BAN SMACKING !!

A couple of years ago, the 'Children's Commissioner', a Maggie Atkinson, argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from its current 10 to 12 years of age. Now, she wants parents to be legally banned from smacking their little darlings.

 

How this stupid woman gained her appointment is a mystery. Her background is as an English teacher in northern England followed by a variety of local authority roles, culminating as Director of Children's Services in Gateshead. She was appointed, against strong opposition, by the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the egregious Ed Balls. One has to assume that she has left wing views.

 

Anyone who's ever been in contact with children has to be aware that 10 year olds are more than capable of knowing right from wrong; why Ms Atkinson would want to deny this only she can explain. As for smacking, anyone who's ever seen a wildlife programme will know that the occasional thump being delivered to an unruly youngster is hardly something that is the unique prerogative of human parents; chimps, lions and others can be seen doing exactly the same. As long as the punishment is mild, there is nothing wrong with it and everything right about it. Children need to be taught that certain actions are unacceptable and simply talking to them or sending them to the 'naughty step' does not always suffice. Indeed, for their own good, there are occasions when a much sharper punishment has to be delivered.

 

Why does Ms Atkinson not understand this ? Is it adherence to left wing political doctrine, political correctness, plain stupidity or what ?

EDUCATION, PLAGIARISM AND SENSE.

A story on tonight's news refers to a problem with some "anti-plagiarism" software that is used by many UK universities. Apparently, this software system experienced difficulties over the last couple of days and it's meant that students' coursework deadlines have had to be extended.

 

The questions raised by this story are legion :

 

Why is "anti-plagiarism" software necessary ?

 

Why do students feel the need to plagiarise ?

 

Why are universities and their students so dependent on computer systems ?

 

Why does a problem with a computer system affect coursework deadlines ?

 

There are, no doubt, many more questions that could be asked, but I'll leave it there.

 

Plagiarism is cheating. To my mind, any student found cheating should be treated in a very simple way; first offence = a final warning and second offence = expulsion. No excuses, no exceptions.

 

As well as this issue highlighting yet another problem in our increasingly sick or, as the intelligentsia would no doubt put it, "not fit for purpose", education system, it is also a pointer to the extent of the dependence of our entire society on computers and other electronic gadgets. There can be little doubt that a sudden failure in the communications network, electricity grid or any associated systems could have a catastrophic effect on the performance of universities and of the achievements of their students; this is ridiculous. Students have lost not only the understanding of study, but also how to study; they no longer trawl books and journals in libraries, they us 'Wikipedia', assuming that this is the fount of all knowledge, which it is not. Many of today's degrees are worth nothing compared with those of  decades ago, and yet we laud them in ever more extravagant ceremonies; is this a case of trying to obscure mediocrity by a show of opulence, as happens on the television with programmes such as "X-Factor" ?

 

How can potential employers have any faith in the value of the degrees awarded to students if cheating abounds ? What is the point of telling students they've achieved top grades when the truth is that they've cheated or are simply the best of a bad bunch ?

 

Our education system is bust.

MANDELA : SAINT OR SINNER ?

I can't say I know that much about Nelson Mandela but I do know that he used to be a leader of the African National Congress (ANC), which became an overtly terrorist organisation in 1961. Mandela was one of those who led the terrorist wing of the ANC in conjunction with the South African Communist Party and he was imprisoned for life following conviction for conspiring to overthrow the government of the country. Nonetheless, his later life, after his release from prison in 1990, has been allowed to overshadow his earlier existence and he has been all-but sanctified.

 

Mandela's second wife, Winnie Madikizela, pursued her own brand of violence through the 'Mandela United Football Club', and has been accused of a variety of offences ranging from theft and fraud to murder, both before and after her then husband's release from prison and even as recently as 2003. Their divorce in 1996, ostensibly due to Winnie's adultery during Mandela's imprisonment, was also an attempt by Mandela to dissociate himself from her repeated criminal activities. Clearly, politics were in there somewhere.

 

Today, the world is mourning the death of Mandela, at least it is according to the BBC and most other media. In truth, I suspect that most of the world doesn't really care. Even before his release from prison, Mandela had been placed on a pedestal by his supporters and his subsequent life, including his 5 years as president of South Africa, has been granted a sanctitude with which no one is permitted to disagree. Again, one suspects that this is, to say the least, a little 'over the top'.

 

No one can deny that the South African apartheid regime was unjust and it had to go. Sadly, and using Mandela as its totem, what has now happened is the virtual destruction of South Africa as a functioning nation by his former friends in the ANC. Mandela's period as president ended in 1999 and his only role since then has been as a figurehead who, perhaps, acted as some slight brake on the more extreme ambitions of those who have led the party since. Now that Mandela has left the scene, one has to fear that the real nature of the likes of current president Jacob Zuma will be fully exposed and the country will descend rapidly into chaos. The dictatorship of the pro-apartheid National Party has been replaced by the dictatorship and corruption of the communist and acquisitive ANC. This is simply another Zimbabwe in the making.

 

Mandela will, no doubt, go down in history as a 'great man'; whether or not he really was such is debatable.

BALDING, HOMOSEXUALITY AND SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.

Clare Balding is one of those people beloved by the media who manage to make a name for themselves in one sphere and then gravitate seamlessly to a variety of others. In Balding's case, it's from horse racing, about which her family knows a lot, to presenting radio and television programmes about which she knows debatable amounts.

 

As a 'real live celebrity', as she now is, Balding appeared on the BBC's "Desert island Discs" last week and revealed that her grandmother had been disgusted by the revelation that Balding was homosexual; the word used may have been 'Gay' but the meaning is the same. What I find astonishing is that Balding should have mentioned this at all.

 

Her grandmother's generation did not discuss sexuality at all, indeed, the word 'sexuality' probably didn't even exist before 1970. Personally, I also find the homosexual sphere of life at least a little odd and even disturbing at times, though I am also a believer in 'live and let live'. Sadly, many homosexuals seem to adopt a different philosophy and take every opportunity to flaunt their predilection to a wider audience; Balding seems to be one of those who like to do this.

 

When she first appeared on the BBC as part of the horse racing team, Balding was a perfectly good addition to an established crew. She became a mainstay and her double act with Willie Carson was always enjoyable. However, in more recent times she has become a little too big for her boots and now seems to think that she's God's gift to us all; the story of her defection to Channel 4 and the ramifications of that little move seem to more than provide support for such a view. I don't like her.

 

Before anyone brands me a sexist, homophobic or whatever other '-ist' or '-phobic' they might invent, I also don't like Noel Edmonds, Graham Norton, John Humphreys or Kirsty Wark. I've never liked Paul Gambaccini and only recently discovered that he was another homosexual cruising the corridors of the BBC; it's his style and presentation that has always annoyed me, not whom he preferred to spend his nights with. Jimmy Savile always made my flesh crawl and I was never very keen on Stuart Hall whose affectation always made me cringe. I've always liked Rolf Harris and was a little distressed to hear that he's been drawn into the aftermath of the Savile enquiries; I really can't stand Jenny Murray, Fiona Bruce  or the one on the BBC's 'Breakfast' programme who's currently prancing around on some imbecilic dancing show; anyone more full of her own self importance would be hard to imagine, and I have no idea what her 'sexuality' is. I don't care about these peoples' private lives, I just don't like them.

 

Homosexuals are a part of life, just as heterosexuals are; the only fact is that there are a lot more of the latter than of the former; the normal state of human sexuality is 'hetero-' not 'homo-'. Homosexuality is abnormal in the same way that wearing the wrong clothes is abnormal; IT'S NOT NORMAL. For its practitioners to parade themselves before us, promote their deviance (another word which basically means 'difference')  and berate anyone who finds their activities distasteful is, itself, distasteful at least.

 

I really don't care who does what to or with whom, as long as no one gets hurt; I may not like some of the practices, but it's their choice. What I object to most strongly is the way in which the normal part of our society is constantly barraged with complaints that homosexuals are being treated unfairly, with gripes that 'they are the same as the rest of us, should be treated the same and should have all the same rights and privileges'; the simple truth is that they are not the same. The very idea of marriage between homosexuals is ludicrous; the idea that 2 men or 2 women can have a child is biologically impossible without the intervention of modern science - that makes it unnatural and anathema to any sane individual. The idea that 2 men or 2 women can have a biological child is to deny nature; to suggest that stating this is some sort of prejudice, is unbelievable and yet this is what the 'anti-homophobic' lobby does. In effect, they claim that abnormality is the same as normality, which is absurd. 

