Wednesday 31 December 2014

STILL OPEN ALL HOURS NEEDS TO CLOSE.

Once upon a time, there was a brilliant television series called "Open All Hours". It starred the great Ronnie Barker, ably supported by David Jason and numerous other fine performers.

Sadly, Ronnie Barker is no longer with us but the BBC, in its infinite wisdom and using licence payers' hard earned money. has decided to resurrect the programme under the title "Still Open All Hours". David Jason is still present, taking the place of Arkwright, the shopkeeper previously played by Barker, but who has now died. Jason's character, Granville, is supported by his son, Leroy, and a mixed bag of others, some of whom were in the originals and some of whom are newcomers. Mostly, the oldies now seem too old and largely irrelevant while the newcomers simply appear to be have little to offer.

The 2 programmes to date, a special broadcast at Christmas 2013 and the first of a new series shown on Boxing Day, have been pretty awful. Shockingly poor scripts, rehashed story-lines, and a lot of very uncomfortable looking actors. This is a truly disappointing offering, populated by disjointed, episodic, telegraphed and mostly puerile 'jokes'; the Boxing Day programme contained at least 2 throwbacks to the original series, with Granville up a ladder and him wearing a money belt - neither being remotely funny nor anything as well scripted or acted as the Ronnie Barker originals.

The original was an example of great television comedy, brilliantly written and performed. This revisiting of an old favourite simply doesn't work on any level and why David Jason agreed to do it has to be one of the mysteries of the age, along with why the BBC has paid good money for it. I certainly won't be wasting any more of my time watching it.

Sunday 2 November 2014

ARSE-HOLES

Many years ago, I read a book called "Farnham's Freehold'. It was a science fiction work by one of the great, though unknown of outside of SF circles, SF authors Robert Heinlein.


In this book, the author's 'heroes' suffer a variety of adventures including one in which they visit a world where the pinnacle of research is achieved by reading, digesting and analysing the works of others; the 'researcher' then decides which of the perused works, or which combination of their conclusions, gives the most logical and sensible answers to the problem being investigated. One fundamental factor is that the 'researcher' never gets their own hands dirty; they simply review the work of others.


That this is a horribly flawed approach to research is obvious to most. Sadly, it is not obvious to many of today's generation, particularly those who profess an interest in family history research. For many of this benighted generation 'research' means little more than trawling the internet, finding anything that vaguely fits in with what they would like to believe, and then asking questions of any contacts they can make. The result is a mish-mash of so-called 'family trees' that are a mixture of truth, half-truth, possibility and pure fantasy. These people call themselves researchers but are, in fact, simple plagiarists and fools, looking for simple answers to complex problems. The idea of conducting genuine research is far beyond them.


I've recently had the misfortune to be contacted by one such 'researcher' who has sent a succession of illiterate and vague questions, having found my on-line family tree. The tree is free and available for anyone to view, but this 'researcher' needs me to explain it all, and my position in it, to him. He's never said 'please' or 'thank you' for the responses I've given him already and simply asks for 'more', Oliver Twist style but without the necessity.


While researching one's family background is a wonderful pastime and can be extremely rewarding, it has to be done with proper understanding and genuine effort. Simply picking names from the internet is not enough, it's not even research; it's a bit of nonsense.


What is wrong with so many people that they are unable to understand this, not just as it relates to family history but as it relates to real life ?


Wednesday 29 October 2014

LET'S PAY CARE WORKERS PROPERLY.

Today's news carries a typical 'shock-horror' story about care workers. Following on from revelations, not that most people didn't already know, that the care provided in residential homes is frequently abysmal, we're now being told about the travails of home care workers. It seems that many of these are not paid for much of their time, specifically the time spent in travelling between appointments.



I already knew this as a close friend is employed in this sphere and, although often working from 6 in the morning until 10 at night, is only paid for the hours actually spent in clients homes. Admittedly, her hourly rate is above the minimum wage, though not by much, and, when she's driving, there's a 25p per mile mileage rate, but the overall effect is to bring her well under the statutory minimum rate of pay considering the real number of hours for which she is, effectively, 'at work'.



To make matters worse, care workers are expected to have a range of skills and have to undertake a certain amount of training before they can be 'let loose' on clients. Many have relevant National Vocational Qualifications and yet they are still paid no more, often less, than a shop worker or street cleaner. When things go wrong, they are pilloried.



Peripatetic workers in the NHS or Local Government are automatically paid a proper rate for their work, including being paid 'travel time' AND for their travel costs, be it a simple re-imbursement of fares or a mileage rate; care workers employed by private companies but providing services for local authority funded clients are not. That this is wrong is blatantly obvious but it's just a symptom of the appalling mess in which are public services are now mired. Providing care at home is seen as being preferable to moving people into residential accommodation and, because of the way in which such care is then provided, it is also a cheaper option. This makes it a real 'Win-Win' for local councils; that the care workers are, themselves, treated appallingly in terms of working hours and pay is something which the councils can happily ignore, while they make savings.



