VOTER FRAUD : TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

We seem to be beset by lawlessness of a type which did not exist in the past, and the government's response is to invent evermore laws that restrict the freedoms of us all rather than to address the problems head on.

A few days ago, we were told that the supposed problem of 'voter fraud' is to be dealt with by requiring all voters to provide identification at their polling stations; it's suggested that we may be required to show passports, driving licences or utility bills before being permitted to cast our votes. All of this is because a handful of voters, predominantly, if not wholly, from non-British cultural backgrounds, have been found to have engaged in some dubious ballot box dealings. Rather than deal with the overtly cultural issues involved, our government plans to use the 'problem' as a way to increase its control over all of us. This is wrong.

I always take along the polling card which is hand delivered to my house; if this is no longer sufficient evidence of my identity I, for one, won't bother voting as I have no intention of being railroaded by a succession of inept governments which refuse to address the real problems in our society.

Shockingly, this matter is but another in a series of such cultural clashes which we face. We have forced marriage among some immigrant populations and slavery amongst others; we have abduction, imprisonment and gang rape carried out by still others. Parts of some of our once-great cities are now unrecognizable and are virtual 'no-go' areas for their former indigenous populations. In some places we have 'community leaders' who act almost independently of the official forces of law and order, imposing their own codes on the people.

Our governments have done nothing about any of this, all in the name of 'multiculturalism', equality, diversity and other such nebulous terms. Having allowed millions of immigrants to come to our country, they have done nothing to encourage, even demand, integration into our culture but have, instead, allowed the growth of what amount to separate communities with their own ways, customs and laws. This is madness.

There can be no doubt that the lack of leadership from our government, the lack of enforcing a true national identity and national laws, and the growth of separate sub-cultures within our society is destructive. It will lead to terrible times ahead.

GEORGE MICHAEL : WHO ?

Once again the BBC shows itself to be obsessed with its own industry. Today's news broadcasts have been utterly dominated by stories about the newly deceased pop singer, George Michael, to an extent which would suggest that he was, at the very least, some middling member of the Royal Family. How ridiculous.

Michael was, in actuality, a rather pathetic figure who enjoyed a brief period of fame in the 1980s and lived on the memory ever after. The paucity of song clips played on the radio today demonstrates rather well that his output after the breakup of the duo 'Wham !' was of little note. His fans will obviously not agree but the fact is that he was a very minor figure in the world of real music.

He was a covert frequenter of dubious places in the same 1980s but was later caught "engaging in a lewd act" in a public lavatory in Beverley Hills; a few years later he was accused of engaging in public sexual acts on Hampstead Heath in London, something which he apparently thought was perfectly reasonable to do. Michael was a drug user and addict who had various encounters with the law; he was arrested at least twice for "driving while unfit through drink or drugs", and also received cautions for possession of both Class C and Class A drugs.

His lifestyle clearly led to health problems. In 2011 he suffered what was labelled as a viral infection which caused pneumonia and nearly killed him; given that Michael was homosexual and that one of his earlier partners had died of AIDS, the nature of the 'viral infection' could be questioned. In 2013, Michael somehow managed to fall out of a moving car of which he was, apparently, the only occupant; he suffered head injuries and was airlifted to hospital.

How on earth does the death of such a person add up to being the single most important news item of the day on our national broadcaster ? Worse still, the 1 o'clock news gave over most of the first 20 minutes or more of its broadcast to this item. On a day when severe storms struck parts of Scotland and the Northern Isles, 92 people died when a Russian aircraft crashed into the Black Sea, the row over Israel's disputed 'West Bank settlements' continued and a massive hemi-centennial storm struck central Australia, was the death of a pop singer really the most important news ?

There can be no better demonstration of the way in which news priorities have become skewed in recent years. The media and its inhabitants, regardless of how unsavoury they may be, is all; all else is nothing.

ISRAEL : A LAW UNTO ITSELF.

The reaction of the Israeli government to being censured by a vote at the United Nations demonstrates just how toothless and useless that organisation is.

