reverse this madness in dramatic style; close entire Government departments and agencies, drastically reduce state benefits for all and sundry, limit NHS and educational services and scrap the minimum wage. If projects like 'Cross-rail' and 'HS2' are truly viable, let the private sector fund them; stop wasting money on frivolities and the burgeoning throng of charities, all of which have special tax exemptions. Bringing events such as the Olympics or Football World Cup to Britain is a ridiculous diversion, designed to create an illusion of well-being, as will be next year's Diamond Jubilee celebrations; the latter may be a true national celebration, the former are simply political objectives that cost billions of pounds we don't have.

This is a time for serious retrenchment, not for namby-pamby fiddling at the edges by policians fearful of the next election. We need a Churchill or a Thatcher, someone with the determination to see us through the very dark days ahead. Sadly, I see no such figure anywhere on the political stage, nor even waiting in the wings. Batten down the hatches; it's going to be a very bumpy ride.

'NICE' FOR SOME, BUT WRONG.

NICE, the Quango that is responsible for deciding what is, and is not, delivered by the NHS, has decided in its wisdom that caesarean section should be an automatic 'right' for pregnant women.

Notwithstanding that any surgery is inherently dangerous, females, human and of all other mammalian species, have been successfully delivering their offspring for millions of years without needing to resort to this extreme measure. Until now, caesarean section has been a surgical procedure used as a last resort when normal delivery has proved too dangerous for mother, baby or both. Now it seems that caesarean section is to become a mere lifestyle choice for women who can't be bothered to go through with a normal pregnancy; how long will it be before surrogacy also becomes such an option ?

One wonders if the bright sparks at NICE who came up with this guidance have really understood what pregnancy is all about. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological processes designed to ensure that the mother and child are bonded to each other; by removing the element of normal childbirth, they run the risk of greatly reducing the strength of that bond and thus of producing many more children whose parents care little for them. Such decisions move us ever-closer to the day in which children are simply designed and manufactured in a laboratory, far distant from their biological parents. These children will be raised by the state, placed in their allocated position in society and disposed of when no longer useful.

Fanciful thinking this may be, but once we embarked on the current road of putting parental and state convenience above normal human responsibility, we inevitably and inexorably set out along such a path. 

DOCTORS AT IT AGAIN !

Apparently, the British Medical Association is at it again. Today it's reported that they want the Government to ban smoking in cars due to the potentially harmful effects this can have on non-smoking passengers.

Why don't these idiots just demand that cars should be banned? After all, the vast amount of noxious fumes and chemicals spewed into our atmosphere every minute by the traffic on our roads must vastly outweigh anything produced by a smoker in one small car. What about banning all power stations and factories, aeroplanes and trains, power tools, tractors, anything that produces dust, alcohol, fatty foods, salt, sugar, loud music, bright lights etc., etc.? Any of these things may be deemed to cause pollution and or lead to illness or other medical conditions, or otherwise affect our environment in such a way as to be detrimental to ourselves or to others.

The NAZIs in the BMA are hell bent on saving us from ourselves and would have the Government spend a fortune on monitoring our every move. How a ban on smoking in cars could ever be properly enforced is anyones' guess; at present, the ban on using mobile telephones seems to be largely ignored, being caught speeding is probably a one-in-thousand chance and the ban on fox hunting is a joke; many other ridiculous laws designed to control our everyday behaviour are equally ineffective. These things cannot be policed and all should be wiped off of the statute book - laws that cannot be properly enforced do nothing but bring the law into disrepute.

Let the BMA, and even the Government, issue information leaflets and advice, but leave it to the individual to decide whether or not they follow that advice. There are far too many potential dangers in the world to ban them all, unless we really do want to live in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, with a secret policeman on every corner and under every stone.

POPPY FACISM

Years ago, when I was a lad, Armistice Day was celebrated as an opportunity for the sombre remembrance of those who'd fallen in the 2 World Wars and, in particular, the first of these, universally known as 'The Great War'. It was always remembered that those who had fallen had done so in defence of freedom.

Wearing a poppy was a simple symbol of this quiet time of remembrance. November 11th itself was almost ignored in favour of the nearest Sunday, which day was the focus of the national services, with the annual 'Btitish Legion Festival of Remembrance, taking place on the previous evening. 11th November was a day on which distant guns might have been heard and those who wanted to, stopped for a few moments of quiet reflection, while others carried on as normal.

How things have changed. Today, instead of 1 minute's silence, we have 2; 11th November has become a day on which everything stops at 11:00, as well as on Remembrance Sunday. Today, every organisation tries to make capital out of the event, from the Government with its overblown rhetoric to the Football Association with its ludicrous insistence that its players have a poppy emblazoned on black armbands; one question I have yet to see evn asked is 'Why are our footballers wearing black armbands ?', but I suppose that's now taken for granted.

The wearing of a poppy has become little more than a cipher. It's true meaning has been lost amidst the political and commercial hype which has so invaded our world. Children wear the poppy and chat about why they do so without having the faintest notion of its origins; they relate its use to more recent conflicts such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq while having no knowledge of 'The Great War' at all. Any thought that our servicemen have died in 'the defence of freedom' has long been forgotten, as our forces have been deployed in pursuit of very different objectives.

I always try to observe the silence on Remembrance Sunday; as a family historian, I'm well aware of the sacrifices that were made by many family members, upwards of 2 dozen of whom I know to have perished in 'The Great War' alone. However, I am offended by the way in which the poppy appears on the jackets and tops of every television presenter weeks ahead of the event, in a way reminiscent of the early appearance of Christmas cards and displays in our shops: I am uncomfortable with the way in which the remembrance events have been extended to 11th November to such an extent that this day now seems to have become a near-duplication of Remembrance Sunday itself: I dislike the way in which the wearing of a poppy has, in effect, become a symbol of support for our armed forces, rather than being a symbol of remembrance. Most of all, I am horrified that our politicians have used this time as an opportunity to change the very rationale behind Remembrance Day while doing nothing to ensure that our children understand the true history of their genesis; this subtle distortion is evil in the extreme.

Today, we are all expected to 'wear our poppy with pride'. Why ? I am not proud that our country has taken part in conflicts which cost vast numbers their lives and left many more horribly maimed, I am saddened. I wear a poppy as a sign that I'm aware of the shocking sacrifice made by so many, and am saddened by it. I do not puff my chest out and display my poppy as some sort of national symbol, and neither should anyone else; the wearing of the poppy by football teams this weekend is wrong and the fuss made about it shockingly misdirected.

It is time that the true reasons for wearing the poppy were restored; it is time that Remembrance Sunday was restored to its former place in the calendar and 11th November restored to its. It is time for the 'Poppy Facists' to be put back in their box.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OZONE LAYER ?

We are bombarded, almost on a daily basis, with horror stories about global warming, shrinking icecaps and diminishing rain forests.