Many care workers have 'zero hours' contracts and can be called on, or not, at the whim of their employers; many find it just as easy to go sick at short notice as to work, as the loss of pay is so minimal. How have we come to this, a situation in which people who have been trained to provide essential care and are dedicated to their roles are treated and paid so poorly ? Is it not time that we recognized that carers are not second class workers and paid them appropriately for what is often a most stressful job that provides a vital service and huge relief to many people ?

Some hope.















Monday 27 October 2014

38 DEGREES

Some time ago, I signed a petition being run by '38 Degrees', though I can no longer remember what it was about. At the time, it seemed like a good idea and an opportunity to highlight an issue which was of importance but which our political masters seemed more than happy to ignore. Ever since, I've received regular messages from the organisation asking me to sign further petitions and also to contribute to their funds.

While a few of the petitions appear worthwhile, many or even most, are leftie rubbish or in aid of people with very specific axes to grind. I now rarely sign anything and the organisation must be in danger of giving itself a poor reputation as a supporter of every crackpot idea that comes up.

Some on called David Babb started this organisation, or so I understand, and one assumes that he now makes a very nice living out of it. Good for him, but what about all the poor fools who no doubt keep sending him their hard earned money ? I think I might start a petition aimed at asking Mr Babb to give them something back.

ADVERTS ON THE BEEB.

The jolly old BBC is, theoretically at least, a non-commercial broadcaster. It can, of course, sell its programmes but it can't broadcast advertisements. HA, HA, HA !!

Every week, a huge chunk of its output is dedicated to advertising. Radio programmes such as 'Start the Week', 'Mid-Week' and 'Week Ending' do nothing but advertise and so do many others on both radio and television. Guests appear for interview and almost invariably they are publicising their latest book, film, TV programme, song, album, tour, art show, charity or cause. These people usually appear on several programmes over a few days, doing the rounds to ensure maximum coverage. On some days, one can hear them on the 'Today' programme on the radio and, a few minutes later, see them on 'Breakfast' on BBC 1.

It is blatant advertising and is a clear contravention of the BBC's charter and yet no one seems to notice or bother to do anything about it. Presumably the agents of the advertisers simply hawk their charges around the various channels and, not forgetting that the subjects of the associated publicity are often media types themselves, the Beeb's programme makers welcome them with open arms.

Frankly, the whole nonsense makes me want to vomit. More often than not, whatever is being promoted is rubbish or, at least, of little interest to most listeners but we have to put up with it anyway. Some unknown author or songster prattles on about their childhood and how it made them the person they are and how it's all reflected in their books, plays or songs - what a load of tripe.

Isn't it about time that the government accepted reality, abolished the licence fee and let the BBC compete properly in the market without the public being forced to pay for this type of drivel and covert advertising ?

Monday 20 October 2014

LYNDA BELLINGHAM.

The news of the death of Lynda Bellingham is sad indeed. Although it was known that she had terminal cancer of the bowel, she had hoped to be able to celebrate one last Christmas with her family. Sadly, it was not to be.

As an actress in numerous television shows as well as the long-running series of 'OXO' advertisements, Bellingham always performed creditably and was usually a friendly and welcome face on our screens. She will obviously be missed by her family, friends and colleagues in the world of entertainment, but she will also be missed by the very many who so enjoyed her appearances on television.

Rest in Peace, Lynda. 


Saturday 11 October 2014

PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE WRONG YET AGAIN.

Under the Will of Alfred Nobel, 5 prizes were to be awarded annually, one of which was for Peace. This prize, he wrote, should be awarded to the person who, in the preceding year, had

"done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Over the years, the Prize has been awarded to a variety of people and organisations, not all of whom have made obvious such contributions. To my mind, this year's award follows this trend in recognising someone who's done nothing tangible in the pursuit of any of the stated objectives.

The Pakistani schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, is the youngest person ever to be given a Nobel Prize. The award, which she shares with an Indian 'child rights' campaigner', has been given for their "struggle against the suppression of children and young people".

What has this to do with 'fraternity between nations', the 'abolition or reduction of standing armies' or the 'holding or promotion of peace conferences' ? If anything, the activities of the 2 recipients have created conflict within their respective religious groups (she is Muslim, he a Hindu) and have done nothing to promote peaceful co-existence. Yes, they may well be right in their campaigning and their objectives may well be laudable, but peace is not any part of their aims. They are actually demanding major change in entrenched societies, something which is never well received and something which often leads to misery and bloodshed.

Both Nobel recipients may well be due recognition and awards, but the Nobel Peace Prize is the wrong one.

Thursday 2 October 2014

CAMERON KNOCKS OUT MILIBAND BUT .............. .


