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 ?

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.

'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.

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 ?