WANT AN HONOUR ? WIN A MEDAL !

Inevitably, a tranche of 'honours' have been handed out to a bunch of assorted athletes. Why escapes me.

 

There was a time when to be awarded an OBE was a mark of great distinction; being made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire was something of which to be very proud as it signified that you had made a genuinely important contribution to socirty, the nation or mankind in general. Not any longer. Honours are tossed out like confetti to whomever is currently in the news plus, of course, to a raft of time-serving civil servants.

 

Bradley Wiggins, whose exploits perched atop a bicycle have been very laudable, is to be made a Knight of the Realm as is David Brailsford who's credited with coaching Wiggins and his chums to their recent run of success. Someone of whom I've never heard, Sarah Storey, is to be made a Dame of the British Empire for doing something in a wheelchair, while the likes of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton are all to be given CBE's, an award just one rung below knighthood or damehood. Possibly due to his previous comments about being Scottish rather than British, Andy Murray is to receive only the lower honour of an OBE; that'll teach you to think before you gob-off, young man !

 

The real point in all of this, though, is that the recipients of these awards together with 70 or more of their compatriots, have mostly done nothing whatsoever that will ever enhance the lot of anyone other than themselves. Leading sportsmen are, by the very nature of what they do, utterly self-centred; they are focused on their own achievements to the exclusion of all else. These days, they are also funded very generously by the state and some even become very wealthy due to the large prize money available at many meetings and events. Given all of this, to further reward them with national honours when they succeed in doing what they love doing is ludicrous.

 

Wiggins was a worthy 'Sports Personality of the Year' and, in 20 or 30 years time when he's passed on his experience to generations of younger cyclists, he might well deserve an award; today, he does not, any more than do any of the other sporting recipients of these wholly devalued gongs. Sadly, we have reached a stage in which real contributions to our society go unnoticed while pointless celebrities and others in the media are showered with plaudits and honours. Is this really the way it should be ?

 

 

YOBS SHOW US UP FOR WHAT WE ARE.

Walking to and from my local town this morning I became more convinced than ever that the majority of human beings are no more than a hair's breadth removed from the apes of the jungle.

 

While we pride ourselves on our intelligence and common decency, I watched as numerous motorists drove at silly speeds, failed to signal manoeuvres, cur corners and generally behaved like morons. In town, a young yob was apprehended by security staff after apparently having assaulted an elderly woman, presumably with the intention of stealing from her. In the shops, the lack of common courtesy was everywhere with very few people, other than myself, standing back to allow others to pass through doors or other small spaces. All-in-all, it was a depressing experience.

 

We are a society which considers itself to be educated and distinctly better than the animals from which we have evolved, while the truth is that most of us are still in the jungle. The yobs who attack old ladies in the street, steal from shops, burgle our homes, and drive like maniacs are everywhere; the appalling drunk and drugged creatures who inhabit too many of our town centres at the weekends make many peoples' lives a misery. Frequently, these sub-humans masquerade as 'normal' people, living in decent houses in decent areas but when the surface is scratched ever so slightly they show their true colours; their first reaction to any stress is usually physical violence and they have no thoughts that any other reaction is possible.

 

None of this is aimed at any part of our society in particular as the offenders appear to be of both sexes and of all ages, races, colours and creeds. The animalistic behaviour of football crowds and the audiences at 'rock concerts', the the yobs on our streets and the general violence in our society is the true image of natural human behaviour rather than the one we like to believe of nuclear families living wonderful lives and being concerned about everyone around them.

 

There are times when the truth hurts.

ROYAL SUCCESSION DILEMMAS

The proposed change to the laws regarding succession to the throne of the United Kingdom have, of course, been welcomed by all of those who claim to despise discrimination wherever it occurs. However, one wonders to what extent these people have considered the possible negative implications of this current proposal.

 

For one thing, if the rule of male primogeniture had not existed, the Quenn would not now be Queen. In fact, on the death of Queen Victoria, the crown would have passed to the warmongering German Kaiser, Wilhelm II; where we would now be is anyone's guess.  Another consequence could be a constantly changing royal 'House' name, something which normally remains static through male lines and only usually changes after a female heir or monarch marries, or when there is a revolution. In the most recent times, this wouldn't have been an issue, however, following King James II, we could have had a House of Orange, followed by a House of Oldenburg, had either of his daughters produced surviving children.