David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference was, unlike Ed Miliband's effort at the Labour get together, a tour-de-force. While Miliband droned on for ages and yet forgot to mention both the economy and immigration, Cameron spoke with vigour and passion covering most the necessary ground in fine style. He not only beat his main Prime Ministerial opponent, he slaughtered him.

I don't like either of these men, both coming from wealthy and privileged backgrounds and both more than happy to tell the rest of us to live our lives but one has to be fair and pragmatic in assessing their relative abilities and merits. Yesterday, Cameron looked and sounded like a man with a purpose, a man who was genuinely passionate about his country and who really wants to put things back on an even keel. Conversely, Miliband, talking last week, sounded like a whining schoolboy desperate for someone, anyone, to listen to him and tell him what a good chap he was.

Miliband wants to be Prime Minister and, frighteningly, could even be after next May's election. Cameron played on this but, to my mind, he made one major blunder by repeating his claim that 'a vote for UKIP would be a vote for Labour'.

In this free and democratic nation of ours, everyone is free to vote for the party of their choice, be it Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or any other legally recognised body. For Cameron to attempt to scare voters into shying away from UKIP by effectively threatening them with Miliband does him no credit. If his own party's policies and actions are good enough, they will win the election; if they're not, then voters will go elsewhere and Labour may well get back in. By his claims of 'vote UKIP, get Labour', Cameron is saying to his supporters that, whatever his party's , policies and whatever its record, they have to continue to vote for it out of fear of the alternative.

This is no way to win an election or to run a government. I will vote for UKIP because it's the least entrenched of the, now, 'Big 4'. If that means Miliband in Downing Street, so be it; in reality that won't be much different to what we've had for the last 5 years. It might also presage the rise of a real Conservative Party once again, rather than the wishy-washy and mildly socialist bunch that we currently have.

ALICE GROSS : LESSONS TO LEARN.

The murder of young Alice Gross is a shocking thing though, after being missing for over a month, it must have been the expected outcome. However, what I find even more shocking is that the 'prime suspect', a man who has, himself, gone missing, is an immigrant with a previous conviction for murder.

Whether or not he committed this crime, why on earth was he allowed into the UK in the first place ? It's not as though his offence was a minor bit of speeding or other car crime and he hadn't been done for being drunk and disorderly; he had murdered his wife by beating and stabbing her and then buried the body in a shallow grave. Convicted of this brutal crime, he served 7 years in prison in his native Latvia before being released on licence and coming to the UK in about 2007; it seems that no one here bothered to check his past. It's also been suggested that he was arrested in 2009 for drugging and molesting another 14 year old girl, though this case were eventually dropped.

This is looking like another example of the hopelessness of our border controls and immigration service, this time having devastating consequences. Will those in charge never learn ?

Wednesday 27 August 2014

ROTHERHAM ABUSE SIGNALS YET MORE FAILURE.

Year after year, we hear stories of the abuse of children, whether it be within families or on a more widespread and organised basis. Every year we are also told, by those in authority, that they didn't know, they did what they could, they will learn lessons, it won't happen again and so on. Every year, it happens again.

Today we've heard of the organised and long term abuse of children in the town of Rotherham. It seems that some 1,400 children are known to have been abused over the period from 1997 to 2013; once again, we've heard the same old platitudes from the 'experts' and others in authority. The local Police and Crime Commissioner, who was the local councillor with specific responsibility for children's services between 2005 and 2010, has refused calls for him to resign from his current post, saying that, in effect, he has no responsibility and that fault lies only with others who failed to tell him what was happening.

In the wake of the revelations about Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and others, this is yet another tale of the failures of social services, the police and local councils to deal with the most shocking of offences. In this case, it seems that the police ignored complaints from victims while council officials covered things up, more fearful for their jobs than for the abused. It also seems that much of the abuse was carried out by organised gangs of men of Pakistani origin and that a fear of being labelled as 'racist' was a prime concern for those in authority who did nothing.

It is surely a dreadful indictment of our country that we have sunk to such a level. No one dares move for fear of being accused of being 'racist', 'sexist', homophobic, etc., etc. We have become so determined to prize the mythical 'equality' above all that we shy away from treating everyone the same; in fact, we go out of our way to make special exceptions for those of supposed 'minority' or 'disadvantaged' groups and allow them to, literally, get away with murder.

I don't like what is happening to my country and I especially don't like the vast influx of foreigners who don't share my language or culture, but I am not a racist. I also don't much like the actions of the more extrovert members of the homosexual 'community', but that does not make me homophobic. Reporting criminal acts by foreigners, homosexuals or women doesn't make me guilty of an '-ism' or a phobia either, and yet senior figures in Rotherham and elsewhere have been so afraid that they did nothing in the face of the blatant and rampant abuse of children.