I have no doubt that there is truth, possibly very important truth, in many of these stories, but I also wonder what has happened to the scientific scare stories of yesteryear.

Is the ozone layer still endangered ? Is it still even there at all, or is it back to 'normal' whatever that may mean ?

WILL HUTTON : EURO-LOONIE.

Listening to the self-appointed economic expert, Will Hutton, the other day, I wonder how he has achieved the eminence that he has.

He believes that the UK was wrong not to join the Euro; he thinks that we will eventually regret this to such an extent that we will beg to join because our future will be determined by the disparate members of this group. He says that debts only matter when they are crystallized - does he not understand that this is actually what has happened ? He talks about the countries working hard to make the Euro work when what is actually the case is that the politicians have done the work in order to avoid their own crushing embarrassment, while the people would rather have nothing to do with it. 

What planet does he live on ? The Eurozone is a construct based on so many impossible assumptions that it cannot continue to exist in any realistic form. The only way that the Eurozone can survive is if the Germans continue to support most of the poorer nations by giving them vast amounts of financial support, or the European Central Bank prints enormous quantities of unsupported currency, leading to eventual hyper-inflation - are either of these scenarios going to happen ? Politically, the Eurozone has to survive, while realistically it is dead on its feet. Hutton is right in believing that Britain has a tough time ahead and he may be right that the Eurozone will show a tendency towards recovery in the next few years, but their recovery will be slow, difficult and quite probably with fewer members than now; he believes that Britain's recovery will be much more problematic unless we tie ourselves more closely to the Euro. The truth surely is that the whole European experiment is doomed to failure and will inevitably be overtaken by the rapid expansion of the developing economies of China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as by the enormous growth in the populations of most of the 'Third World' over the next century. Europe is destined to be overrun by immigrants from Africa, Asia and, probably, South America, to such an extent that the Europe of tomorrow will be unrecognizable to anyone of Europe today. What these immigrants will want to do is anyones' guess.

Hutton, I believe, has some important position at Cambridge University, the justification for which truly escapes me. This man comes across as an arrogant, socialist idiot and I despair for his students.Why is he so feted by the BBC, appearing regularly on a variety of serious political and discussion programmes ? Could it be that the socialist bosses at the Beeb find his views attractive ? Surely not, but then where are the right wing economists on the same programmes ?

TIME TO FOOL AROUND, AGAIN.

What is it about our politicians that they seem hell bent on changing things ?

Watching today's 'Daily Politics', we have a discussion about whether or not to change the semi-annual movement in our clocks. Some daft Conservative MP of whom I have never heard before, Rebecca Harris, has put forward a 'Private Members' Bill' which seems to have gained favour with the Government. As a consequence, a trial of a change that would see us adopting GMT+1 in winter and BST+1 in summer is being considered. This would, in effect, mean the UK moving to Central European Time, even though the Greenwich Meridian, on which all of the world's clocks are based, runs through it.

Those in favour of change have a variety of reasons, principally a load of nebulous nonsense about boosts to the economy, reductions in road deaths and allowing people to make better use of the daylight hours. Those against say these reasons are rubbish, that they don't really want to still be in the dark at 10:00 in the morning, and many people who have to atsrt work early, including schoolchildren, will be spending half their days in the dark.

I don't really care much about the arguements but what gets me very hot under the collar is the continual drip, drip, drip, of these attempts to change everything that the people are used to in their everyday lives, when the world is falling down around our ears. Does the government have nothing of greater importance to worry about or are they simply trying to divert our attention from more weighty matters ? I suspect it's the latter but, hopefully, it won't work with this particular piece of political shenanigans. 

CALENDRICAL FIDDLING DOWN-UNDER

A few weeks ago, I read an item in the press that reported a change in the way in which histiory was to be taught in schools in Australia; the terms 'BC' and 'AD' were to be replaced by non-denominational alternatives such as 'BCE', 'CE' and 'BP', whatever these mean.

My initial reaction was to throw my arms in the air and scream. Then I stopped and thought for a few minutes.

Why is it that the calendar of the world, a minority of which is Christian, should be governed by calendrical terms that are inherently Christian ? Indeed, why should any of us be governed by any calendar other than the one that is determined by the sun, moon and stars ?

Logically, there needs to be a starting point so that we can calibrate our historical chronology, but different cultures already have these. It is only the relatively recent predominance of the Christian religion that has led to the majority of the world's nations being forced to accept the accompanying Christian calendar.

The Australians are both right and wrong in their proposed changes. They are right to identify that Christian era dates are anachronistic and need replacing. They are wrong in simply seeking to replace these with nebulous concepts that either mirror the Christian dates but use different terminology, or with dates that simply have no meaning to most people.

It would be far preferable if all nations and cultures could agree on a common date as the starting point for modern civilisation and use that as 'Year 1'. The original date would, inevitably, be a date already recognised in a calendar, Christian or otherwise, but it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to find an accommodation that would see this date as being the agreed starting point for all nations and all cultures.

PLANET DINOSAUR JUST 'JURASSIC PARK' ON TV.

Watching the BBC series on 'Planet Dinosaur', perfectly narrated by John Hurt, I have to say that the graphics, and the story, are somewhat gripping. However .........................

Since when could a multi-tonned object with leathery wings take off from a standing start, as shown in the last programme ? Is it really likely that a huge long-billed flying dinosoar could exist outside of a very specific eco-system ? What is the evidence for weird dinosaurs with colourful wings that a) were loving towards each other, and b) stayed with their eggs until they hatched ?

The graphics make a great story but where is the real science ? To me, it's all a bit like 'Jurassic Park' - great entertainment but ................. ? I know the Beeb didn't make the programme and, looking at the credits, it was mostly supported by an assortment of people from American institutions, but it is surely wrong to present such a programme as fact when it is nothing of the sort. This was more an exercise in attracting an audience than in disseminating real scientific truth. Lots of hyperbole, amazing graphics and the propogation of a view of the world that is barely, if at all, supported by the facts that separate us from the world of more than 100 million years ago.

Given that our understanding of our own country's history of less than a thousand years ago is a little blurry, how can we possibly have any real knowledge of what was happening one hundred thousand times as long ago ? Yes, we can make guesses but to present such as fact ?

"BREAKER" MORANT v THE QUEEN : NO CONTEST !

With the Queen's visit to Australia raising the temperature in the Republican campaign there, the Aussie Attorney General's announcement that he's to raise concerns about the fairness of the 1902 court martial of Harry "Breaker" Morant seems to be an utterly transparent piece of politicking.

Morant was executed while serving with the British forces in South Africa and after what was quite probably a flawed legal process; nonetheless, it was also probably typical of its time. The case was the subject of a film some years ago and has been reviewed on previous occasions but, at this distance in time, it must be highly unlikely that any new evidence can be uncovered or that or that the old evidence can, or should, be reinterpreted.