 

Even classical literature makes it clear that the very idea of a marriage between 2 men was a step too far; consider only the case of the Roman Emperor, Nero, 'marrying' his freed man, Sporus, and the way that was received by the wider audience.

 

In my lifetime, I've known a number of people whom I've understood to be homosexual; some I've liked and some I've loathed. The ones I've liked have tended to be people who have behaved like 'normal' human beings; their sexual preferences have not been on display. The ones I've loathed have been those who have announced their presence from afar, leapt into circulation with such camp abandon that it's hard to describe and, on one occasion, attempted to drill his tongue down my throat on first sighting.; I didn't like him. Ms Balding seems to be one of those who wants us all to know about her and one of those who will complain bitterly about any perceived prejudice. I don't like her.

 

I will, by the way, be enjoying my Christmas dinner with a group of friends that includes a young lesbian; a lovely girl she is, too.

NI ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS "FORGET MURDERS".

The Attorney General of Northern Ireland, a man named John Larkin, has proposed that all "Troubles-related" killings prior to the signing of the 'Good Friday Agreement' in 1998 should now be ignored; he believes that we should forget about pursuing the perpetrators whether they be British soldiers or Irish terrorists. Perhaps unsurprisingly, his suggestion appears to have met with a rather frosty response from other members of the Northern Ireland administration.

 

One has to wonder what planet this man is living on. Recent history sees us chasing down old, and even dead, men who are alleged, though in some cases proven, to have committed an assortment of nasty offences 30, 40 and even 50 years ago, though none of these offences involve the most heinous of crimes, murder. British soldiers are being pilloried over alleged atrocities carried out in Kenya in the 1950s and alleged NAZI war criminals from the 1940s are still being pursued even though they are all at least in their 90s. This man wants to sweep murders from as recently as 1997/8 under the carpet.

 

Mr Larkin is the most senior law officer in the Northern Ireland administration. One wonders how much longer he will be such.

TIME FOR THE BBC TO BE SIGNED OFF.

For my sins, I pay my licence fee and so watch television legally. What I really get for this impost is debatable.

 

Firstly, my payment is a legal requirement, ostensibly to finance the BBC but we all know that is no longer the truth; it's just another tax. Secondly, how much of my licence fee actually goes into anything worthwhile or that I like is a matter of conjecture.

 

The BBC used to be a utopia, a producer of wonderful programmes; today it is a dinosaur, struggling to keep up with modern ideas; as such it is a mess. It's decline began in the 1960s with the rise of the Pop culture as we now know only too well - the appalling revelations about Jimmy Savile and his like make this only too clear. It's past is full of nightmares which it wishes to hide but no longer can.

 

Today, the few programmes of merit that it produces can be counted on the fingers of one hand while it continues to waste millions with the most mind-bogglingly ridiculous fillers between programmes. Why does it need 'music' and 'beats' constantly to interrupt its news broadcasts on television when nothing of the sort is deemed necessary for radio ? What are the hippopotamuses for ? Why do umpteen newsreaders need to be dispatched to the Philippines when there are already more than enough regional people there ? Why does it spend so much time advertising the books, films, songs, plays etc., of anyone and everyone whose agent has asked for a slot on 'Breakfast', 'Start the Week', 'Mid-week', 'Loose Ends' and all the other horrendous magazine programmes that it now presents as entertainment ?

 

The BBC is bust. It is well passed it's best 'before date' and it's time it was pensioned off. Just as with all good things, this one has come to its end.

THE SKY AT NIGHT : LAST CHANCE TO SAVE IT.

While 'The Sky at Night' is still being broadcast, the long term future of this programme appears to be in serious doubt.

 

A few weeks ago, I heard that it was about to be 'axed' and I wrote to my Member of Parliament about it. He passed my communication to the BBC and I received an entirely non-committal response from them; what they effectively said was that the programme's future was under review, this was normal and I shouldn't worry. Unsurprisingly, I worried.

 

There has been no further news about the future of this iconic programme and this makes me worry even more. It doesn't involve any of the left wing ideals that the BBC so loves and actually promotes real scientific education which so many left wing academics hate. As such, it is the type of long-running programme that the Beeb would love to be rid of, exactly as they dispensed with the wonderful 'Letter from America' as soon as Alastair Cook died. It's successor is an excuse for a plethora of left wing academics to espouse their jaundiced philosophies upon the unwashed masses that they consider the rest of us to be. 

 

Sadly, 'The Sky at Night' as we have known it is almost certainly doomed. It will either disappear altogether or be replaced by a modernised version with presenters more interested in their own personalities and careers than in the programme; something to appeal to the 'younger generation' rather than to anyone with a real interest in astronomy. Yet another reason to do away with the licence fee, should it come to pass.

 

Anyone who wants to save this wonderful and iconic programme should act now.

TORONTO MAYOR FORD CONTINUES TO APPAL.

While we should all understand and accept that our political masters are human beings and fallible, the activities and behaviour of the Mayor of Toronto have definitely plumbed new depths.

 

Rob Ford, the man who has raised the profile of the Canadian City for all of the wrong reasons, has admitted being a cocaine smoker and drunk, and now his language on a live television programme has caused further concerns. That he used obscene language while attempting to deny making disgusting sexual advances to a member of his staff only makes matters worse. Ford has admitted that his remarks were "unforgivable language" and yet still seems to believe that his electorate should forgive him and that he should continue in office.

 

Why the people of Toronto should want to be represented by this appalling man is something known only to them. In my view, he should be sent to some uninhabited desert island where he can be free to be do whatever he likes, without anyone else having to bear witness to it or being affected by it.

VICKY PRYCE : MAKING MONEY FROM CRIMINALITY.

Not very long ago, Vasiliki Pryce, better known as Vicky, the ex-wife of disgraced politician Chris Huhne, was in prison as a result of her part in the conspiracy to stop him getting penalty points on his driving licence. Yesterday, she was on the panel of the BBC's "Question Time" programme, pontificating about the rights and wrongs of various matters. Additionally, it appears that  this criminal has now written a book about the activities which culminated in her imprisonment, from which she no doubt expects to make significant amounts of money.

 

Pryce has barely completed her 8 month sentence, of which only the first 2 were actually spent in prison, and already she has been received back into the establishment and is profiting from her criminal activity. How the BBC can believe that she is a suitable or appropriate person to be giving the nation the benefit of her wisdom is beyond me; it seems clear that, as a left wing economist, she is simply one of those beloved by the BBC and for whom any and every crime is easily excused.

 

This woman is a criminal. She conspired with her former husband to pervert the course of justice, a very serious offence. Now, she is making money from her exploits and effectively receiving free publicity from organisations such as the BBC. Is this right ?

 

TIME TO BRING BACK DOG LICENCES.

The killing of a small girl by a pet dog in Leicestershire a couple of days ago is a horrible reminder of the dangers which these animals can present. Over recent years, thousands of people have been attacked and injured by dogs and as many as a dozen or so children have been killed; why do we not react as we do against other similar dangers ?

Dogs used to be kept not as 'pets' but as working animals. Their owners did not spend silly, and sometimes obscene, amounts of money on their food, grooming, kennelling and even clothing, and the animals were only kept for their usefulness - keeping down assorted vermin, for instance. Today and in total contrast, the vast majority of dogs are welcomed into their owners homes as a member of the family, being fussed over in ways that are full of danger.

 

Dogs are instinctive animals and respond as such to perceived threats, often by assuming aggressive postures and attacking the threat. That such 'threats' can be small children pulling their 'pets'' tails or appearing suddenly from around corners seems to escape many people until the worst happens. Added to this, dogs are repositories of disease and yet their owners allow themselves, and their children, to be climbed over and licked repeatedly, often around the face. Dogs leave their faeces anywhere and everywhere and even though many owners now retrieve these in little plastic bags, they will always leave some small element behind; the bacteria so released into the environment are a threat to us all, children in particular.

 

It's reported that there are some 9 million of these dirty and potentially dangerous animals at large in our country. While their owners often pay out large amounts to maintain them, they pay nothing to the state for the armies of workers whose jobs it is to clear up their mess and empty the bins in which the better owners deposit their collections of faeces. They pay nothing for the mess and damage sometimes inflicted on others or for the demand placed on the NHS; they pay no licence fee and are not required to have insurance.