When will this sorry little country of ours come to its senses ?

Monday 11 August 2014

MEN'S MAGS, CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL.

Not very long ago, the do-gooders who rule our society succeeded in having 'men's magazines' removed from display in most newsagents. It was claimed that such magazines were demeaning to women and damaging to children, while pandering to the baser instincts of men. Whether or not such claims were justified does not matter, those who seek to control our lives won the day.

The next target of these control freaks was cigarettes. After much huffing and puffing, they succeeded in having cigarettes banned from pubs and clubs, public venues, offices, and so on, regardless of whether the people frequenting such places cared one way or the other. They managed to have lurid and ghoulish images daubed on cigarette packets and eventually had them locked away behind shutters in our shops. The only thing they haven't achieved is an out and out ban on the sale of tobacco products which would, of course, have far too great an effect on the government's income to ever be allowed, however much damage they cause.

I fully expected the attack on smoking to be followed by a similar attack on alcohol and, lo and behold, today it's started. A group of MPs has issued a report demanding that the government takes action on alcohol misuse. It wants warnings on bottles and a reduction in the limit for drivers, among its 10 so-called 'recommendations'. There is no room for personal freedom and responsibility in such demands, it is all about 'society's needs' and these people have set themselves up as the ones who know exactly what it is that society needs.

How long will it be before bottles of alcohol are required to have plain packaging or, worse still, the same type of imagery as is required for cigarettes ? How long before alcoholic offerings have to be hidden from view ? How long before we have new rules regarding age limits for the consumption of alcohol or where it can be consumed ? And what will be the next target of our controlling, do-gooding masters ?

If we are to be free, we must reject this nonsense and demand that our politicians get back to governing the country, and not our lives. If we do not, we may as well forget about democracy and personal freedom and just accept the dictatorship which those in power would rather enjoy.

Friday 8 August 2014

KADCYLA : TOO COSTLY BY HALF.

Some people seem to think that the NHS is nothing but a bottomless pit which has to spend whatever is asked on whatever they want.

The drug 'giant' Roche' has recently developed a new product which they've named 'Kadcyla'. It is claimed that this drug can extend the lives of some breast cancer sufferers by an average of just under 6 months at a cost of £90,000 per patient; unsurprisingly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has refused to recommend that the NHS makes this drug available except in specific instances. Equally unsurprisingly, the breast cancer lobby is not happy.

Breast cancer is always a very emotive subject and any refusal to treat patients with the latest wonder drug is always publicised as an assault upon 'women's rights' or some such nonsense. Regardless of the cost, lobby groups demand that everything possible has to be done to extend the lives of sufferers by a year, a few months, weeks or even days. They pay no attention to the myriad of other demands placed on the NHS and think only of what they want; they give no thought as to the source of the NHS's funds but simply demand that whatever they want must be provided.

Such issues occur regularly but nearly always in relation to women's health; it is rare if not unheard of for anyone to make vociferous demands in respect of men. Why is this ? Why is it that women's health is treated as being such a 'high-profile' matter while men's is largely ignored, other than for an occasional mention of prostate cancer, a killer for which I've yet to hear of any ludicrously expensive drugs being developed ?

To demand that the NHS should spend close to £100,000 per patient in order to provide less than 6 months of life, the quality of which may be debatable, is madness. The people who are making such demands need to wake up to the realities of the world and understand that just wanting something doesn't mean they can have it. Or are they really so infantile in their outlook that they can't even see this simple piece of common sense ?

Sunday 13 July 2014

LINEKER'S APPEAL MISSES THE TARGET.

As with most things these days, governments seem to have no idea as to what should be prioritised and what put on the 'back-burner'.

Over the last couple of weeks, the BBC and, no doubt, other media outlets, have been attempting to pick the pockets of viewers, listeners and readers with appeals aimed at helping the poor children of Brazil. The latest appeal that I've heard had former footballer Gary Lineker begging for money on Radio 4, using his most earnest tones of voice. While many may be conned into sending money to the 'ABC Trust' appeal, I find it unbelievably offensive.

'Action for Brazil's Children' has been around since 1998 and apparently tries to help the hordes of children who spend their lives as homeless drug addicts and thieves on the streets of Brazil's cities, while being run from offices in Bury St Edmund's, Suffolk. The organisation operates as a UK charity, therefore benefiting from a range of tax benefits, and has several high profile, and wealthy, patrons; it's founder is American born Jimena Paratcha who appears to have found a vocation to help children throughout Latin America, though she is now living in Sussex and concentrating on Brazilian children.

While this appeal is making the most of Brazil's recent place in our headlines, everyone seems to be ignoring the simple fact that the Brazilian government has spent many, many millions on creating the infrastructure needed for the staging of the FIFA World Cup and will spend a vast amount more, at least a few billions, on its preparations for the 2016 Olympic Games. Given that Brazil has a manifestly corrupt society and huge numbers of poor and homeless children, wouldn't all of this money be better spent on dealing with the corruption and providing homes, schools and education for them rather than on grandiose schemes which are principally about the glorification of the nation's political leaders ?