The action of Robert McClelland, the Attorney General in question and a member of a government led by the extreme Republican, Julia Gillard, is clearly an attempt to divert attention and warmth away from the monarchy at a time when the Queen's visit has been all the news. That the best the Republicans can come up with is to bring up a century old piece of supposed injustice says more about the paucity of their other arguments than anything else.

It doesn't really matter whether Australia remains a monarchy or not, but it surely does matter that its politicians are quite happy to play such childish games with their constitution. If the Republicans have a sound argument, let them come out with it. loud and clear; if they haven't, they do nothing to further their cause by raising such time-worn issues as the 'fairness' of a military trial that took place 109 years ago. Meanwhile, the Queen simply does what she's been doing for 60 years, winning hearts and minds without any apparent effort at all.

NAZISM : ALIVE AND WELL AT THE INTERGENERATIONAL FOUNDATION.

Some young bunch of left wing loonies calling themselves the "Intergenerational Foundation" is suggesting that what they delightfully term 'Old People' should be 'encouraged' to leave their homes, often where they have lived for decades, in order that younger people can take them over. There doesn't seem to be a definition of what an 'Old Person' actually is, but then for those in their 20s, anyone over 40 might well be considered to be a target.

This organisation, yet another charity though how it deserves such status is beyond me, is unhappy that the Old People have so much more than the young ones. It sees this as unfair and most clearly seen in the possession by Old People of large houses which the young ones can't afford. Apparently, the Old People have robbed the young of their entitlement to all the benefits they believe they should have.

This is without doubt the biggest load of hogwash anyone has ever concocted. What is really happening is an extension of the greed that now pervades our society in every way. No longer do the young expect to have to earn their place in society, but they expect to be handed it on a plate. They expect to have everything they want, NOW, and without having to pay a going rate for it. All the rubbish about the unaffordability of houses would disappear if there was a bit more realism, morality and honesty in our world.

In days gone by, when people married and had children they stayed together. There was no splitting up after a few years and sending the children off into some twilight limbo-land. Children stayed at home until either they moved out to seek work or until they were married; even then they may well have stayed in the home of one or other sets of parents, as my own parents did, until they'd saved enough to afford to rent somewhere of their own or to put down a deposit on a purchase. In the early years of a marriage, holidays were a luxury; a houseful of fancy 'white goods' and other electricals was in the future and a car could only be dreamt of. All of these things had to wait.

Many will, of course, scream that that was all in the past and we are now in the 21st century, where things are different. Yes, some things are different, but there is no reason why the basics should have changed except for the shocking decline in moral standards and the appalling and unsustainable rise in expectations. Today, 'relationships' founded on having fun (no longer marriage for most) frequently last no more than days or weeks; in ones that last longer and produce children, the parents too often seem to think that they can carry on as they did before they were a family, spending every halfpenny they have on their own enjoyment, while dumping the children in nurseries or with grandparents at every opportunity. These wholly inadequate young people have been brought up to believe that they have an entitlememt to a job, a house and lots of enjoyment, without ever understanding that they also have responsibilities that may require them to forego some of their fun in favour of attaining their future ambitions or bringing up their children. This deplorable state of affairs has, of course, been exacerbated by a succession of Governments, hell bent on being seen as young and trendy, as well as being driven by the insane notion that the whole country can live a sustainable existence on a mountain of debt.

Now, in answer to some genuine problems that exist in our society, this "Intergenerational Foundation" wants to steal the 'Old Peoples'' homes to give to the young ingrates who can't be bothered to manage their own lives properly. They argue that they want greater 'fairness' in society which is simply another way of saying that they want something they haven't got, but you have; 'fairness' as a concept is so subjective as to be meaningless and yet is trotted out by assorted groups who all want the same thing - something for nothing.

What next ? Increased taxes and lower pensions for the 'Old' ? Putting all the 'Old People' into forced labour camps where they can be made to 'repay' what they've 'stolen' from the young ? Euthanasia for the over-60s ? This is a philosophy that may well have found a degree of favour with the NAZIs. After all, they placed the blame for Germany's position after WW1 on the Jews and other minority groups - blacks, homosexuals, gypsies etc. - and set about depriving them of everything they had. First they labelled them, and then, step-by-step, they increased the penalties for being whatever they were. Are we now looking at the beginnings of a modern-day 'Hitler Youth' that will eventually turn its guns on the 'Old People' ?

EDUCATIONAL FAIRYLAND

Hearing the daily drivel about what the Government is doing to improve educational standards, I have to wonder what they really know about normal, everyday people.

While the 'experts' pontificate about all sorts of educational theories, the rest of us try to deal with the real world. In my case, I have no children of my own but know a variety of teenagers through their parents. In one particular case that I'm thinking of, I try very hard to convince a 14 year old that she should work harder at school in order to fulfill her potential; given today's fancy for encouraging everyone to aspire to University, she certainly should be looking in that direction, however, she is far more interested in playing with her 'phone and doing as little as possible in order to avoid being considered 'nerdy'. Sadly, her parents, who are divorced, don't seem to have any real interest in their daughter's education.

My young friend, let's call her Gertrude, is an intelligent teenager, far more intelligent and 'commonsensical' than many of her peer group, but she is intractible when it comes to her own education, potential and future. She appears to have little or no ambition, has no real idea of what she wants to do in adult life, and sees achieving her 'predicted' school exam results as being all that is necessary. Any suggestion that she could achieve better results with a bit of effort is met with a scowl.

Why is this ? The answer is simple yet denied and even ignored by those in power. In any school environment, being part of a group is important; being a loner is to be considered strange, weird and is an invitation to abuse and bullying. In a comprehensive school environment, the most powerful are often the most stupid; those with a ha'peth of brains are frightened into denying their innate intelligence and thus do whatever they can to deny their own intelligence in order not to be considered clever or 'nerdy'. To add insult to injury, the imbecilic practice of telling children their predicted grades months in advance of their exams simply depresses any desire to better themselves. It becomes good enough to simply achieve whatever grade teacher has predicted, whether that is a real reflection of the child's ability or not, and denies many children the opportunity of achieving their true potential.

While all of this is happening, our Glorious Leaders embrace the celebrity culture, which is far more attractive to young people; they 'knight' characters such as McCartney, John, Jagger and Geldof, plus a ridiculous array of other media and sports 'stars'. They seem to feel it's necessary to refer to their adherence to the music of the Arctic Monkeys etc. in order to gain approval, all of which tells the youngsters that celebrity is where their futures lie. The popular media concentrates on this same celebrity culture and places far more emphasis on the doings of some inconsequential character in some TV soap than it does on anything to do with real life. As a result, far too many of the younger generation seem to believe that their own futures lie in this ridiculous fairyland rather than in any real world in which educational attainment has any importance.