 

Surely it is now time for the introduction of new laws to govern the keeping of animals as pets, starting with dogs. Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, both parts of the United Kingdom, have licensing systems and many countries require owners to register their ownership in some way in order to keep a dog legally - Eire, the USA, Canada, Germany, Australia and New Zealand amongst others. In this country, a licence and micro-chipping fee of, say, £30 a year (equivalent to less than 9p per day) would raise over a quarter of a billion pounds to be put towards the costs of cleaning up after these animals. Requiring owners to carry insurance against the possibility of their animals attacking others would ensure that victims received compensation and the NHS was paid for it's services.

 

Why do we tolerate finding piles of dog faeces in the street or in our parks and green spaces ? Why do we tolerate being snapped at by these aggressive animals ? It's time we stopped being so romantic about them and started being much more realistic and practical.

WHATEVER HAPPED TO MANNERS AND DECENCY ?

A couple of days ago, MP Jo Swinson was allowed to stand during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons. This may not sound a particularly noteworthy issue until one learns that Ms Swinson is 7 months pregnant and was surrounded by a gaggle of other members, many of them seated. 

 

That she was made to stand for over half and hour and that no one offered her their seat demonstrates only too clearly just how far general standards of decency have fallen in recent years. When I was a child and for many years thereafter, I would have automatically given up my seat for a pregnant woman or an elderly person; I would have automatically held a door open for others, indeed, I still do the latter though the former is less necessary these days as I'm now one of the 'elderly' myself.

 

The decline in good manners and common decency has been stark. Today's children demonstrate almost no concern for others and rarely if ever hold a door or give up a seat; their personal interests and 'rights' outweigh everything else. What a horrible world we have produced.

GRAYSON PERRY POINTS WAY TO END OF LICENCE FEE.

Last night, I was unfortunate enough to tune into 'Radio 4' at about 10:30 and was confronted by a right old load of drivel.

 

There was a time when the annual 'Reith Lectures' were something to look forward to, being delivered on serious subjects by highly respected and erudite speakers. A vast variety of topics were covered and they were always of interest; sadly, this is no longer the case. Today's 'Reith Lectures' have been 'jazzed up' to include 'modern' subjects and speakers and include globe-trotting journeys, all, of course, at public expense.

 

This year, the lectures are being delivered by Grayson Perry, a person admired by a few as an artist of sorts but either ignored or laughed at by most. Whether or not anyone would have taken any notice of Perry but for his highly publicised habit of dressing in women's clothing is a moot point; what can't be denied is that his selection as the 'Reith Lecturer' was horribly misguided.

 

Perry drivelled away with occasional puerile anecdotes but, as far as I could tell from a brief hearing,

he said almost nothing of any note; indeed, I suspect that most half-educated art students could have done better. If Perry does have anything significant to say about art, he certainly wasn't saying it last night and one has to wonder what the BBC was thinking when they chose him to deliver this auspicious lecture series; presumably, some young arty-crafty type had the final say.

 

With their increasing determination to attract mass audiences by playing to the lowest common denominator, desire to be 'with it', adherence to consistently left-wing attitudes and rejection of anything deemed to be 'old fashioned', the BBC has surely built a damning case against the continuation of the licence fee. Today, there is very little on the BBC that I choose to watch or listen to, most of its output being awful; the licence fee is simply an annual tax on my television.

 

Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of the BBC but no more; apart from a handful of programmes and presenters, it is a shocking mess. It is, I fear, time for the licence fee to end and for the BBC to stand, or fall, on its own two feet.

CAN I "PRE-BOOK" MY "PRE-ORDERED" "RE-SHUFFLE" PLEASE ?!

Who on earth was it that invented the ridiculous modern trend to put the prefix "pre-" in front of certain words ?

 

The academic Sarah Churchwell made a very valid point on 'Question Time' last Thursday when the panel was discussing government and opposition 're-shuffles'. As a Professor of American Literature, she quite rightly complained that the "re-" was a wholly redundant addition; what the party leaders were doing was to 'shuffle' their packs and to say 're-shuffle' was pointless and meaningless twaddle.

 

The same clearly applies to "pre-booking" and "pre-ordering". If I order goods, I order them; I don't "pre-order"; what, in fact, does "pre-order" actually mean ? Does it have any validity as an English word ? The same can be said of the equally stupid "pre-book" though, to be fair, the horrible "pre-owned" may have some meaning even if it is a little cumbersome and simply an advertisers' ploy to avoid the less attractive "second hand".

 

Why is it that some people feel the need to mangle our perfectly good language in these ways ? No wonder our children have such problems with literacy.

 

 

'SKY AT NIGHT' TO BE AXED ?

True to it's modernist values, the BBC is apparently on the point of doing away with one of the longest running and best television programmes in the world - 'The Sky at Night'. It would seem that while the programme's creator and star, Sir Patrick Moore, was alive, it was untouchable but now he's gone it's fair game.

 

The Beeb will probably claim that audiences have dropped since Sir Patrick's departure from this earthly realm, but that may be as much to do with its scheduling - viewers now have to scour the schedules to find it at midnight or midday, plus its only regular slot on the minority channel, BBC4.

 

'The Sky at Night' is not only an institution, it is an inspiration; it has been an inspiration to generations of potential young scientists for decades and has been lauded by many, including the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees. While they produce dumbed-down audience-grabbing tripe such as 'Eastenders', 'Strictly Come Dancing', and assorted other programmes for the illiterate masses, 'The Sky at Night' is an oasis of brilliance in this sea of mediocrity; sadly, the Beeb has no interest in brilliance, only in celebrity.

 

Perhaps if Professor Brian Cox volunteered to take over the presentation of the programme, it would have a better chance of survival; he is, after all, a celebrity scientist which neither of the current presenters are. Chris Lintott and Lucie Green are both experts and fine presenters but they are not, yet, celebrities and don't pretend to be such; nonetheless, the programme remains every bit as good as it ever was under their care and it would be a shocking act of vandalism if the BBC were to carry through its plan.

 

The ghost of Sir Patrick Moore must be screaming with anguish. Anyone who feels the need to scream with him may do well to sign the 'Sky at Night' petition set up by 'Change.org'.

BEGGING GETS ME DOWN.

I am fed up with beggars.

 

I don't mean dirty, smelly old men sitting in doorways or even youngsters asking for the price of a cup of tea in the street, I mean the people who now infest our supermarket entrances, particularly at weekends.

 

My local 'Morrison's' and now my local 'Tesco' both suffer from this disease and I find it utterly hateful. The constant waving of tins under one's nose, children offering to pack one's shopping while being accompanied by a collection bucket or, as happened today, being met by an avenue of 'food bank collectors' which was impossible to avoid, is a shocking intrusion and something that needs to be curtailed. It is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate passed such people without appearing, or even being, rude and I don't like it. Can I do anything about it other than shopping elsewhere or on other days ? It seems not.

 

Why the supermarkets are so willing to allow their customers to be assailed in these ways is a mystery. Perhaps I'm unusual in finding it offensive but surely I'm not alone. Today's experience in 'Tesco' will almost certainly be my last at that store - I shall shop elsewhere in future and I hope others do likewise.

 

Begging is not nice to see at the best of times but when it's done in an organised way by people and companies that should know better, it's grotesque. For God's sake, let's call a halt to it.

STUART WHEELER : SEXIST OR REALIST ?

The Ukip treasurer, Stuart Wheeler, has been accused of being 'sexist' for having made certain remarks during a debate about the European Union's proposals to impose gender quotas in company boardrooms.

 

Mr Wheeler has been reported to have said that women are no where as good as men at games like chess, bridge and poker, while explaining his objections to the proposals. Another participant in the debate, Dr Claire Gerada, of the Royal College of General Practitioners promptly took exception and called Mr Wheeler a 'sexist'.

 

Dr Gerada is a typical high profile and political woman who sees any suggestion that women are not equal to men as objectionable. Given that she is a doctor, one would have thought that she'd fully appreciate that women are actually quite different from men, both physically and emotionally; sadly she does not. Mr Wheeler is perfectly correct in his statement as is proven by the fact that very few women are able to compete effectively with men in the games mentioned; one assumes that he used these as an indicator that women are not generally as effective as men in other areas, such as business management and politics. Why making a statement of "the bleedin' obvious" should be met with accusations of 'sexism' is a question that has yet to be answered. It is, perhaps, a simple case of repeating a mantra until it just becomes accepted as truth, regardless of its actual veracity.