The 'ABC Trust' seems to have laudable aims but, as with all charities, one tends to wonder how much of the money raised goes on administration, how much falls victim to corruption and how much eventually finds its way to the cause for which it was raised. Equally, one wonders why the Brazilian government prefers to spend the equivalent of billions of dollars on sporting events than on solving its societal problems and helping its many people who live in abject poverty.

The simple question that I ask myself is "Is it my responsibility to help ?" The simple answer, in this case, is an emphatic "No". While the Brazilian government does nothing to end the corruption in its society and  wastes billions on frippery, I won't give a penny and neither should anyone else.

Tuesday 1 July 2014

ROLF HARRIS GUILTY; WHO'S NEXT ?

Following on from Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford, we now have Rolf Harris convicted of an assortment of sexual offences against young people. Additionally, there have been others who've been acquitted for lack of adequate evidence, the on-going saga of 'Gary Glitter' and the allegations against former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. Who will be next ?

There can be no doubt that some people in positions of power and influence have abused those positions in particularly nasty ways. That those brought to account in recent times have all been connected with very public and high profile jobs and yet were able to carry on their activities unchallenged for many years is a shocking indictment of the way in which our society has operated. People knew or, at the very least, suspected that things were 'not quite right' but did nothing. These people should also be in the dock, answering for their lack of action.

One suspects that more culprits will emerge as time goes by and the media will indulge in more hand wringing. That it is the media which was probably most culpable in failing to identify the activities of these perverted individuals over a period of many years seems to be ignored; indeed, the perpetrators so far brought to book appear to have been almost exclusively employed in aspects of the media. The facts suggest that the media is a major part of the problem, populated as it is by people with large egos, great influence and plenty of opportunity. 

Who will save us and our children from the all-encompassing and disgusting attentions of the media and its revolting inhabitants ? 

Sunday 8 June 2014

UKIP HAVE THE REST RUNNING SCARED.

The recent election results now have everyone looking around for reasons why no one should vote for UKIP ever again, why their success is transitory, and why they will be unable to make any progress at next year's General Election. The very fact of the efforts in this direction shows just how scared the other parties are.

UKIP did not win the Newark by-election but then, realistically, they never could. What they did was to get 26% of the vote and reduce the Conservative majority by some 10,000; that's no small beer. The Labour vote declined and the Liberals were all but wiped out, having their worst by-election result since WW2. Of course, by-elections are not General Elections, but the message is clear; the people have had enough of the same old party political and largely meaningless rhetoric.

The truly frightening thing is that the political hierarchy simply has not understood the message. Across Europe, the people have expressed dissatisfaction and yet the politicians have largely continued to ignore them and carried on down the same old path, towards an 'ever closer union'. The leading candidate for the top job in the EU is a man whose best days are well behind him and is a committed federalist, Jean Claude Juncker; no one seems to be listening.

David Cameron continues to spout the twaddle about renegotiation and his supporters talk about the certainty of success; others, including the US President, tell us that leaving the EU would be at least problematic but might well spell disaster. Gloom and Doom is the message should we dare to leave this beleaguered organisation.

Numbers are thrown around. Lost jobs in their millions, lost trade in the billions; none of it substantiated and none of it real. The truth is that the EU is a vast and unnecessary bureaucracy and leaving it would be a huge relief for our country. Yes, there would be some issues to resolve but mostly it would be a far bigger problem for the rest of Europe than for the UK. We remain one of the biggest economies in the world and a major financial centre; leaving the EU would do little to change either of these while relieving us of a vast array of intrusive and controlling legislation.

Who needs straight cucumbers, open borders or economic and foreign policies determined by countries with which we have nothing in common ? It's simple - we don't. Let's get out while we still can, notwithstanding the interference of a socialist US President who has no interest but that of his own country in mind.

Monday 19 May 2014

NIGEL FARAGE : MAN OF THE PEOPLE

You always know when politicians feel threatened because that's the only time they show any real passion about anything.


In the last few weeks, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, plus an assortment of their lieutenants, have come out swinging at their nemesis, Nigel Farage. The UKIP leader really has got under their skins and has finally been seen as a genuine threat to the cosy world which the three big parties have had to themselves for many years. In recent weeks, every slight failing of UKIP, Farage or any of their members has been pounced upon in order to show what a nasty lot they really are; every opportunity has been taken to denigrate them in every possible way. In fact, it's been quite interesting to see how the campaigns of the 'Big 3' have been focussed much more on decrying UKIP than in putting forward much in the way of meaningful and coherent policies of their own.