 

It's also the case that James II may never have become King anyway as he would have been outranked by his elder sister Mary; Mary married William II, Prince of Orange, and died before her elder brother Charles II, so her son William III, Prince of Orange, would have succeeded to the throne in his own right in 1685, rather than being invited here in 1688 on the expulsion of James II. Such an apparently minor change could, however, have had major implications as we would never have experienced the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, probably never had the Bill of Rights of 1689 and on William II's death in 1702, the destination of the crown may have been disputed. William and Mary had no children and William was an only child, so the heir would have been found through an earlier generation; whether this would have been on his father's or mother's side is open to debate. 

 

This is, of course, all just fantasy as any change to history would almost certainly have caused many more and the history which we currently recall simply wouldn't have happened. However, pondering on this matter, one hopes that the government has actually done some 'in depth' thinking around the issue in order to try to prevent such complications happening in the future.

 

One hopes !

DUCHESS 'PHONE HOAX GETTING BORING.

The nonsense about the Duchess of Cambridge and a hoax telephone call really is taking up far too much space and time in our media.

 

Hearing repeats of the radio broadcast, it's pretty clear that the impression of the Queen was awful; I haven't heard that of Prince Charles, but I suspect it was just as bad. It was a silly prank that really shouldn't have worked and the only reason it hit the headlines initially was that hospital staff were so easily taken in by it. The tragic consequences have, of course, made the story even more newsworthy.

 

While the apparent suicide of the nurse who took the call is sad, her action was horribly out of proportion when considered in the light of what she actually seems to have done; as far as I understand it, all she did was to answer the telephone and pass the callers on to another member of the hospital's staff. That she felt sufficiently upset that she committed suicide suggests deeper problems in her life.

 

The second nurse who, according to the press, then happily discussed the condition of the Duchess in some detail was much more at fault. However, the major part of the blame for the success of the hoax rests fairly and squarely with the hospital management who had obviously failed to ensure that there were adequate procedures in place to safeguard the confidentiality of their patients. Most hospitals have such procedures that make it almost impossible to gain any information about hospital patients regardless of the identity of the inquirer; the King Edward VII hospital clearly failed miserably in this respect and has serious questions to answer.

 

The television interviews given by the 2 Australian radio presenters who perpetrated the hoax were excrutiatingly dreadful. Their tearful apologies and expressions of regret surely were more intended to try to salvage their own careers than anything; why their careers should be at risk is a question that perhaps needs to be answered. They did nothing terrible, it was simply a childish prank; the only people in their organisation who should be in real trouble are the managers who agreed to broadcast the telephonic conversation.

 

No doubt this story will rumble on for a few days yet, hopefully not very many. Behind the scenes, one or two heads might well, and probably should, roll, but let's not get this out of proportion. It was a silly stunt and nothing more; the sad outcome for one individual was of her own design and we should not be looking to lay the blame at the door of anyone else.

SIR PATRICK MOORE.

The death of Sir Patrick Moore which was announced yesterday made it a sad day indeed. Sir Patrick was one of those most unusual people, a man who seemed to have nothing but enthusiasm for life and wished to do nothing more than enthuse and encourage others.

 

His fame as the outstanding presenter of 'The Sky at Night' belied his true importance in the world of science, and astronomy in particular. Many of today's best known scientists have identified him as the one person who inspired them to pursue their careers and he, himself, was so revered as to be made a Fellow of the Royal Society even though he was 'only' an amateur.

 

Sir Patrick had looked increasingly frail in recent years and seemed even more so on his last appearance on 'The Sky at Night' last week  Nonetheless, and with typical élan, the grand old man of television looked forward to the next programme when he promised to provide advice and guidance to those who might be lucky enough to receive a telescope in their Christmas stockings. Sadly, he will not now be able to fulfill his pledge, though we must hope that others will pick up his baton and continue the wonderful work that he started so many years ago. He will be missed very much.