 

Women such as Dr Gerada tend to be so blinkered and bigoted that arguing with them is worse than useless. They simply refuse to accept that men and women are, on average, different and have different interests and abilities. This is not to say that some women are not able to perform at the very highest levels in politics or business, but it is to say that far fewer women than men have the desire or skills necessary to do so. The imposition of quotas for the number of women in boardrooms would fly in the face of this simple truth. 

 

Mr Wheeler is not a sexist, he is a realist but is being pilloried for disagreeing with the ludicrous left wing policies that some wish to foist upon us. If the lunatic proposals of the EU are adopted, it will spell the beginning of the end for European industry; they must be made to see the light.

 

TELEVISION SEX, NOT "LADS' MAGS", IS THE PROBLEM.

We are confronted, on an almost daily basis, by various pressure groups complaining about pornography. They whine about pictures on the covers of so-called "lads' mags", and whinge about "Page 3" girls in the tabloid press. Even our political masters, led by the Prime Minister, have joined in on the campaign to rid us of this supposed evil.

 

Looking at 'dirty pictures' is something that has probably been practiced since there were humans on the earth. Indeed, many of the murals from ancient civilisations depict what at least some of today's anti-pornography brigade would consider disgusting, degrading, humiliating, exploitative, ya-di-ya-di-ya. That many of today's children, who are considered to be most at risk from this shocking trade, have probably seen the same things 'up close and personal' by the age of 13 or 14 seems to pass the would-be censors by. Instead, they just shout louder and louder, demanding an end to the public displays of naked bodies, though it's only female bodies that seem to bother them.

 

While all of this yatter goes on, no one appears to be concerned about the regular displays of overt nudity and sexual performance that are broadcast on our televisions, almost nightly. Films, dramas and even 'soaps' are choc-a-bloc with gratuitous shots of naked people climbing in and out of bed and wandering around, something which used to be a genuine 'no-no'. We have plenty of ugly kissing and groping and more than enough of sweaty, naked bodies rolling around in scenes of simulated sex acts. The grunts, groans, and climaxes are vividly portrayed by actors, both men and women, who seem to have no shame and no sense of common decency. Why is there no outcry against all of this ?

 

Our children are not at risk from newsagents' racks of 'dirty mags', but they may well be at risk from the ways in which relationships are portrayed on television and in films. The way in which characters speak, and the language they use, as well as the ease and frequency with which they leap in and out of bed and change partners, inevitably leads impressionable young people to mimic this way of life. For programme and film makers to claim, as they do, that their products imitate 'real life' and do not lead it, is risible; they regularly go to the very edge of what is considered acceptable in order to attract audiences through the extreme nature of their output.

 

While the portrayal of semi-naked bodies in magazines and newspapers may be a little tacky, it's the far worse images which appear on our screens that are the real danger. When will politicians, and others, start to tackle this far more insidious business ?

NASSER HUSSAIN'S BIG CONK IS FAIR GAME.

When John Inverdale made a rather uncalled for remark about tennis player Marion Bartoli, people were up in arms. The feminists complained about Inverdale's sexism and a Government minister has asked the BBC to explain itself. Inverdale has been obliged to make a cowering apology and will, no doubt, next appear presenting something with an audience in the tens rather than the tens of millions.

 

Today, while watching coverage of the second Ashes test match, I was rather taken aback when Ian Botham made an entirely and very personal comment about Nasser Hussain's 'huge conk', referring to his nose, and also made a remark about his receding hairline. Botham followed this up with a further remark aimed at former England captain, Michael Vaughan. During the same period of coverage I also noticed, not for the first time, that the camera regularly pans around the ground seeking out people whose appearance may be different from the usual. Some of those focused upon are clearly desirous of such attention but others seem to be selected more for the amusement of the commentators and viewers. People, almost always men, with unusual attire or unusual appearance, rather than those with deliberately silly costumes, seem to be the butt of the commentators jokes and sometimes rather offensive remarks. No one seems to care or even think there is anything wrong with this.

 

In wondering why there seems to be a different attitude between these 2 situations, the answer appears obvious. Marion Bartoli is a woman and it's forbidden to make personal remarks about women; this is sexist, chauvinist and probably a dozen other adjectives favoured by the vociferous feminist and equality brigades. Nasser Hussain and the group who are targeted at cricket matches are male; they deserve whatever they get because they've been so nasty to women for so long. They also have no one to protect them in the way that women have.

 

Bartoli isn't a 'looker' and Hussain does have a big conk; both statements are true but only one is considered unsayable. That this is hypocrisy is obvious, as is the fact that it's time the men fought back, stopped being expected to bite their tongues and stopped apologising for being men.

MARION BARTOLI IS NO LOOKER !

Shock, Horror !! A BBC presenter has been a little injudicious in his use of language regarding the Wimbledon Ladies' champion, Marion Bartoli; he had the nerve to say, on air, what most of the male population, and probably a good proportion of the female population, were thinking while watching in their living rooms, pubs or clubs.

Sadly for John Inverdale, the truth or otherwise of his words is not considered relevant; all that matters is that he's offended the 'Equality Mafia', the 'Anti-Sexism Brigade' and the other assorted fascists who rule our lives. Now, the BBC feels obliged to issue public apologies and the 'Culture Secretary', Maria Miller, herself a female politician who has risen from the depths of obscurity to her current lofty position without showing any signs of ability, though certainly not because she's a 'looker', has expressed concern about Inverdale's words and asked the Beeb to let her know what it's doing about things. One has to suspect that poor Inverdale will soon find himself relegated to presenting 'Cruft's, the 'Chelsea Flower Show' or some other event at which the beauty or otherwise of the participants is unlikely to be a matter of interest.

What Inverdale said was, actually, irrelevant and stupid, but it was not sexist and does not deserve to be treated as a major public scandal. Marion Bartoli is a most determined tennis player and was a deserved winner of the Wimbledon title, but she certainly is no beauty. What she is, is an ordinary girl what done good; she will never be seen trotting along a catwalk, à la Maria Sharapova or Anna Kournikova. Personally, I find her far less intimidating than these two superstar models and she's probably a much nicer person when all is boiled down.

As for the BBC, this organisation never ceases to amaze me with its hypocrisy. It has gone out of its way to fête 'beautiful people', to employ only good looking women to front its major programmes and to remove those whose years make them less attractive to the viewing audience. Ask Moira Stewart, Michael Aspel, Anna Ford, Miriam O'Reilly, Arlene Phillips, Hugh Porter and all the rest who've been dumped because they no longer fitted the required stereotype; how long will it be before the ageing Sue Barker finds herself replaced as presenter of 'A Question of Sport', probably by some thirtyish dollybird with the brains of a turnip and personality of a damp rag ?

At the same time, it continued to employ Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and, no doubt, others, for many decades while they freely molested and abused children of both sexes in the full knowledge of their colleagues. For the BBC now to feign horror at Inverdale's harmless comments really is a joke. For the 'Culture Secretary' to try to milk the situation for political ends is pathetic.

T-MOBILE HELP LINE - HA, HA !

I am one of the unfortunate people who use T-Mobile. That said, many may be quite happy with their service - I am not.

 

Having been with T-Mobile for several years with no problems, ever since their conversion to the esoteric-sounding 'EE' I've had nothing but problems. My signal strength is now low to non-existent and, today, it has disappeared altogether. The only message I get when trying to use my 'phone is 'No Service'.

 

I've tried contacting T-Mobile though their website has to be one of the most useless available anywhere. There is a huge mess of confusion between T-Mobile, Orange and 'EE' services and exactly how one is supposed to find who to contact is a mystery. Yes, I can contact them by dialling '150' on my 'phone, but it isn't working, so that's a non-starter. There's no e-mail contact address and the only alternative is a chargeable 0845 number which I refuse to use simply because I see no reason why I should pay to report their problem to them.

 

Fortunately, I have a landline, though that is another story. The wonderful 'SAYNOTO0870' website provided me with an alternative number - 0808 1219999 - which responded with the expected computerised system. After hitting several numbers - 2,1,4,4,1,2 - or whatever the sequence was, I was given a peremptory, 'sorry you have a problem, try again later'. What use is that if I want to make a call now ?

 

This is a company which provides no customer support whatsoever, unless it is for new 'phones, new contracts or upgrades. Reporting problems appears to be something they want no one to do, so they make it impossible. This episode means that they have lost my custom for ever; for me, 'EE' now stands for 'Evade for Ever'. If it costs me to terminate my contract, so be it; £100 well spent as far as I'm concerned. They are useless, hopeless, a waste of space. What more can I add ? Answers please on an e-mail - thank God I don't use T-Mobile for that !