Thus far, Farage and his party have emerged relatively unscathed from the attacks against them, probably because the general public are only too well aware that much of the anti-UKIP rhetoric is simple 'politicking'. Last Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' carried a report which, perhaps, summed up the real problem for the main parties and perhaps explains why they are so terrified of UKIP. According to it, Gillian Duffy, the woman branded a bigot by Gordon Brown, has said that Labour needs a straight-talking leader who is comfortable drinking a pint to reconnect with working class voters. She apparently went on to add that Ed Miliband is a 'privileged' career politician who lacks the authenticity of Nigel Farage.



Mrs Duffy is not the type of voter anyone would expect to come out with a good word about Mr Farage, but she did, and with a swipe at Miliband along the way. It's also undoubtedly true that her words are equally applicable to Cameron and Clegg, both of whom are from privileged backgrounds and neither of whom has ever had a real job in their lives; neither has any real connection to the people  they expect to vote for them. The one man who seems 'real' in the political dogfight of the day is Nigel Farage.
 
Frankly, Mrs Duffy has hit the nail on the head.

Sunday 18 May 2014

SCUDAMORE IS SEXIST. SO WHAT ?

The current furore over comments made by the boss of football's Premier League, Richard Scudamore, demonstrates just how far down the road of lunacy our society has now travelled.

Since time immemorial, men have made 'sexist' remarks about women and, no doubt, women have made equally 'sexist' remarks about men. Indeed, in my own experience, the conversation of women in this regard is every bit as coarse as that of men, often much more so. For some reason, no one seems to be much bothered if a woman abuses men, but no man dare open his mouth if it is to say anything which some woman may find offensive.

What this amounts to is a denial of every man's right to free speech while, for the time being, granting women total immunity to criticism. It is the emasculation of the male of the species on the altar of 'women's lib'. We now have a society in which men cannot even express thoughts or opinions without the fear of retribution being visited upon us. It will not be long before women find themselves subjected to the same oversight.

It is the beginnings of Orwell's terrifying prophecy. It is time both men and women fought back, before it is too late.

Friday 2 May 2014

CLARKSON SAYS 'NIGGER' !

Once again, Jeremy Clarkson has managed to get a bit of publicity for himself. This time, he's been caught using a 'naughty word', last time it was for making derogatory remarks about Mexicans.

Clarkson is the type of self-serving, arrogant 'celebrity' that I despise. He appears to have no talent other than for being crude and childish; his imbecilic antics on 'Top Gear', allied to those of his equally stupid co-presenters, stopped me watching the programme many years ago. That he finds it necessary to court attention by the occasional 'slip of the tongue' shows just how desperate this pathetic man is for said attention.

All that said, that the media is in an uproar because he supposedly uttered the word 'nigger' is ridiculous. Our television, radio and films are littered with foul language every day and words that must cause, at the very least, a degree of discomfort to many and serious offence to some, are commonplace. Indeed, it often seems that the producers of programmes of all sorts go out of their way to encourage such profanity. 'Fuck' is heard all of the time; 'bastard', 'bugger', 'shit' and many others, words that were considered unacceptable or the language of the gutter when I was younger, are so common as to be almost part of the vernacular. Even the appalling 'cunt' is heard with greater frequency.

Amidst all of this, the word 'nigger' has become not just frowned upon but considered to be the most unacceptable of all words - why ? It is a word which has a specific meaning in that it refers to a colour - 'nigger brown'. In the film 'The Dambusters' the main character, Guy Gibson VC, is accurately portrayed as having a black dog which he named nigger - in recent showings of the film the dog's name has been blanked out, so politically correct have become those in charge of such things. That their action is pathetically stupid seems to escape them.

'Nigger' is not a particularly nice word, but it is just that, a word. 'Frog', Eyetie', 'Hun',' Spick', 'Polack', 'Honky', 'Yank', 'Yid', 'Paki', 'Chink', 'Jap', 'Kaffir', and many, many more are also just words that have been used in different parts of the world to refer to people from somewhere else, generally in derogatory ways. That we are now strongly discouraged from using these, while the vast array of disgusting profanities are everyday speech, is idiotic.

When I was child there was a simple saying : 'Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me'. It's high time that our media, and the overly sensitive souls who rule us, grow up and accept that language is nothing to fear.

Wednesday 9 April 2014

OSCAR PISTORIUS A SNIFFLING CRY-BABY ?

Listening to the sniffles of Oscar Pistorius is pretty sick-making.

This man is no shrinking violet and is, in fact, a hard-nosed competitor who took on the Olympic establishment in order to gain a place in the proper games at London 2012. Anyone who does that is unlikely to be a cry-baby.

Whatever the truth about the events of last year at his home in Pretoria, we've already heard that he had a liking for guns and a short fuse. This is a dangerous combination and one that led directly to the death of Reeva Steenkamp.