For many years, the Israelis have been encroaching further and further into the so-called 'occupied territories' by building increasing numbers of settlements on what is, historically and legally, Palestinian land. Numerous attempts have been made to point out the error of their ways to the Israelis but the United States has always vetoed any such actions. Suddenly, the US decided to change its stance and, hence, a vote of censure at the UN was not blocked. The Israelis are not exactly happy about being told that they should desist from their blatantly illegal actions; it would be more accurate to say that they are apoplectic with rage.

Fanatical Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel will 're-assess its ties with the United Nations', a clear indication that he has no intention of taking the slightest notice of the vote. In fact, the Israeli government never has taken the slightest notice of world opinion on any of its actions and is a de-facto 'law unto itself'. Of course, this leniency, or fear, on the part of the rest of the world goes back to the Second World War and the atrocities committed then by Germany; no one is allowed to forget this or be overtly critical of Israel for fear of being anti-Semitic and stirring up old memories and thoughts. What balderdash.

What the Israeli government does has no connection whatsoever with the Jewish religion and criticising them is not anything to do with anti-Semitism. In truth, the Israeli government is one of the most unpleasant in the world. They operate a policy of apartheid, treating their Palestinian citizens with disdain, disrespect and hatred; this has nothing to do with Judaism but is a straightforward political choice, justified by claims of self-protection which simply don't bear scrutiny.

To me, the whole notion of a state founded on a religious basis is ludicrous but the modern day actions of the Israeli government have nothing to do with any true religion, any more than is the case with the governments of numerous Muslim countries. Israel, as well as various Muslim countries and even a few Christian ones, behaves as if it has a, literally, God-given right to do whatever it likes. These countries are backward, primitive and inward-looking in their approach to the world, though access to modern technology can make them extremely dangerous. We all know about the terrorism being perpetrated by so-called Muslim extremists, but they don't have the atomic bomb. Israel does and their extremists are, therefore, every bit as dangerous, in fact, much more so. Netanyahu, as one of the more fanatical and extremist rulers of that country in recent times, terrifies me at least as much as the terrorists on our streets.

Now that the United nations has finally passed a vote critical of Israel it needs to follow it up. If they don't it could be catastrophic for the whole world.

AUSTERITY IS A MYTH ; REALITY IS DIFFERENT.

I read an article recently which poured scorn on the notion that people in the UK today are having a hard time. After giving the matter a few moments thought, I can only agree that the so-called 'austerity' which we have endured is a myth and that, in reality, the vast majority of people are much better off than they have ever been.

Having said that, many will not agree. They will point to tiny, or non-existent, wage rises in recent years, ridiculous house prices, student fees and many other things to demonstrate how they're being hard done by. They will say that their future prospects are miserable, with the likelihood of lower pensions than their parents while also having to work to a greater age. To some extent, they have a point.

However, what they don't consider is the overall standard of living which they enjoy when compared with earlier generations. They seem to be oblivious to the need to make mature choices about their futures, in particular, with regard to the ways in which they manage their money. While previous generations had a tendency to prioritise spending on housing followed by essentials, today's generation seems to prioritise spending on leisure, pleasure and egotism. For many, possession of the latest technological gadgets, the latest 'designer' clothes, assorted body decoration and holidays in exotic places have taken precedence over buying a home paying everyday bills and saving for the future. They whinge about having to pay fees to go to university while doing nothing to help themselves and not even understanding the rules around the loan system.

They have money for smoking, drinking and all sorts of personal enjoyment, yet can't pay their everyday bills. Having spent their money on frippery, they then complain that they are poor and can't afford the deposit for a house or to save for the future. Basically, they seem to think that the world owes them a living while they appear to accept little or no responsibility for themselves. They are horribly decadent and their overall approach to life is not that far removed from earlier societies which had reached a peak and then suffered catastrophic collapse. They expect something for nothing, a return with no effort and that the state must support them in whatever they choose to do. They believe themselves to be 'deserving' and invulnerable.

Well, life ain't like that. The modern generation are infinitely better off than any generation that went before. They have access to things and riches that were unimaginable 100 years ago, even 50 years ago; if they choose to squander those riches that's their funeral. In this world, it's effort and forward planning that are rewarded and if they can't understand that, tough. Rather than whining about the injustice of their situation they need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'; they need to pull their collective fingers out, get up off their bone-idle arses and start seeing the world as it really is.

What price anything like that will happen, at least in the near future ? In the longer term, it's inevitable because, otherwise, they'll all be in cardboard boxes under bridges all over the country.