I hope I can eventually convince Gertrude that she is worth more than her 'predicted grades'; I'd like to think that she might fulfill her true potential, but the odds are against her. Many people will say it's all down to her, but they'd be wrong; it's actually all down to her parents and other adults around her, and to the educational environment created by the Government and media. If the adults show little or no interest and the media, aided by the Government, emphasises only the possibilities associated with 'celebrtity', what chance do most of the children have ?

Will anyone ever put things right ?

EDUCATIONAL MADNESS

Once again, our children have, apparently, achieved 'best ever' exam results.

How long this fiction can be perpetuated is a matter for conjecture but what is irrefutable is that the results are a fiction. Today's children are educated in a way that is entirely alien to anyone of my generation - 50+. They take exams in manufactured subjects and in subjects that have no place in a school curriculum.

The release of exam results has become a major national event with ludicrous film of teenagers leaping around uncontrrollably and hugging each other as they discover that they've just been awarded 'A's or even 'A*', in a dozen subjects ranging from needlework to 'art and design', but with no sign of anything that might lead to a genuine career. There's no sign of chemistry, physics or biology, nor any languages, nor of history. Geography sometimes turns up but it's nothing anyone of an earlier generation would recognise: ask the students to say where Africa is on a map and they'll struggle; ask them to tell you why Africa has regular famines and they'll bore you to tears. Their abilities in English and maths seem shockingly limited, even when they have achieved the most exalted of grades, and our premier universities seem to have recognised this in their introduction of an assortment of remedial courses for new recruits to their courses.

As it happens, it seems that the establishment has finally started to wonder about the system we have in operation, though they also seem entirely incapable of understanding what needs to be done. A very senior officer of the 'Google' company recently suggested that our system has taken a wrong course and that we should move away from the so-called 'humanities' and put more emphasis on what I would see as being 'REAL' subjects. Sadly, he's been condemned by many who claim this is an unreasonable attack on our system but, in reality, see it as being an attack on their socialist approach to education, in which everyone is equal, everyone must pass and all must get a certificate; no one can be allowed to fail.

The socialist approach is obvious nonsense but has held sway, very strongly, for the last 30 or 40 years; today we are reaping the rewards of this lunacy, with more and more of our children leaving school with no useful education behind them. The 'Google' man has been 'poo-pooed' but I've also heard another suggestion that our abandonment of the idea of technical schools, and their follow on of technical colleges and polytechnics, was a mistake; apparently, the Germans have followed this system very successfully for years. We seem to have become wedded to the idea that university is the only way forward, with apprenticeships, and the like, not really given much support. This is such a mistake as to bring to mind the immortal words of Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman' : 'Mistake, Big mistake, HUGE !'

It is ridiculous to give so many children grade 'A's and these silly 'A*'s; it gives them an utterly false view of their abilities and gives them nothing to strive for. The imbecilic practice of giving them all 'predicted grades' before the exams is even worse, telling many that they're only worth a 'B' or 'C' and thus encouraging them to work only to such an end. Our education system is so broken as to be irreparable without a major overhaul; turning existing schools into 'Academies' isn't the answer, it's politicians playing around. What we need is a genuine 'root and branch' reform, but that would mean ditching decades of socialist clap-trap and reintroducing some genuine subjects and challenges for our children - challenges that some might fail, god help us. It would also mean employing people who really can teach and actually want to teach, instead of simply seeing it as a means to a payday, which would probably count out a large proportion of the existing teaching workforce. However, if the powers-that-be could actually realise that everyone is different and that the education system should be tailored to meet a variety of needs instead of having a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, we would all be better off. People have many different talents and abilities - some are academic, some practical and some empathic; why can't we have a system that develops the talents of all, equally ?

Some hope.

ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER 'A'-LEVEL FARCE.

Year after year, we are treated to the ludicrous spectacle of groups of teenagers hugging each other, giggling or weeping, after discovering their A-level results. Given that, these days, they've all been told what is supposed to be their realistic expectations well in advance of even doing the exams, it all seems very silly. The ease with which the children seem to achieve 'A*' and 'A' grades gives them a wholly distorted view of their abilities, with some of the better universities still having to run 'remedial' courses in order to bring students up to the required entrance standard in basic skills or knowledge. To add to the nonsense, radio and television stations treat the unveiling of the results and the ensuing annual chaos of the UCAS 'clearing system' as a news event of world-shaking significance.

My 'A'-level results, in ca 1970, arrived in the post with no fanfare; there was then a 'clearing system' but I was fortunate enough to be spared from it. I didn't, of course, have the vast range of universities and courses to choose from that exists today, but in those far off times, those who didn't achieve adequate results, or even attempt the exams, had the option of going on to attend local Technical Colleges, Art Colleges, or Polytechnics. Today, it seems to be university or nothing, with far too many ending up in 4th rate institutions studying useless and pointless subjects; 3 or 4 years later, they are perusing the racks at their local Job Centre, wondering why their 3rd class degree in knitting technology hasn't enabled them to find employment.

When are we going to bring some semblance of sense to this annual farce ? Far too many degree courses are in 'soft' subjects, with little or no practical value to the individual or to society as a whole, while many children find that the only way to access particular careers is through the acquisition of a degree, whether or not there is any real logic behind the demand. It is high time that we recognised that university is not, and should not be, for all. Some are suited for it, many, even most, are not; some subjects are properly taught in a university, most are not. Having a degree a has become the 'be-all and end-all', an end in itself, instead of concentrating on the real matter of acquiring the knowledge and learning the skills for future life and employment.

Sadly, and as long as the media and the government continues to highlight the annual 'A'-level scramble as they do, the children will still be encouraged to believe that this is the only path to enlightenment, and our society will continue to sink ever deeper in a bog of false and unfulfilled hopes and aspirations, a mire of mediocrity. 

WHITHER WESTERN DOMINANCE ?

As the world staggers from one financial crisis to another - or is it really all the same crisis ? - one wonders what, if anything our rulers are learning along the way.

For generations, many governments have believed that the road to success is paved with public spending, fuelled by vast amounts of government borrowing. There can be no doubt that this approach bore fruit for many years and western nations prospered as wealth was spread more widely through an assortment of government initiatives, ranging from direct spending on building and engineering schemes to the creation of the vast array of social support that exists today. Unfortunately, the underlying ability of nations to support their extravagant spending has not kept pace with their ambitious plans.

Added to this, the ludicrous attempt to tie European nations together with a single currency, the Euro, has created pressures that everyone anticipated, excpt, of course, those politicians who saw the Euro as a means to an end and were intentionally blind to any negative consequences.

What we now have is financial melt-down of potentially catastrophic proportions. The borrowing that has been out of control for decades has finally come home to roost; the idiocy of the Euro means that many of the Euro-countries cannot survive with a 'one-size-fits-all' financial and monetary policy. The answer so far is for the richer nations, in Europe meaning mostly Germany, bailing out the debts of those in trouble; this approach can only continue for so long. Greece, Ireland and Portugal have failed but been bailed out; now it seems that Spain may fail but that Italy, the third largest Euro-economy, almost certainly will. Bailing out Italy is likely to be a step too far, even for Germany, so what will be done ?