Whether he's guilty of murder or not, we have yet to discover, but his whiney and tearful displays in court certainly don't amount to evidence, they are just whiney and tearful displays and he should pack it in.

Tuesday 8 April 2014

PEACHES GELDOF : WHO ?

Who on earth was Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof ?

Was she a great politician ? Was she a great artist or musician ? Was she perhaps, a great scientist ?

No, she was none of these things. She was a highly privileged, pampered and stupid child, born into a dysfunctional family in the torrid world of show business. She was surrounded by the most ridiculous media attention almost from birth and, in the end, it killed her. Married at 19, separated before she was 20 and divorced at 22, she married again at 23. Two children with more silly names followed. A typical 'career' in modelling and other areas of popular culture contributed nothing to society but undoubtedly earned her a substantial income. 

A professed Scientologist according to a 2009 interview and possibly a follower of Judaism by 2013, her life was a mess.

The worlds of media and show business may miss her today but, sadly, her death will be of no importance to anyone but her family in no time at all. What a waste of a life.

Sunday 2 February 2014

MORRISON'S : A 'SUPER' STORE NO MORE.

A few weeks ago, the supermarket chain 'Morrison's' published disappointing trading results although some of its rivals are still doing quite well. This makes me think that Morrison's is not getting its trading approach quite right.

I used to use a Morrison's store little more than half-a-mile from my front door, but no more. It used to be a 'Safeway', when it was a bit down market, and then Morrison's took over, extended and improved it. What had been a rather poor store became a good one. Sadly, that was a few years ago and it's clear that Morrison's has now lost its way.

I stopped using the store with any regularity a couple of years ago for several reasons. The entrance was often filled with people either selling double glazing, energy products or car recovery memberships, or by others shaking collecting tins under the noses of customers. The 'tills' were frequently accompanied by gaggles of schoolchildren offering to pack your shopping but, in reality, wanting a contribution to some school outing or other. Added to the annoyance of finding store gangways blocked by unattended refill trolleys on a regular basis, I gave up and moved elsewhere. The level of annoyance was simply too great to put up with.

Yesterday, I returned to the store to see if anything had changed, only to find that things had become worse. Even before getting into the store, I had a problem locating a small trolley as none had found their way back to the main trolley park at the entrance; having to scour the car park for a trolley did not make me happy.

Once inside, it was business as usual, although there were no salesmen or beggars, thank god. The aisles were still populated by unattended refill trolleys and additional fixed display stands had been added in positions strategically selected, or so it seemed, to cause maximum obstruction to customers. While the fruit and veg section had been turned round and 'modernised', the actual offerings were terrible; mouldy (yes, actually mouldy) lemons of a size to strain the eyes, shrivelled loose mandarins (or clementines or whatever; I can never tell the difference), even smaller that the lemons and clearly passed their 'sell by date'. I could have had a pre-packed dozen or more mandarins for £2, but I didn't want that many, and the loose peppers were far smaller than those on offer in other stores, while being more expensive; there was no loose broccoli, only pre-packed pieces at a set price and the regular celery was mixed up with the more expensive organic variety. There's a good catch for the unwary shopper.

To be fair, the staff have always been helpful, when asked, and the fish counter is excellent, but these small plus points can hardly compensate for the general service, or lack thereof. Apart from the occasional visit for fish, I won't be going back, even though the alternatives are further away.

ps. An orange bought on Saturday, one of four, is already going rotten by Monday !

Sunday 26 January 2014

E-CIGARETTES TO BE RESTRICTED.

That Governments really are useless is proved by today's news that our hopeless mob are planning an attack on both real cigarettes and their electronic cousins.

On the one hand, it's planned to make it illegal for an adult to buy cigarettes for anyone under the age of 18; at present, it's only illegal for cigarettes to be sold directly to under 18s, though it's not actually illegal for under 18s to smoke. That legislation in such an area would inevitably be pointless and largely unenforceable seems to escape the imbeciles who plan to implement it. One has to assume that they know nothing whatsoever about teenagers or their parents and friends and have a very rose-tinted view life outside of their own celestial sphere. One also has to wonder how they expect such legislation to be enforced in what is a largely private area of life; will teenagers who are seen smoking be rounded up and questioned ? Will they be made to reveal the sources of their cigarettes ? If so, this will be the beginning of the end for civil freedom in this country, with children being forced to inform on their parents and friends in a manner reminiscent of the days of communist Russia.

On the other hand, teenagers who smoke are to be denied access to the e-cigarettes which may be their salvation, on the spurious grounds that 'experts' are unable to determine whether or not these devices may be harmful. What a load of garbage ! Quite clearly, the cigarette industry and government have got together to try to control a product which threatens the income of both of them, one through reduced sales of tobacco products and the other through a loss of tax revenues. It cannot possibly be denied that e-cigarettes are less harmful than the real thing and, while it may not be desirable that teenagers smoke, it must be better that those who have taken to the evil weed are weaned off of it by any means possible. There really can be no justification for banning, or even restricting, the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone unless cigarettes themselves are also to be banned.