PROFLIGATE CHILDREN DESERVE NO SYMPATHY.

I'm fed up with hearing the constant whingeing from the so-called 'younger generations' who complain that they're being done down by older people. They claim that older people have all the wealth and they, the younger ones, are having their futures stolen by these mean old folk who refuse to share their money and who, at the same time, are expecting the youngsters to pay for their upkeep in old age.

 

This is such rubbish that it's astonishing it's still put forward as an argument, but it is. The truth is surely very different and it's time someone stated it.

 

Not that many years ago, almost no one in our society had enough even to feed and clothe themselves and their families adequately. My own great grandparents were poor, to say the least, and lived in 2 rented rooms together with their 3 or 4 surviving children (out of 9 born), this being only about 100 years ago. To his enduring credit, my grandfather managed to escape from this state and, despite having little schooling, eventually saved enough to put down a deposit on a house. His children were brought up well, had better education and made further progress; they did not squander their money but all worked hard and saved. They all had their own homes and passed on their ethos and standards to their children, my generation.

 

I, in my turn, worked hard, saved and bought a property. I did not waste my money on fripperies such as fancy clothes, cars or holidays, when there were more important things to concentrate on. When I had spare money, I saved it for a 'rainy day' or for when there was a sensible reason to spend it on  having 'fun'. All along, I paid my taxes and national insurance while never actually claiming a halfpenny of state support, unless you count my education at school and university; I have to admit that I did go to university before the days of student loans but, even then, I didn't take loads of cash from the state. I actually worked continuously throughout my course and received almost no grant.

 

Given this history, I feel, most strongly, that my grandparents, parents and I all paid more than enough into the system, while taking very little out. For me now to be assailed by the cries of today's profligate children, claiming that they should be allowed to share more 'fairly' in the wealth accumulated by previous generations is insulting as well as utterly ludicrous. Today's children are enormously better off than was my generation and my grandparents' generation would simply not understand how they can have any complaints. Today's children think nothing of wasting vast amounts of money on technological gadgets that serve no purpose other than self-aggrandisement; they have better health, education and housing services than have ever existed before and are supported by huge volumes of state welfare benefits. Many younger people never think of saving and, instead, spend every penny they have or can borrow on anything and everything, much of it simply what could be termed 'lifestyle' items. They have a whale of a time but still they whinge about how hard up they are, about how they can't afford to buy a house or a new car, having done absolutely nothing to help themselves.

 

When these ignorant, rude, foul-mouthed, profligate, promiscuous and egotistical people realise that there's 'owt-for-nowt', in this life, I'll be prepared to listen to them. When they've paid in as much as I have, I'll believe they're entitled to receive something back. Until then, hands off what I've managed to build in my life, from my efforts and those of my parents and grandparents.

RUSSELL BRAND - TELEVISION PUNDIT.

Not very long ago, a creature by the name of Russell Brand perpetrated a disgusting prank on the radio along with a similarly talentless goon by the name of Jonathan Ross. Both were roundly condemned and largely disappeared from our screens and radios for a while. Suddenly, both are back.

 

Ross left the BBC and now appears on some other channel, possibly 4, though I take so little interest in the horrid man that I can't be sure. Brand, on the other hand, now seems to have been fully rehabilitated and is even being trotted out as a pundit on television programmes such as 'Question Time' and the 'Andrew Marr Show'; why is a mystery.

 

Brand looks like a rag-bag. Why viewers should be subjected to his variety of supposed expertise on such programmes is a question that can only be answered by the left-wing mafia that runs the Beeb. He speaks in largely incoherent sound-bites and has nothing meaningful to say; what is the point of him ? If the intention is to appeal to a younger audience, can the producers not find more literate and educated individuals, or has our education system fallen so far that there are none ?

 

David Dimbleby often has to put up with oddballs on 'Question Time' but surely putting up with Brand is well beyond the call of duty. As for the 'Andrew Marr Show', this has become a rather tired and dull offering in the absence of its original presenter - will he ever return ? It certainly needs a bit of revitalisation but the likes of Brand are not the way forward.

ED BALLS TRIES AGAIN AND STILL CAN'T SCORE.

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear !

 

Poor old Ed Balls really is a first class idiot. Yet again, he's been on our television screens this morning trying to convince us all that a future Labour government will abide by the spending plans of the current lot for the year 2015/16, at least for 'current spending'. They would not reverse spending cuts already put in place but would attack the so called rich for all they're worth; it's now abundantly clear that payment of the state pension will no longer be considered a right for all and that Labour would restrict this to the people whom it believes to be the poor.

 

Balls was one of the principal architects of the appalling mess created by the last Labour governments of Blair and Brown. He now bumbles his way through interviews, trying to convince us that he has true economic gravitas and can resolve all of the problems that he created. He says whatever he thinks will win him and his party votes - spend more, tax the rich, introduce what would effectively be means testing for payments such as the state pension, winter fuel allowance and so on. Such policies are designed to appeal to his party's traditional voter base, but he also tries to appeal to others by pretending that our economy would be safe in his hands as he would not revert to typical Labour and borrow vast amounts more. This last is, of course, a sham as he has every intention of borrowing shed-loads of money for what he sees as necessary 'capital schemes' - building houses, roads, railways and everything else he can think of. Much of this would be current spending by any other name and would never be recouped, in fact, it would worsen our already dire state. This  approach would actually be the one adopted by communist Russia for many years, and one which eventually brought that benighted state to its knees.

 

Our country is in a financial mess. Part of this was due to some of our major banks behaving badly but most of it is down to the Labour governments of Blair and Brown, either through their direct actions or because they failed to ensure that the banks were properly supervised. Ed Balls and his mate, Ed Miliband, were both willing and enthusiastic participants in those governments and yet now they tell us that they know better than the current lot how to deal with the mess and ask us to trust them to put things right. Who do they think they are - Laurel and Hardy ? Come to think of it, isn't there some similarity there, a relatively thin one who's always scratching his head in bemused fashion and a fatter one who's bombastic but always shown to be a fool ?!

 

Voting for a government led by Balls and Miliband would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas; it would be voluntary euthanasia on a vast scale as anyone with anything would find it taken from them and those with nothing would be no better off, while the country would be bankrupted. You have been warned.

"THE RETURNED"; SENSATIONAL FRENCH TELEVISION.

I frequently complain about the quality of modern television programmes, most of which range from barely watchable to abysmal. All of our terrestrial channels seem to serve up the same diet of 'soaps', cookery programmes and American tripe and, frankly, it's nearly all boring rubbish. How can it be that the French, of all people, have made a difference ?

 

"The Returned", on Channel 4, is an eight part story, from France, about people who died in an accident and yet mysteriously reappear 4 years later; the first episode was terrific and if the rest follow suit it will become a televisual classic. Even allowing for the fact that I speak no French and only understand a little, the subtitled first programme was extraordinarily brilliant. After a few minutes, I was drawn in and trapped; at the end of the episode I couldn't wait for the next, such was the web that had been created.

 

Thus far, admittedly based on only one episode, this promises to be a sensational series. There is none of the usual loud and intrusive 'background music' that dominates most American, and too much British, drama; while the story is, thus far, still a little confusing in parts, it's also clear that every aspect has been considered and is slowly being explained. For some strange reason, the fact that it's in French and subtitled actually seems to make it more attractive; perhaps I imagine this and it's really just that it is a superb programme. Either way, I'll be watching the remaining seven episodes with some enthusiasm.

 

Brilliant television !

BALLS DRIBBLES AND MISSES THE GOAL.

If anyone needed a reason not to vote 'Labour' at future elections, they had only to watch the stumbling, garbled and guarded performance of Ed Balls under questioning from Andrew Neil on this morning's edition of the 'Sunday Politics' on the BBC.

 

While trying to prove his credentials as a money-saving future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Balls tried desperately to say that he would slash all sorts of welfare spending without actually saying what he would do about pensions, housing benefit and the like; it was clear that he'd been given a range of broad-brush remarks to make but had no idea what the details might be in the event that he actually had the chance to put his 'plans' into action.

 

Everyone knows that Balls has 'previous' when it comes to economic messes; it was he, after all. who helped Gordon Brown destroy the UK's economy during the catastrophic years of Labour government between 1997 and 2010. Balls is one of those fanatical socialists who will do and say anything that he imagines will give him access to power, while living a life of luxury himself; he will happily mortgage the country's future knowing that whatever horrors he visits on future generations will have no effect on either him or his children. How can anyone possibly take this man seriously or, heaven help us, trust our economy to him ?