In Britain, our government has sat back and congratulated itself on its independence from the Euro, while also having to recognise that its dependence on its trading links within the European Union make it horribly vulnerable, nonetheless. Regardless of this, the British government is also borrowing far more than is good for it in order to prop up the vast amount of spending that it feels committed to, mostly social spending aimed at areas such as health, pensions and social services. It is institutionally incapable of acknowledging that this is where the real problem lies and doing anything meaningful about it.

The truth is that every government in the western world has been living beyond its means for several decades. Their people have experienced enhanced standards of living that they have not really earned, principally financed by borrowing against expectations of future economic growth. Now, it seems that these expectations are not to be fulfilled and we will all be poorer as a result, the youngest in society being the ones most likely to bear the greatest burden. While we in the west suffer decline, those in the developing world of China, India, Brazil etc., will, of course, take our place as the leaders of tomorrow. Britain, together with the other over-indebted nations, will become part of the new 'third world' or, perhaps, that should be 'fourth world'. As financial reality takes hold, Europe and, eventually, North America, will find themselves increasingly impoverished; China, India and the rest will take over.

Where all this will lead is hard to say. There is no doubt that the USA and Europe have been the driving force behind most innovations in the last few hundred years and it's questionable whether other countries will be able to do the same in the future. Can China produce a next-generation 'Microsft', or India a next-generation 'BP' ? Will Brazil be able to create the confidence to house the next HSBC ? If the developing nations prove unable to replace the dynamism exhibited by the west since the Reformation, we may well be in for a future period of stagnation which could easily last for centuries.

The western world is not yet finished but its decline is inevitable and its end certain; to deny this is not only arrogant but also stupid. Every empire, and I count the western dominance of the world over the last few centuries as such, collapses as a result of its own certainty that it is immortal and cannot possibly die; those who run it become increasingly focused on their own comfort and position and forget about the need for innovation and effort, and they also become increasingly desperate in their attempts to shore up a lost cause, such as the 'Euro'. In Britain we have already lost most of our great manufacturing base; we no longer make cars, ships or aeroplanes to any extent. Instead, we rely on the so-called 'service industries' of finance and insurance to keep us wealthy, industries that are all to moveable. More and more people have become reliant on the state for support, something that is wholly unsustainable, and we continue to poor billions of pounds into largely pointless social ventures as well as fatuous schemes to promote an apparent air of well-being and success, such as the Olympics. Government charges on with but one aim in mind, winning the next election and damn the costs or consequences, while the opposition does no different.

The future belongs to China and the other third world nations that are now undergoing rapid development. In Britain, Europe and the USA, we will continue to encase ourselves in a bubble of self-denial as our politicians refuse to either accept the truth, or to tell the people what it is, for fear of electoral rejection. Eventually, though, the brown sticky stuff will hit the fan and all hell will be let loose; revolution, blood letting and all the other horrors that we now think of as being purely the property of uncivilised nations will be unleashed upon us and our descendants - I can only hope that I'll be long gone by then.

AMY WINEHOUSE DEAD : WHO ?

I read that a so-called singer named Amy Winehouse has been found dead at her home in London. Ms Winehouse, aged 27, had apparently 'struggled with drink and drug addiction' and had spent time in recent months undergoing rehabilitation.

Whether or not Ms Winehouse could sing is a matter for debate; that her lifestyle as portrayed in the press was pretty foul seems beyond dispute. That she was someone who made a substantial amount of money but, through ignorance or stupidity, wasted her life is indisputable.

She is not the first so-called 'star' to have ended her days in such fashion and she will not be the last. The difference between her and some of those who have preceded her, most notably the truly great Billie Holiday, is that they had shown real talent. Ms Winehouse will have been forgotten, completely, within a decade, if not much sooner.

LUCIAN FREUD ; RIP

The death of Lucian Freud at the age of 88 is, without doubt, an event to be noted.

This grandson of the psycho-analyst, Sigmund Freud, was a man who had gained enormous regard during his lifetime and, no doubt, the value of his art will multiply now it is known that there can be no more. I have to admit that I am no art connoisseur and I find Freud's paintings a little unsettling, to say the least. Nonetheless, I also find his art somewhat compelling and realistic; his subjects are portrayed in all their gory detail, no warts or wrinkles omitted.

I wouldn't want to hang any of his pictures on my walls but I think I can see why others would pay serious money to do so on theirs. The man was an artist of genuine ability and talent and his works will survive the test of time, far more so than some of the abstract nonsense of other so-called artistic greats.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, YOU OLD DEVIL !

Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is 90 today. Seeing the occasional television coverage of events which he attends, it's hard to believe that he's now quite so ancient; both he and the Queen toddle around without support and many ordinary elderly folk must wonder how they do it. No walking sticks, zimmer frames or mobility scooters for them.

Whatever the secret, and one suspects it's down to receiving the finest medical monitoring and care available anywhere on the earth, the Prince has certainly became a bit of a national treasure. His tendency to make inappropriate remarks comes across as a rather endearing quality that marks him out as both an ordinary man and someone who shares the views of other ordinary folk. Remarks about 'slanty-eyed Chinese' may have caused a stir amongst the intelligensia but went down well with the public; asking Scottish Tory leader, Annabel Goldie whether she was wearing tartan knickers showed a devilish side of his nature that must have drawn many a titter down the local pub, while his apparent 'chatting-up' of Pippa Middleton at the recent royal wedding must have made many young men intensely jealous. He's also shown himself to be a no-nonsense man who doesn't believe in beating about the bush and has little time for the namby-pamby side of life.

The Prince has supported his wife, the Queen, for decades and despite his occasional impolitic moments hasn't done a bad job. Given a choice between him and his tree-hugging son, I know which one I'd choose.

WHAT IS 'POSH' ?

Listening to the 'Today' programme on Radio 4 this morning, I happened upon a piece that purported to be a discussion about the discrimination suffered by 'Posh' people.

The proponent was suggesting that 'Posh' people are a minority who now experience discrimination to such an extent that they try to hide, and even to deny, their 'poshness'. He cited the reluctance of David Cameron to talk openly and with pride about his background and schooling at Eton. He also cited an instance from some television programme on which a woman received a round of applause from the audience after loudly stating 'I hate posh blokes'.

His opponent immediately turned the discussion to one about the rich who rule our society; he equated 'poshness' with privilege, wealth and power, and no one did anything to disabuse him. Unsurprisingly, John Humphries, the presenter, simply chuckled in his usual annoying manner and left no one in any doubt as to where his sympathies lay.

It seems to me that everyone involved in the radio discussion completely missed the point. These days, anyone with a reasonable education and background, who dresses and speaks relatively well, is deemed to be 'Posh'; as such, they are pigeon-holed by those who see themselves as 'ordinary blokes' and may well be vilified to some degree. However, this 'poshness' has nothing to do with people being privileged, rich or powerful; it is simply a matter of education and familial influence.