CHRISTINE LAGARDE : POLITICAL CRIMINAL.

Yesterday, a French court found that the former Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, had been negligent with regard to a small matter of €404m (£340m) paid to a French businessman, Bernard Tapie, in 2008. Despite the decision, the court also decided that this negligence warranted no penalty and Ms Lagarde will have no criminal record.

Today, the Board of the International Monetary Fund, of which Ms Lagarde is now Managing Director, considered the outcome of the case but also decided that it had no bearing on her position with them and expressed its continuing confidence in her.

How on earth can it be that someone can be so negligent and yet escape both punishment and censure ? How can it be that someone who has been found guilty of such gross financial negligence can retain the confidence of an organisation which manages not millions but many hundreds of billions of pounds, dollars, euros and the rest ?

This is a classic case of the political world being very different from that inhabited by the rest of us. A cashier negligent over £400 would probably lose their job; a financial accountant negligent over £4,000 could well be suspended from their Institute; a finance director negligent over £40,000 might well go to prison. However, a Finance Minister and international financier, negligent over €400m receives no punishment and retains her position as head of one of the world's most important financial institutions.

How is this right ?

LIONEL BLUE : R.I.P.

Only a few days ago I wondered if we'd ever hear Lionel Blue on the radio again. Yesterday, I was saddened to hear of his death, aged 86.

Rabbi Lionel Blue was a regular contributor to Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' for many years and it was always worth listening to his brief broadcasts. His homespun philosophy, frequent references to his childhood and grandmother, and blatant lack of religiosity meant that his message was always delivered with humour rather than with the unctuous earnestness of too many of his fellow broadcasters.

I do not share Rabbi Blue's beliefs, indeed, I hold with no religion, but he was, without doubt, someone worth listening to. Very often, his thoughts struck chords that resonated with the everyday lives of many people and his absence from the airwaves in recent years has left a void.

Lionel Blue will be missed.

POST-BREXIT DEAL TO TAKE 10 YEARS ! ?

Anti-Brexit forces continue to try to spread stories of alarm and despondency in their efforts to thwart the result of last June's referendum.

Today's news carries a story to the effect that the UK ambassador to the European Union, Sir Ivan Rogers, has 'warned' the government that it may take many years for a 'post-Brexit' trade agreement to be finalised; he's even suggested that a deal may never be reached. Here we go again.

Rogers is understood to be a fairly strong Europhile and supporter of the Union, and his words should obviously be heard in that light. He is reportedly expressing a view garnered from meetings with various EU officials which is also highly dubious; these very same EU officials have a vested interest in setting down a strong negotiating position in advance of the talks which will begin once Article 50 has been triggered, so they are hardly likely to be saying that everything will be simple.

The truth is straightforward. No more than 2 years after the triggering of Article 50, the UK will leave the European Union. If, at that time, no trade agreement has been reached World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs will apply; the prices of German, French, Italian and Swedish cars offered for sale in the UK will go up by 10%, as will the prices of wines, cheeses, clothes and much more that the UK imports from members of the Union. At the same time, the prices of UK goods and services sold in the EU will rise in similar fashion.

As the UK buys much more from the EU than it sells to it, the EU will bear an additional net cost of billions of Euros. EU manufacturers will see their sales and profits fall as UK citizens buy their cars from the US, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and elsewhere. European wine growers and others will see mountains of unsold goods piling up while UK consumers switch their allegiance to tariff-free imports from the US, Australia, New Zealand, China, India and so on.

What nonsense. Failing to reach a sensible agreement is in no one's interests and the ambassador's reported remarks are nothing other than scaremongering. Of course, the negotiations may be complex and may have their difficult moments but, in the end, a deal will be done and in a reasonable time, because it must be done. The EU also has far too many other problems to allow Brexit to become an everlasting issue.

Quite simply, there is no choice.

BREXIT TIME LIMIT SET ?

As the opponents of 'Brexit' line up, one Michel Barnier has put in his pennyworth today.