DORRIES MUST BE DUMPED.

I find it almost impossible to believe what I'm currently watching and listening to on the BBC. In the 'Sunday Politics', Andrew Neil is presenting an item on Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP who thought it was acceptable to 'bunk-off' from Parliament and go on a jaunt to Australia for a particularly rubbishy television programme.

 

Dorries is quite clearly a shockingly arrogant and deluded parliamentarian. The reasons she has given for her actions are so ridiculous as to be risible; it is obvious that the woman is far more interested in self-promotion and her own ambition than in anything else.

 

One can only hope that George Young, the Conservative Party Chief Whip, will give Ms Dorries' stated desire to have the whip restored to her very short shrift indeed. One must also hope that suggestions that this horrible woman might migrate to UKIP are either unfounded or that she will be sent packing by them as well. The sooner she disappears in a cloud of smoke, the better.

TOP GEAR : A PROGRAMME FOR MORONS.

I know it's fashionable to kick the BBC but that is not my main purpose. My main purpose is simply to ask why  a state funded organisation is so happy to pay for the idiocy that is 'Top Gear' and its spin offs.

 

I don't like Jeremy Clarkson and positively despise Richard Hammond, but not because they are on the BBC or because they are in a programme that makes a lot of fuss about cars that most of us couldn't afford even if we were lucky enough to win the lottery. The reason I dislike them is that they are grotesquely overvalued morons.

 

Clarkson and Hammond have no talent whatsoever; they are simply annoying little trolls who have struck a note with a more modern generation which is fascinated by stupidity. They seem to believe that encouraging people to drive cars at silly speeds is a sensible thing to do; Hammond almost died doing just that and probably cost the NHS a fortune to keep him alive, and yet he still does the same idiotic things now. No sane organisation would allow this.

 

'Top Gear' belongs on some moron-dominated channel, not on the BBC, unless, that is, the BBC is a channel dominated by morons. Is it ?

GEORGE OSBORNE TO SAY THE WORLD IS GREAT !

George Osborne, the boy who is pretending to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, will deliver his latest piece of bad news for the country on Wednesday with his 'Autumn Statement'.

 

Of course, the headlines and most of the speech will tell us that things are looking up and he is now able to make all of our lives a bit better. The subtext and what's concealed in the small print will undoubtedly tell a very different story.

 

After Wednesday's statement we will all be poorer, some given notice, surreptitiously, of being very much poorer. This is inevitable and nothing more than a restoration of reality; we have mostly been living well beyond our means for decades. The availability of credit has allowed people, and the country, to spend money it never had, or will have, and the consequences are now coming home to roost.

 

The real truth that no government will ever tell us is that we are on a downward slope; our costs are too high as are our expectations. In time we will inevitably become poorer and will be forced to adopt a much more frugal approach to our lives. China, India, Brazil and the rest will replace us at the head of the line and we will have to re-learn the tradesmens' skills that we have forsaken and accept the low wages and standard of living that it brings. We won't like it and there will be trouble, perhaps very serious trouble, but it is inevitable.

 

Rather than acknowledge this and start to make provision for it, Osborne will tinker; he will fiddle while Rome burns. In the end, it will be Osborne and his like, all of his predecessors and those whose political ambitions outweighed their morality, who will bring this country to its knees and even to its ankles.

 

God can't help us because he doesn't exist. The politicians won't help us because it's not in their interests. We can only help ourselves by recognizing the problem and responding to it in a way that most will reject - more training in old fashioned trades, lower wages and a lower expectation of what the future might hold. At the moment, the jobs that will survive in 30 or 40 years time are filled by immigrants, almost exclusively; by then they will control our economy and the indigenous white population will be scratching around for a living.

 

This is not a racist diatribe, it is simple fact. The truth is that immigrants are generally from poor countries and are much more willing than the pre-existing population to undertake low paid menial jobs. In the future this will change unless the existing population accepts its true position in the world; of course, it won't and there will be trouble. The result is as inevitable as was the victory of New Zealand over England in Saturday's Rugby international; that didn't happen which suggests there may be hope, though it's not great. It's in our own hands.