Because I speak reasonably well and know a range of long words, I've been nicknamed 'Posh John' in my local pub. Partly, this is a mechanism to distinguish me from several other Johns who drink in the establishment, but it's also a mark of discrimination. The person who invented the acronym doesn't like me; he sees me as being 'posh' and equates this with privilege and wealth, of which he is envious. That I am far from privileged and far less wealthy than his family appears to have escaped him. He settles arguements with his fists, I write letters and use the law - this he sees as further evidence that I'm to be despised as not being like 'ordinary blokes'.

Much of our media is dominated by privileged and wealthy people who eschew their origins and deny their innate 'poshness' in order to make themselves acceptable to the uneducated masses who comprise their audiences. There is no doubt that being 'posh' is not only out of favour it is positively despised, but this is, in a way, the consequence of a failed education system. It is a result of the inverted snobbery of those who didn't go to the best school, didn't get any GCSEs and didn't go to university; it's the attitude of those who believe the only real work is manual work and that office workers and management are the enemy.

My dictionary defines 'Posh' as being 'smart, elegant or fashionable' and also as 'upper-class or genteel'; it does not mention privilege or wealth. I'm certainly not 'upper-class' and I don't think anyone would call me genteel. I've never been fashionable, and elegant isn't an adjective I'd use about myself, but possibly I might sometimes be considered 'smart', in the presentational sense. Do I feel discriminated against ? Possibly, on occasion. Does this worry me ? No.

DANISH FOOD GESTAPO SPREAD THEIR WINGS.

I have just read with some astonishment that the Danish government has banned the sale of 'Marmite'. Reading further, I see that this is not the only foodstuff to have been banned in that country.

I'm sure there are many who, like me, find 'Marmite' to be utterly disgusting and will rejoice at the product's demise, albeit in only one pretty insignificant nation. However, the list of other banned substances, and the reasoning behind the bans, leaves me bewildered; the Australian counterpart to 'Marmite', 'Vegemite', 'Ovaltine', 'Horlicks', 'Farley's Rusks', 'Rice Krispies' and 'Shreddies' plus who knows what other harmless products. The Danish food Gestapo apparently dislikes foodstuffs that have added vitamins or minerals and Danish food safety laws require such items to be banned from sale unless specific approval is given; all of these products have fallen foul of this lunacy.

It would seem that either the Danes know something about food safety that has so far escaped the rest of the world, or that they're a nation terrified of its own shadow. Given the list of banned products, I know which I suspect it is. 

OBAMA NOT THE ONLY IRISHMAN

Unlikely though it may seem at first glance, Barack Obama has apparently achieved that aim of most recent US Presidents and found himself an Irish forebear. One of his great-great-great grandfathers supposedly came from the village of Moneygall in County Offaly and Obama will undoubtedly squeeze every ounce of electoral benefit out of this fact.

To put a little perspective on this, we each have 32 great-great-great grandparents so Obama can claim to be about 3% Irish, though the way that heredity works, it could actually be significantly more, or less, than this. However much Irish ancestry he has, it is a strange fact of history that the Irish seem to have infiltrated every part of the world and there are far more people who claim Irish ancestry abroad than there have ever been Irish in Ireland.

For my own 'piece of the Blarney', I can outdo the President by some distance. While my mother's family were from continental Europe, my father's had large chunks of Irish in it with the probability being that I have 10 Irish great-great-great grandparents, though not having the resources of a President, it may be hard to prove. Fortunately, as I see it, my ancestors were from Limerick and Cork, so there's not much chance that I share any traceable links with the President though his researchers are welcome to look for one if they like.

THE FOOTBALLER, THE M.P., AND A FARCE.

A Member of Parliament that very few of us had ever heard of, yesterday took it upon himself to abuse his position by using 'Parliamentary Privilege' to name the footballer at the centre of the recent inane twittering about his extra-marital activities.

The MP in question, a LibDem named John Hemming, apparently has some sort of reputation for being a bit of a maverick in such matters and took this opportunity to grab a piece of the limelight for himself. Although he was admonished by the Speaker, his actions seem to be immune from any legal process, even though he clearly broke the injunction issued by the courts.

I have no time for the idiot footballer, nor for the ludicrous laws that have allowed the issuing of so-called 'superjunctions', but I also have no time for the likes of Mr Hemming. Whatever his personal views on the matter, his naming of the footballer in a public place was a clear breach of privilege; it was entirely unnecessary and simply his way of attracting attention to himself. That the name of the subject was already known to thousands, or perhaps even millions, of people makes no difference; a court with appropriate jurisdiction had issued an order and, it should have been complied with until lifted. By acting as he did, Mr Hemming has brought discredit on both himself and Parliament.

The advent of services such as 'Twitter' clearly has the potential to make a mockery of any law that attempts to invoke a right to privacy, particulary when the rich or famous are involved. At the same time, it is a sad reflection on the nature of our society that so many of us seem to be so interested in the salacious, but largely irrelevant, activities of 'celebrities', most of whom have very little to offer the world.

It seems clear that there will have to be changes to the law but what these will be has yet to be revealed. Whilst it cannot be right that the likes of Fred Goodwin, and others in positions of trust and authority, can hide their misdemeanours under a cloak of legal anonymity, the footballer's actions are in a different league. He has no power or authority, other than that gifted to him by his adoring supporters - why should anyone really care whom, or what, he sleeps with ? It makes no difference to the world what he does or with whom, while Fred Goodwin's actions may well have impacted on his disastrous management of a major financial institution.

No one has come out of this sorry mess with any credit. The law has been shown to be ridiculous and unenforceable; the footballer has been shown to be anything but the loving family man he'd no doubt like his supporters to see him as; Mr Hemming has shown himself to be a self-serving egotist and Parliament appears to be impotent to do anthing about any of it. Worst of all, millions of ordinary people seem to be fascinated by the bedroom antics of a footballer, but then they're probably the same morons who sit glued to 'Eastenders', Coronation Street', 'Big Brother' and all the mindless 'reality' shows that bestride our television screens these days like the lilliputian colossuses that they are.

What a farce.

TWITS TWITTER; CELEBS INJUNCT.

The whole idea of 'Twitter' seems to be to pander to the lowest common denominator, those who have the shortest attention span, least real knowledge and an insaitable desire for either disseminating, or hearing about, the trivial doings of largely trivial people. That serious journalists and even some politicians have resorted to this medium shows only how desperate they are for the attention of the twits who inhabit this arena.

In recent days, the High Court has ruled that so-called super-injunctions should only be issued in very rare and exceptional circumstances, mainly because the issue of many of those currently in effect has been circumvented by users of the aforementioned 'Twitter'. Now, a footballer identified as 'CTB', is trying to obtain an order that could compel 'Twitter' to say who has been spreading certain stories about him and identifying him in connection with an action he is currently taking against the 'Sun' newspaper and some woman I've never heard of.