 

The very simple answer is that we can't and mustn't. The trouble is that, far from the 'savage cost cutting' of which the current lot has been accused, very little has really been done to reduce government spending over the last 3 years. Given his political leanings, it's highly unlikely that Balls would even do as little as has been done by the Conservative/Liberal coalition; it's far more likely that, if gullible voters gave him the power, we'd be back to the same old tax and spending policies that caused us to be in this mess in the first place.

 

If voters choose Labour at the next General Election, it will be a disaster for the country. BE WARNED !

NEW "DOCTOR WHO" TO BE ................................ ?

Once upon a time, the BBC created a prickly old man and called him 'Dr Who'. He was exactly what he should have been, an Einstein-like character who was the epitomy of the traditional 'mad scientist'.

Played by William Hartnell, this was THE Dr Who.

 

Over the years, the Doctor changed as his bodies became worn out, William Hartnell's literally so. Patrick Troughton, John Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy (who ?), all had spells as 'the Doctor' in the original television series which ran from 1963 until 1989.  Peter Cushing and Paul McGann appeared as 'the Doctor' in film versions, McGann's being the last in the original guise.

 

For some reason known only to themselves, the BBC decided to resurrect the programme in 2005 but in an updated style, Suddenly, 'the Doctor' was an action hero, a hunky, good-looking guy who had a pretty young thing in tow. Gone was the original image of a slightly daft old character, instead we had James Bond in a time machine.

 

Suffice it to say that there has only ever been one 'Doctor' in my eyes and he was the first, infinitely better at playing the role than any of his successors. Some of the rest of the original group had their good points, but none matched Hartnell's feeling for the part. Sadly, the modern incarnation of the series is so far removed from the original conception that it holds no attraction for me and the very idea of watching it makes me wince.

 

Today it's been reported that the current 'Doctor', some unknown called Matt Smith, is to leave the programme; the media, at least, the BBC, has been instantly full of speculation as to who will fill Who's shoes next. In this politically correct world of ours, will it be a woman, someone 'of colour' or, perhaps, even a one legged dwarf with a squint ?

 

What is it about those who feed us today's televisual rubbish that makes them want to change everything ? They seem to have an innate desire to 'update' anything and everything in order to make it more attractive, or is the modern word 'relevant', to today's viewers. In doing so, they lose everything which initially made programmes successful and instead produce clones of other equally banal modern offerings. Tragically, this actually seems to be what today's illiterate and thrill-seeking audiences want, which says a great deal about modern viewers.

 

For my money, Ben Miller could make a wonderfully absent minded 'Doctor' and bring much of the original charm back to the role, and there must be many others who could do likewise. Unfortunately, the likelihood is that the new 'Doctor' will be someone chosen to demonstrate the BBC's politically correct stance on all things, so a one-legged lesbian of mixed parentage must be favourite.

 

God help us.

DRUGS WILL MAKE YOU ILL AND MIGHT KILL YOU.

Research reported in the latest edition of 'The Lancet' indicates that taking certain common drugs for a protracted period of time may be bad for you. Yet again, it's taken so-called 'experts' and 'researchers' to reveal something that anyone with a brain will probably have surmised already.

 

The drugs in question this time are ibuprofen and diclofenac, both very commonly taken by patients who need anti-inflammatory, painkilling drugs, which means that they're often prescribed for those suffering from arthritis. The research has apparently shown that long-term use of these drugs can lead to an increased risk of the taker experiencing heart problems, including heart attack.

 

It is a simple fact that filling one's body with unnatural substances can be dangerous. Over the years, many drugs, probably thousands, have been produced, used for a while and then withdrawn as medium-term side-effects have become apparent. The greatest issue arose with thalidomide almost 50 years ago, but many others have come and gone as well; steroids were once the new 'wonder drug' but their use is now very carefully controlled due to a wide range of negative effects. The real problem is that the testing of new drugs is insufficient to discover more than a handful of short-term side effects, and the longer terms actions only become noticeable once any drug has been in use for many years and. sometimes, decades.

 

Drug companies invest large amounts of money in developing new drugs and want to recoup their investments as quickly as possible; this means that drugs are often brought to the market far too quickly as the companies rush through their testing and have even been known to ignore test results that don't suit their needs. Drugs are rushed out and doctors are urged to prescribe them; patients are assured that they are safe and all is well for a year, or a decade, before alarm bells begin to ring. Then it's panic stations.

 

The problems with ibuprofen and diclofenac have been said to be very minor, but who's to say that this will remain the researchers position or that other researchers may discover further downsides to these drugs ? Many of us are prescribed medicines for common conditions such as hypertension and we take the drugs, often as cocktails of 2 or 3 different ones, every day of our lives; we are told that those over a certain age should all take statins to control our cholesterol levels, but what is really known about the long-term effects of such medication ?

 

Problems such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels can be managed through other means such as changes to diet and levels of activity, but we choose to take drugs and carry on with an unhealthy lifestyle instead. Those with arthritis and other chronic conditions may not have the same choice but are, nonetheless, in the same position, that is, they are prescribed drugs to take every day. Given the regularity with which some of these concoctions are removed from the market for their adverse effects, is it not time that we looked for other ways of treating our diseases ?

 

All this, and I haven't even mentioned the worst of the lot - anti-biotics.

 

 

SO WHAT DO WE CALL 'COLOUREDS' NOW ?

I've just discovered that the use of the word 'coloured' is now considered to be 'racially insensitive', at least in the world of golf.

 

Following on from some stupid spat between Sergio Garcia and Tiger Woods, some official used the word 'coloured' when describing many of Garcia's friends; he's now apologised in the most abject way for using this, apparently, unacceptable word.

 

I truly do wonder what the world is coming to. Calling people 'niggers', 'wogs', 'coons', wops, 'dagoes', 'kaffirs', 'chinks' and so on may well be offensive; such terms were intended to be derogatory and to show the superiority of the speaker, but if we are now to be banned from using simple descriptive terms such as 'black' or 'coloured', what do we say ? There does not seem to be any ban on the use of 'white' and, as far as I know, no one has yet been vilified for using the word 'honky', making it appear that this is another one-sided piece of politically correct nonsense.

 

The odious man who is Tiger Woods has clearly fallen out with Garcia but who, outside of the world of golfing superstars, really cares one jot ? The fact that this breeze in a bucket has made news headlines shows just how stupid how media has become and just how much we are now being dominated by left-wing lunacy.

 

Is Woods 'black', 'coloured' or something else ? Is he, perhaps, 'burnt umber' ? In the words of Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn !"

EUROVISION HORROR STRIKES AGAIN

Last night saw the annual horror of the 'Eurovision Song Contest', about the only major international event still hosted by the BBC. At huge expense, a series of largely talentless performers pranced around and made noises that were presented as 'songs'; most were accompanied by flashing lights and other special effects designed to distract the viewer from the banality of the central performances and highlighting the inadequacies of these.

 

The sheer awfulness of this annual extravaganza is hard to put into words. Most of the entries are indistinguishable from one another and most have no little or no real musical value. Few of the performers have any ability to sing and much of the stage presentation is dreadful. The booming beat behind many of the 'songs' mimics the modern trend for noise rather than quality. Graham Norton's commentary is totally flat, with none of the wit previously shown by Terry Wogan, and the judging is, at best, a lottery and, at worst, fixed.

 

The UK's entry was softer and slower than many but none the better for that. The singer, the sexagenarian Bonnie Tyler, was every bit as bad as the worst of the rest and the dirge deservedly gained very few votes, finishing 19th out of the 26 competing nations. The winning song, from Denmark, was an 'OK' entry but nothing that anyone will actually remember in a week's time; in fact, I doubt that any of the entries will be remembered much beyond tomorrow.

 

I don't know how much the BBC spends on supporting this appalling waste of money but it's time they stopped doing so. This is the type of rubbish which belongs on one of the independent channels - Channel 4 would, perhaps, be most appropriate. There, it could languish until it fades from memory, brought back to mind only by the occasional strains of 'Waterloo', 'All Kinds of Everything', 'Puppet on a String', 'Making Your Mind Up, or 'Boom, Bang-a-bang', a few of the very few entries from the past that are still remembered today.

BBC WASTES OUR MONEY DAY AFTER DAY.