Will our political masters never stop interfering in matters of little real importance and focus on matters of national significance ?

Wednesday 15 January 2014

HOLLANDE'S MÉNÀGE A TROIS.

The French president is in a pickle. Francois Hollande, who has already shown himself to be a poor excuse for a national leader, has now found his private life on the front pages, something that is most unusual in his country. As a rule, French politicians have been allowed to keep their private lives and public lives separate, aided by strict privacy laws. However, it seems that M Hollande has behaved so badly that even the French can't stomach it.

In 2005, Hollande ditched his longstanding partner and mother of his 4 children, Segolene Royal, in favour of Valerie Trierweiler, a former journalist. Trierweiler, despite being twice divorced but not being married to the French President, has even gloried in the title of 'First Lady' in a shameless parody of the US style. However, Hollande has now been caught having an affair with a young actress, Julie Gayet, and Trierweiler, her glamorous career in tatters, has taken to a hospital bed suffering, we are told, from shock.

In Britain, such a list of extra-marital activity would undoubtedly have led to the end of any politician's career, though not in France, at least, until now. Now it seems that Hollande's failure to sort out the mess that is the French economy has made people much more willing to criticise his private as well as his public actions and he is an embattled man.

Personally, I don't care what our political leaders get up to as long as they're able, honest and decent, both in public and private; I actually find it hard to believe that someone who behaves badly in private is likely to be any different in public. In France, these attributes have been applied only to their public roles but that may well be about to change.

Hollande's mucky private life is surely merely a continuation of his incompetent public life and the French people may start wondering about the connection between private and public personas next time they vote.

Sunday 12 January 2014

'BROADCHURCH' A POOR WINNER OF RADIO TIMES POLL.

I've read recently that the ITV drama "Broadchurch" has been determined by critics to have been the best TV drama of 2013. All I can say is 'Bollocks !"

"Broadchurch" was slow, confused and disjointed. The principal characters were poorly drawn and entirely unconvincing, particularly the 2 leads, played by David Tennant and Olivia Coleman. These 2 decent, I say no more, actors were poorly served by a weak script and dodgy direction. The rest of the list, apparently produced from a 'Radio Times' poll, included a mish-mash of mostly similarly disappointing entries, but then what can one expect from something resulting from the views of a bunch of critics who have a vested interest in promoting their latest idea as to who and what is great in TV, theatre and so on ?

The outstanding entry on the list was the brilliant French series, "The Returned", which was in a totally different, and higher, class from "Broadchurch". Not included was another far better mini-series, "7:39" which was not broadcast until early January. This lovely 2-parter was a bitter-sweet story of commuter life and may have been a little too close to truth for some; for me the daily grind of the '7:39', fighting for a seat and so on was only too real. I even had occasional flights of fancy, though stopped short of acting on them.

It is shocking that those who set themselves up as critics are so often driven not by a desire to find the best but to be populist and 'with-it'. Perhaps they should all change profession and become politicians.

Thursday 2 January 2014

YOU WILL GO TO PRISON FOR 299 YEARS !

It's being reported today that the UK government is considering introducing American-style gaol sentences of hundreds of years as a way of circumventing rulings of the European Court of Human Rights which say that 'whole-life' sentences are unacceptable. That this would be a ridiculous and wholly unnecessary step is, surely, obvious.
 
Sentencing a criminal to two or three hundred years imprisonment is nonsense, given that the human life span is, at most, 120ish. Such sentences mean life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and it is mere semantics to claim anything else. However, it seems that the ECHR sees things differently and is quite happy to buy into the semantics of the argument; for them, a sentence of, say, 299 years is capable of being reviewed while one of life is not, the possibility of review being the critical factor in their eyes.
 
That this is 'dancing on the head of a pin' is obvious and why our government should be engaged in such ludicrous nonsense is beyond me. Yet again, the ECHR, a court comprised of 'judges' with a variety of backgrounds and often from countries with abominable human rights' records of their own, is over-reaching itself. What right does this body have to interfere in our criminal justice system ? We do not maltreat prisoners, indeed, we more often mollycoddle them. Genuine life sentences are handed down only to the very worst of offenders and that is no one's business but our own.
 
Instead of using semantics to try to accommodate this crazy court, the UK government should quite simply tell it to go to hell and then withdraw this country from the associated European Convention on Human Rights. Why on earth do we allow this foreign court to have precedence over our own ? While this situation persists, our stupidly named 'Supreme Court' is no such thing, it is wholly subservient to a body of interfering crackpots whose own backgrounds are of dubious pedigree.
 
Who will rid us of this nonsensical arrangement ?