Whoever this footballer is, and presumably many people already know and it can't be very difficult to find out, he's presumbly one of those highly overpaid and overrated clots who play in our 'Premier League'; presumably, he's done something he'd rather keep hidden from his admirers for fear of the damage that public knowledge would do both to his image and his sponsorship income.

As it's based in California and the US approach to 'privacy' is somewhat different to ours, it seems quite unlikely that 'Twitter' will comply with any order issued by a British court. It nonetheless seems quite ridiculous that the doings of some kicker of a ball should either be of sufficient interest to warrant this level of attention or should warrant the issue of an injunction or other order by the courts. In this instance, however, 'Twitter' has probably done us a service, though not for any reason that could be identified as laudable, more to do with the gossipy, salacious and celebrity-orientated nature of their audience.

Frankly, however, we seem to have lost all sense of proportion where such matters are concerned.

A REMINDER OF ABERFAN.

Today's news story of a mud-slide that's struck an orphanage in Malaysia brings to mind the awful events of 1966 when heavy rains caused a coal mining slag heap to descend upon the village of Aberfan.

Back in October 1966, 144 people died, including 116 children, when the mud and slag hit Aberfan, destroying the village school and around 20 homes that were in its path. As a 13 year old at the time, I well remember the news coverage and also remember being horribly shocked; this was, I think, the first news story that really affected me. I'd been aware of the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, but  that was something far away and didn't really register, other than that all the adults seemed terribly concerned. Aberfan, on the other hand, wasn't so far away and that so many children had died was much, much closer to home.

It seems that the Malaysian incident may end with as many as 20 deaths, which is sad and tragic for those involved, and for the families as far as they are known or alive, but it pales into insignificance besides that dreadful day in 1966.

MOSLEY SHOULD SHUT UP.

Listening to Max Mosley in recent times, arguing for a law of privacy, is becoming very, very, annoying.

This man was caught in a highly compromising situation and doesn't like it. He's now on a crusade to try to get some sort of 'privacy law' introduced in the UK. Does he really think that this is right, or in the interests of the population whom the law is meant to serve ?

It is right that the population has knowledge of the actions of those who are in positions of power, whoever they are. Ludicrously, if my next door neighbour wears a NAZI uniform to a party, or his wife runs a slightly dodgy 'Escort Agency', it'll be front page news in the local paper and there'll be no 'come-back', but if Max Mosley behaves in an inappropriate fashion, the suggestion is that we are supposed to have no right to know, or even to know that there is something that we have no right to know about.

Mosley's obsessive approach to this issue serves only to suggest that there is more to discover about his life that he'd rather keep hidden. What could be worse than his well known relationship with the vilified Oswald Mosley, his father, is hard to imagine but, if he keeps up his current campaign, heaven knows what salacious
stories will emerge.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM : 100 YEARS ON.

Nick Clegg, bless his cotton socks, has put forward plans for the reform of the House of Lord or, more precisely, for its replacement. He suggests that the existing unelected House of around 800 members should be replaced with a new House of 300 members, mostly elected. He also suggests that the first election to this new House should occur on the same day as the General Election planned for May 2015. Members would be elected for 15 years by proportional representation, with ⅓ being elected every 5 years.

Inevitably, some current members of the House of Lords have immediately come out in opposition to the reform plans, citing the usual reasons why this type of reform is a bad idea. Expertise would be lost; being elected would lead members to challenge the other elected House, the Commons, more frequently; being elected would make members more 'party-orientated'; being elected would make members act in a way to best ensure re-election, rather than in the best interests of the country; etc., etc. They say that the House of Lords works very well as it is.

I find all this very tedious and a fine example of turkeys failing to vote for Christmas. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any other country in the civilised world has an appointed Government chamber, and I'm not aware than any of them has sufferred dire consequences or constitutional crises as a result. The USA manages very well with 2 elected chambers as does France; why can't we ? I also wonder how it is that a country that has parish councils, borough councils, district councils, county councils, metropolitan councils, regional assemblies and 2 devolved government bodies, needs 650 representatives in the House of Commons and another 800 in the House of Lords.

The current House of Lords is no longer the anachronism that it was when it was populated entirely by unelected hereditary peers, bishops and judges, but neither is it in any way representative of the people. Many, if not most, of its members are political appointees, former members of the House of Commons who've either lost their elected seats or 'retired' to the upper chamber. People like the loutish John Prescott. who always maintained that he'd never accept a peerage, now sit all too comfortably and without any prospect of being ejected, on the plush red benches. Worst of all, to be a member of this House, one has to be 'elevated to the peerage' and thereby granted the title of 'Lord' - what a shocking abuse of this noble title.

In this day and age, there is no logical reason why the House of Lords should not be abolished and replaced with a properly elected upper house that could sensibly be termed 'The Senate'. There is no reason for retaining the political nonsense of 'Life Peers' and there is certainly no reason why we should have a House comprised of hundreds of them; there is also no reason why bishops should have any automatic place in it. The issue raised by some existing peers of the potential for conflict between the new House and the House of Commons should be easily addressed through devising an appropriate set of rules for the responsibilites and operation of the new House and the relationship between the two.

Electing a revised upper chamber on a proportional representation basis would ensure that representation reflects the views of the population; it would provide a sensible alternative and counterbalance to the 'first passed-the-post representation in the House of Commons. Representatives could be elected partly by county and partly from a national list; there would be nothing to stop existing members of the House of Lords, or other supposed experts, from putting their names forward but there would also be no automatic progression from one House to the other as there is, far to often, now. And 300 sounds more than enough members.

The Liberals first proposed reforming the upper House over 100 years ago and very little happened, so perhaps we shouldn't get too excited about these latest suggestions. Nonetheless, it's high time something did happen and those turkeys need to be plucked.

APOLLO 13 : THE END OF HUMAN ENDEAVOUR ?

Sitting here on a rather dull and miserable Sunday afternoon, I'm confronted with almost no choice on the television. I've been driven, by the absence of anything else, to watch the film of 'Apollo 13' and, as always, this is no bad thing.

My mind goes back to the real events of April 1970 when I remember all too well that the world held its breath for days on end as the crew of the ship and the staff of NASA tried to bring the stricken craft home safely. I have no idea how close to the real events the film is, but it's gripping and appears to be as realistic as it can be, given the needs for decency and entertainment. For me, this is a great film that truly captures the dramatic days of 40 years ago, a time when men still journeyed to the Moon using technology that is now so antiquated it makes the whole idea of such ventures seem ridiculous.