The BBC, well known for its ability to waste licence payers' money, really out-does even its own reputation for waste with its coverage of the snooker world championship.

 

Having an assortment of expert commentators is fine; no one could expect the odd one or two to cover every match over a period of two weeks. In fact, having the mixture of Thorne, Virgo, Taylor and Hendry, plus contributions from Davis, Parrot and Docherty is pretty damn good. What is horribly unnecessary is having a main presenter, Hazel Irvine, plus a goon by the name of Rob Walker.

 

Hazel is a brilliant presenter, as well as being very photogenic, and her place is well deserved; Rob Walker's role as an introducer of the players is totally unnecessary and a complete waste of money. Either Hazel or one of the 'lads' could very easily perform that role and thus save the Beeb the £50,000 that Walker undoubtedly costs them. As well as any other considerations, Walker is a truly annoying individual who prompts me to turn off the sound as soon as he appears on screen.

 

Does the BBC not have any management accountants ? Does it not care about wasting money ? Does it ever think about the effect its presenters have on their audience ? Perhaps it really only worries about appearing to be as lavish as possible given that it does not really have to compete for funding.

 

Whatever the answers, the snooker coverage is a clear example of the way in which this bloated organisation flushes our money down the drain, day after day.

GOVERNMENTS SHOULD LEARN TO DELEGATE PROPERLY.

All modern governments thrive on reorganisations of just about every public service that exists and the current one is no different. Local Government, the NHS, the welfare system, education and so on are all being turned upside down in a supposed search for efficiency, economy, better outcomes etc, etc. Sadly, none of the changes are likely to achieve anything of lasting value and the next lot, whoever they are, will undoubtedly change everything again, all at the cost of us, the taxpayers of the country.

 

One of the great wheezes used by governments as they try to convince us that their latest scheme will actually work, where the failed schemes of their predecessors didn't, is to establish arms-lengths and supposedly autonomous bodies which take over the responsibility for implementing the latest government policies. Of course, these organisations are actually tied hand-and-foot by their political masters, having their every action determined by central dictat.

 

'Local Enterprise Partnerships' (LEPs), whatever they are, recently caught my eye when reading an accountancy magazine. There are, apparently, 39 of these spread around the country and they are a creation of the curent mob in Westminster. They are "intended to help councils and local businesses work together to stimulate growth across an area", or so it says in my magazine. They are supposed to develop plans for submission to the Treasury; the Treasury is then supposed to assess the plans and decide how much of a central pot of cash to award on the basis of the relative 'quality' of the plans. Unsurprisingly, many in the world of local government are unhappy with the idea of money being allocated on such a basis and simply want to be given a 'wodge' based on population numbers.

 

Why we need these LEPS at all is my first question; if they are any good, why should they have to submit their plans to the Treasury  for approval is my second. Aren't local councils and businesses good and professional enough to know what is right for their areas ? Can't they make such decisions for themselves ? What would be wrong with a 'first come, first served' basis of allocation with subsequent penalties for any council or LEP which is shown to have wasted their funds on poor or worthless schemes ? Why does central government need to be so involved in essentially local matters ?

 

Whenever governments talk about 'regionalism' or 'localism' or, in the case of the EU, 'subsidiarity', you can be sure that this is no more than meaningless rhetoric. The power and purse strings remain held firmly at the centre; perhaps, if they learnt to delegate properly, things would be better, but there's faint hope of that ever happening.

DANCING ON THATCHER'S GRAVE IS NOT ON.

Apparently there have been parties in a number of UK cities specifically to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Quite rightly, this behaviour has been criticised and condemned by the current Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and also by former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

 

That anyone should behave thus is disgusting. Sadly, it is also a mark of the ingrained hatred of certain elements of left wing political belief for anyone who has contrary views to their own. George Galloway, that well known fair minded man, has also made remarks which are less than pleasant and well beyond anything that one political figure should ever say of another.

 

No one from the right wing of politics, other than those of very extreme views, would ever be so ungracious as to make nasty, spiteful and derogatory comments about any political rival at such a time. The behaviour of these left wing fanatics should be a lesson to all of those who vote for them; you upset them at your peril.

 

Did anyone from the right make any move to dance on the graves of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan, the 2 men most responsible for the appalling mess that Mrs Thatcher rescued us from ? Certainly not and neither should they have. Unfortunately the political left is very different from the right, being full of hatred and bile. How sad it is that they cannot grow up and behave like decent human beings.

MARGARET THATCHER : GREAT BRITON.

The death of Baroness Thatcher yesterday brings to an end one of the great lives in modern British history.

 

Thatcher was an extraordinary woman who came to power at a most difficult time. The nation was on its knees after Labour and the trades unions, aided to some extent by Ted Heath, had all but destroyed the economy and devastated our society. Margaret Thatcher's government changed much of this, restoring some health to the conomy while ending the stranglehold which the unions had imposed on both industry and the public sector.

 

Today, some still hate and despise what she did. These are almost all supporters of old style nationalised industry and massive public services who found themselves deprived of excessive wages, protected conditions and easy lives. The 'closed shops', outdated practices and unwillingness to change of many industries are what destroyed them, not Margaret Thatcher. Those for whom Thatcher's legacy is all bad and hateful really should take a long hard look at themselves and the lives they have today - little of it would have been possible without her.

 

Not everything that she did was right and some people lost out, but most of what was done was essential and laid the foundations for Britain to become a modern, competitive economy. No one else came forward to lead this revolution, though others clung to her coat tails, and she can truly be credited with being both the architect and engineer of the UK's recovery. She was a great woman, human being, Prime Minister and Briton, and we shall be very lucky to see her like again.

LABYRINTH : MORE CHANNEL 4 NONSENSE.

The labyrinthine and wholly muddled story of the latest Channel 4 offering, 'Labyrinth', seems to be an attempt to meld Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' with Ken Follett's 'Pillars of the Earth'. Whether or not this is the case, the result is so confused as to be neither fish nor fowl; it is rubbish.

 

While the actors in the medieval scenes wear medieval clothing, the women luxuriate in 21st century makeup; lipstick, eye shadow and plucked eyebrows abound, none of which would have seen the light of day during the 13th century. The men behave as if they are 21st century 'lads' with not a thought for the surroundings in which they are supposed to be. The players in the modern era seem to be an odd assortment of naive youngsters and menacing mafia types, interspersed with the occasional 'femme fatale'; the story has no discernible thread to follow or logic.

 

All-in-all, this mini-series is the type of pseudo-historical drama of which television production companies should be ashamed. It is drivel. I have not read, and have no wish to read, the original novel written by Kate Mosse and cannot comment on the accuracy with which the novel has been translated to film; the book may well be much better, though I doubt it. It seems to me that the author has drawn inspiration from other sources and the production company has followed suit. The result is something that has no literary or televisual merit though it will probably gain approval from the unwashed masses who more usually find comfort in 'Coronation Street' or 'Eastenders'.

 

Why-oh-why are we subjected to this tripe?

 

 

CALL THE MIDWIFE !

I frequently find the BBC to be very deficient in a whole variety of ways, but I have to admit that, now and then, they come up trumps.

 

They do have a virtual monopoly on top quality when it comes to scientific documentaries and at least some of their political coverage is pretty good. The problems seem to arise in the areas of soaps and dramas where their performance  is extremely hit or miss - the soaps are universally appalling while the dramas are sometimes terrific and sometimes dreadful.

 

'Ripper Street' is a classic example of utter rubbish, a series which has no discernible historic truth beyond its setting. It is tripe of an almost unbelievable nature designed purely to attract an audience of the illiterate and uneducated masses, those who have no idea whatsoever of the realities of the times but are only too happy to be entertained by a programme which relocates the wild west to east London.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is 'Call the Midwife'. This is a series which is so evocative of past times and so real that it is almost unreal. The casting is superb as are the performances; the storylines, so far, are utterly believable and anyone who experienced those times, the 1950s, or has any feeling for them, can do nothing but be drawn in to the drama and pathos. This series is, without doubt, one of the greatest in the BBC's long history.

 

'Call the Midwife' is brilliant. My one fear is that, if it continues for too long, it will become no more than another drama-soap, a means of attracting an audience of ever decreasing understanding. The storylines will be subverted for the usual BBC left-leaning causes and it will degenerate into the usual tripe. Please, please, please, don't let this happen. The series is far too good for that; it needs no embellishment or sensationalism. When it's run its natural course, let it go, but, with luck, that could be a little while yet.