What happened over those few days in April 1970 was a true miracle, not one of those supposed miracles that support the creation of saints, but a true marvel of human ingenuity and spirit. Given an impossible and almost certainly fatal situation, NASA somehow contrived to turn disaster into triumph, successfully bringing its astronauts home. The ways in which they improvised and invented new procedures consitute a true high-point in human achievement; the simple fact that the crew maintained sufficient discipline to carry on in the face of almost certain death is an incredible tribute to them. The fact that all of this happened more than 40 years ago is almost impossible to believe.

What is now so sad is that the triumph and tragedy of the original US Space Programme has produced so little in the way of tangible, and public, results. No doubt, much knowledge was gained but there has to be little doubt that the purpose of the programme was really about politics rather than science; once the Russians were no longer perceived as a serious military threat, and the costs and difficulties of further exploration escalated, we seem to have drawn back from what is, admittedly, a highly expensive and speculative, not to say dangerous, field.

Men have not walked on the Moon since 1972 and we have yet to get any further into our Solar System, let alone the Galaxy, other than with unmanned probes; even these have barely entered interstellar space. It seems that we have reached an impasse at which further adventures are seen as being prohibitively expensive and no one can see the benefit, be it financial or scientific. Those unbelievably brave men who set off on the journey to the Moon in 1961, and finally arrived there in 1969, may justifiably feel let down by those who have held the purse strings in recent years.

As I watch the final scenes of the film, the craft is about to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere with everyone on tenterhooks; will it make it through ? Again, I remember the tension of the time; seconds and minutes went by, and there was no contact from the ship; a maximum blackout of 3 minutes was expected and the agony of the families of the crew can only be imagined. When the blackout reached 3 minutes without communication everyone feared the worst, at 4 minutes, it seemed certain that they had perished and yet, miraculously, they still came through. The jubilation at the end of the film was no more, and probably less than, the jubilation of millions way back in 1970.

I cry at the end of this film, every time I watch it, and I'm not even American. Apollo 13 was an astonishing triumph of human science and yet we seem to have lost our way ever since. Costs are, obviously, an issue but the rewards of a successful venture to even more distant places are incalculable. Eventually, we will make the move and journey back to the Moon and beyond; at some point we'll probably find a way of travelling at sufficient speed to allow for journeys to places outside of our solar system, and who knows where beyond that. The crew of Apollo 13, and the many other brave people who've ventured into space, were the trail-blazers, and we have to make sure that their valour, and sometimes their sacrifice, has not been in vain. 

ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER EUROVISION FLOP.

Having lost any real interest in the Eurovision son contest at about the time ABBA won it, I've been yearly amused by the nedia frenzy that's whipped up as the competition approaches. On occasion, it's been almost impossible to avoid hearing some of the dreadful, tuneless rubbish put forward by the UK, but a joy to hear that this drivel has achieved the well-deserved 'NIL POINTS' !

Inevitably, when a UK entry has done well, every media outlet has played the song, endlessly; success, or even near success, has been the top news story. For this year's competition, the UK entry was reckoned, by UK 'experts' to be a real contender, being performed by an already successful group, apparently well known in Europe, rather than by some gaggle of unknowns. 

This morning, on waking, I wondered what last night's contest had produced and so had a listen to the radio - not a word. Looking at the BBC's teletext, I eventually found the story of another depressing night for UK pop, buried on the very last page of the headlines. Azerbaijan, that well known home of great international music, had won; the UK's entry came 11th, even beaten by the abominable Irish entry performed by the totally talentless 'Jedward'.

Anyway, onward and downward - perhaps next year the UK will triumph. If we start preparing now, sign up Buck's Fizz or Sir Cliff, and get them to sing the Ukrainian National Anthem in Serbo-Croat, support Turkish membership of the EU, offer loads of cash to Greece and Portugal and stop being nasty to all the other foreigners; perhaps, just perhaps .............................................  

MADELEINE CIRCUS ROLLS ON.

Four years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal, it's been announced that the Metropolitan Police are to 'review' the case so far, at the behest of the Prime Minister. At the same time, the McCann's launched a book about Madeleine and her supposed abduction by an unknown person.

What does a case in Portugal have to do with a London police force ? How convenient for promoting sales of the book that the news of English police involvement should break at the same time as the book launch. What joy for the Prime Minister that he can be seen to be such a caring person. What a load of bullshit.

Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority have already expressed serious concerns about the way in which 'Dave' has, effectively, told the Force to become involved, thus interfering with their independence. The Government answer to this criticism is to say that the PM has done nothing of the sort, he's simply 'asked' the Force to have a look at the evidence and 'bring their expertise' to bear. More twaddle - the PM 'asking' for something in this context is as near to an instruction as it gets.

Cameron has, reportedly, acted on a request from the McCanns themselves; one trusts that he will be receiving a fair share of the profits from the book sales, having added so much to the publicity of the launch. 

DODGY DOSSIER GETS EVEN DODGIER.

When, no doubt, most people thought that the 'Dodgy Dossier' of Iraq war fame was ancient history, it's been brought back into the spotlight by the contents of a memo included among documents released by the Iraq Inquiry.

Major General Michael Laurie who was director-general in the Defence Intelligence Staff apparently told the inquiry that he had no doubt that the purpose of the dossier was to make a case for war.  He is reported to have said that the wording of the dossier was developed with great care in order to make the best possible case for war out of the sparse and inconclusive evidence that was available.

This evidence is diametrically opposed to that of other witnesses to the inquiry, in particular that of Alastair Campbell, the government's chief 'spin doctor' at the time. Campbell had political motives for saying whatever he said, Laurie has no motive other than telling the truth. I know whom I believe.

SHAMEFUL JUDGEMENT.

After much huffing and puffing, the supposed war criminal, John Demjanjuk, has been found guilty of complicity in crimes committed at the Sobibor concentration camp. This decision, of a court in Germany, relied entirely on rather vague circumstantial evidence; there are no actual witnesses and identification rested on the authenticity of an ID card, said to have been his, but the authenticity of which has been questioned by many authorities including the FBI.

More than 20 years ago, Demjanjuk was tried in Israel for other war crimes, on that occasion being accused of a range of crimes while working as a guard at Treblinka concentration camp; at that time there were a few witnesses who all identified him, without doubt, as a guard known as 'Ivan the Terrible'. He was found guilty and sentenced to death but further evidence subsequently emerged that totally exonerated him and he was released. The witnesses had all been wrong and other evidence was discredited to such an extent that even the arch-NAZI hunters of Israel had to accept that he was innocent.

This man is now 91 and the crimes he has been tried for were committed more than 65 years ago. There are no living witnesses and other evidence is vague; how can anyone have come up with a guilty verdict ? This is, without doubt, a case in which the judges have made a 'political' decision rather than one based on the evidence presented in court and even they seem to have realised this in that, although sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, Demjanjuk was then immediately released pending appeal.

Demjanjuk may, indeed, be guilty of the many crimes with which he has been accused but there is insufficient evidence for any court to come to a guilty verdict. The German judges who've done so this week should be ashamed of themselves.