PISTORIUS : MURDERER OR INNOCENT ?

Try as one might, it seems impossible to escape from the media's fascination with Oscar Pistorius. We are confronted with staged pictures of him appearing in court and looking sad; anyone with a heart would be on his side, wouldn't they ?

 

Perhaps my problem is that I don't have a heart and prefer to try to draw conclusions from facts. One fact in this case is that the South African police have put together a pretty poor argument; another is that the media is firmly on the side of poor, dear Oscar. What is undeniable and still to be determined is what really happened. What is going on at the moment is, after all, only a hearing to decide whether or not Pistorius should be granted bail.

 

The few facts I've been able to garner are these. Pistorius owned, quite legally, a hand gun and lived in a securely guarded and gated estate. According to him, immediately before the incident in question, he was in bed with his girlfriend and he rose on hearing a noise. Thinking he was being burgled, he 'walked' to the bathroom without attaching his prosthetic legs and fired several shots through the locked door of the toilet. He then returned to the bedroom where he discovered that his girlfriend was not in bed and, for the first time, realised that it may have been her in the toilet. In a panic, he went back to the bathroom and broke down the toilet door with an implement of some sort, possibly a cricket bat.

 

Exactly how one doesn't realise that their partner isn't in bed with them is the first question. If Pistorius did believe there was a burglar in the house, wouldn't he have tried to wake the woman and get her to safety before trying to tackle the intruder ? Why would a burglar have been in his bathroom or been locked in his toilet ? Did he not shout any sort of warning to his victim before firing ? If the supposed intruder was locked in the toilet, wouldn't it make sense to have called for help before firing; after all, Pistorius still had the gun and the intruder was contained. How would a burglar have entered the securely guarded property and had there been any other burglaries on the estate ?

 

What we've heard so far is mere window dressing; the real story is yet to come.

VICKY PRYCE : JURY FOUND WANTING.

Vasiliki Courmouzis, otherwise known as Vicky Pryce and the former wife of disgraced Liberal Democratic bigwig, Chris Huhne, has seen her trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice crumble around her. It seems that the jury or, at least some of them, were unable to understand the judge's instructions and the basic principles of how a jury works.

 

Exactly what happened in the jury room will probably never be known, but it's obvious from the list of questions that were passed to the judge that there was a shocking breakdown in the system. For a jury to feel it necessary to ask whether or not matters that were not presented in evidence, and for which there was no evidence, could be taken into account in arriving at their verdict is incredible; for them to have asked whether the defendant's religious beliefs, which also were not presented as evidence, could be considered is unbelievable. That they found it necessary to question the meaning of 'reasonable doubt' shows such an appalling lack of understanding of our legal system that one wonders if they were actually British at all.

 

The truth may be that there was one, perhaps 2, difficult jurors with whom the rest were trying to get to grips. If this is the case, how did these individuals get onto a jury in the first place ? If they were unable to follow the judge's directions or to grasp basic English language, what were they doing there ?

 

However, given that the jury was unable to reach even a majority verdict, one must assume that the problem went far deeper than 1 or 2 awkward jurors. The conclusion one then has to draw is that this was a particularly dreadful bunch of jurors, poorly educated, quite possibly mostly of recent immigrant origin and wholly unsuited to their task. The implication from this for our present system of justice is quite frightening.

 

In recent times, governments have made a few noises about the possible introduction of 'juryless trials' for certain particularly difficult, long or sensitive cases. While this would be a nonsense and wholly contrary to centuries of British jurisprudence, one can now, perhaps, see why they may have had such thoughts. If jurors in a simple case can be quite so stupid, how can they possibly be expected to deal with complex frauds, or to sit through months of detailed evidence in other cases such as those involving matters of national security ?

 

It may be that successive governments have been a little ahead of the rest of us on this particular issue. They, more than anyone else, know just how much our nation has changed in recent years with the vast influx of immigrants, many of whom bring their own culture, customs and language with them while having no desire whatsoever to assimilate ours. Such people are as liable to be called for jury service as anyone else and there must now be large parts of our major cities where there is no one else to be called. The Government also knows, only too well, how general educational standards have collapsed to a point at which huge numbers of younger people have little or no understanding of anything beyond what is needed to achieve the most basic of exam passes, allied with large dollops of left-wing training in subjects dressed up with fancy names, such as 'sociology' or 'PSE'.

 

Should I be unfortunate enough to be put on trial, I would expect to be tried by a 'jury of my peers' and I would expect this to mean people such as myself, not a ragbag of socialist leaning, semi-literates with no understanding of the British way of life or legal system. Ms Pryce may count herself lucky that the jury in her case couldn't reach a verdict - on another day they may well have had her burned at the stake.

"RIPPER STREET" : A BBC PIECE OF NONSENSE.

How is it that the BBC can produce, on the one hand the quite outstanding 'Call the Midwife' and yet follow it with the quite dreadful 'Ripper Street' ?

 

'Call the Midwife' is so real as to be almost creepy; it shows some of the true horror of post-war life in a deprived area of London and is beautifully acted by a quality cast.

 

'Ripper Street' is so unreal as to be risible. It shows English police running around with a shady American, gun-toting, ex-Pinkerton detective who has a penchant for prostitutes. In today's episode this character engages in a gunfight on a London street, in front of an assembled crowd, which ends with him walking up to within a couple of feet of his opponent before shooting him in the head. The implausibility of this storyline seems to have been ignored by the programme makers, possibly because they think that very few of their audience will have any knowledge of how life was really lived at that time, the late 1880s.

 

In the US, it has long been the case that programmes and films have been produced which fly in the face of reality and history; films such as the 'Die Hard' series take implausibility to the very limit in pursuit of anything that will hold the attention of an increasingly puerile and simplistc audience. They think nothing of re-writing history and lauding the shocking behaviour of those who committed a genocide against the indigenous population of their land. The myth of the heroic gunfighting US marshall, à al Wyatt Earp, is all-embracing; the fact that such people were little more than terrorists and murderous is brushed under the carpet.

 

Such figures did not exist in the London of the 1880s; why the BBC finds it necessary to invent them is a mystery. This is not dssimilar to their ridiculous, though apparently successful amongst the unwashed masses, approach to the re-invention of Sherlock Holmes. We now seem to have entered a world in which historic costumes and sets are simply a means of providing an environment in which modern day fantasy, and rehashed storylines, can be acted out in a variety of different settings, conning the gullible public into believing they are seeing something new, revealing and wonderful.

 

If the public really are that gullible, what does it say about our vaunted education system ? "Not a lot", is the only possible answer.

TOYNBEE : ADVOCATE OF GAY GOBBLYDEGOOK.

Listening to the likes of Polly Toynbee is almost always a trial; hearing her utterly illogical support for the lunacy of 'Gay Marriage' is also a lesson in Orwellian gobblydegook.

 

On today's 'Daily Politics' the ultra left winger was, yet again, the 'guest of the day', being asked to pontificate on all manner of subjects of which she probably has no real understanding. Given that the House of Commons are due to vote later on the 'Gay Marriage' issue, this was a subject that was discussed and on which Toynbee gave her expert opinion : "most of the people aren't bothered by the issue, most actually support the proposal and they're all really confused as to why politicians are making such a fuss about it".

 

This is, of course, the typical view expressed by socialists when trying to curtail proper debate on any issue. The nebulous reference to 'most people' belies the true facts - there is a relatively small bias in favour of 'Gay Marriage' according to certain opinion polls, but we all know how wrong such polls can be. Certain sections of society, notably older people and many who hold religious beliefs, are quite strongly opposed to the plan. Toynbee's sweeping dismissal of such people is, again, typical of left wingers who simply want to impose their 'forward thinking' views on everyone else.

 

If the subject under discussion had been membership of the European Union or restoration of the death penalty, I'm pretty sure that Toynbee would have dismissed the results of opinion polls as irrelevant; she would have claimed that the people simply didn't understand the issues and that it was 'right' for her contrary views to prevail. Such is the way that left wing politics works.

 

'Gay Marriage' is an oxymoron. It is also of so little importance that one has to wonder why the Government, or more specifically David Cameroon, is insisting on wasting so much time on it when the country is faced with an ever-worsening financial crisis. One might, perhaps, come to the conclusion that while we're all arguing about the rights and wrongs of 2 men, 2 women or a mule and donkey getting married, we're not paying much attention to the other, and much greater, problems that surround us. Such is all politics.