Barnier has been appointed to lead the UK's exit negotiations for the EU. Various reports have suggested that he's a bit of a 'tough nut' and will not make things easy for the UK. Today, he's had a go at putting some flesh on the bones of his strategy and, on the face of things, it doesn't make happy reading. The time available for negotiation will be short, a mere 18 months, he says, and 'cherry picking' won't be allowed. It's also been said that there will be no discussions about arrangements AFTER the UK leaves until after the end of the 'leave' negotiations.

Barnier reckons that the 2 year timeframe set out in Article 50 of the EU's constitution includes the time needed for any agreement to be ratified by the various organs of the Union as well as by the government of the UK; hence, he says, the UK will only have 18 months to agree a deal. What he seems to be forgetting is that there will be 2 parties to the negotiations and it won't only be the UK which has a limited time to reach agreement, it will be the EU too. Barnier's remarks seem to suggest that he sees the process as coming down to the EU making an offer which the UK will be obliged to accept due to lack of time - more fool him. The truth has to be that, if his timescale is to be met, both sides may have to compromise, but neither more so than the other.

The comments about 'cherry picking' are just window dressing. Thus far, the only people who have actually suggested that this is a real issue are representatives of the EU and some of those who continue to fight against 'Brexit', using this red herring as a frightener.

The final matter, that of what will happen after the UK leaves the Union, will only be an issue if intransigence triumphs. If EU leaders decide to be particularly difficult, this could become an issue, with nasty barriers suddenly erected in the way of trade and economic co-operation, migration, security, research and development and so on. While this could happen, only a bunch of idiots would actually let it, and the likelihood has to be that there will be agreements in place covering most areas at the time of the final divorce. The alternative would be for a catastrophic mess affecting major European industries producing cars, wine, cheese, clothes, shoes, companies involved in tourism and finance, institutions carrying out research and development and much, mush more. Quite simply, the consequences of being stupid are far too serious for anyone to be stupid, whatever bombastic rhetoric they may spout for public consumption..

Barnier has made a point that the EU is fully prepared for the forthcoming negotiations, implying that the UK is not. In truth, neither side is really ready as neither side expected the situation to arise. It is new ground and both sides are equally at sea. They have no choice but to be sensible and reasonable and making noises about rigid time limits does not help.

POPULISM : THE NEW DIRTY WORD.

These days, when the voters of several countries appear to have turned their backs on the 'liberal elites' who have run things for many years, we are told that this is 'Populism'. This seems to be a highly condescending way of acknowledging that the people have spoken, while also making it clear that their view is wrong.

The members of the 'liberal elite' hate the very notion of the common people being listened to at all, other than in largely meaningless elections; elections of themselves are fine, but when the only serious candidates are all from the same basic stock, they become pointless, simply a means to continue in the same old, time-worn fashion.

In the UK, the people voted to leave the European Union but there are those who really don't want to listen; they are doing whatever they can to prevent the 'will of the people' from being enacted. The political party most responsible for the vote to leave, UKIP, is branded 'populist'.

In the USA, Donald Trump, a supposed right wing 'populist', defeated the establishment's choice, Hilary Clinton, and will be his country's next President. The establishment is united in its condemnation of almost everything which President-elect Trump says or does.

Now, in Italy, Prime Minister Renzi has lost a referendum vote on changes to his nation's constitution; the outcome has been branded as a victory for 'populist' ideas. In Austria, the defeat of a right wing candidate in that country's Presidential election has been deemed a vote against 'populism'.

The establishment, composed mostly of like-minded people of a mildly socialist inclination, brands anything vaguely right wing as being 'populist' in an attempt to make it seem uninformed, uneducated and wrong. Thankfully, it seems that at least some of the people have finally decided that enough is enough. Let's hope that a few more follow suit.

BREXIT : WILL IT EVER HAPPEN ?

Despite the result of the referendum last June, I begin to think that the UK will never actually leave the European Union. In traditional anti-democratic style, there will eventually be a second referendum aimed at achieving the 'right result'.

Those who are hell-bent against the UK leaving are using every possible tactic in order to try to prevent it. In the first place, they have invented the terms 'Hard Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit', neither of which has any greater meaning than the straightforward 'Brexit', in order to give them a basis for their arguments. They are revisiting the arguments put forward before the referendum, specifically those which continually tried to scare voters by stories of the horrors to come; before the referendum, it was the horrors to come if people dared to vote to leave, now it is the horrors to come if we dare to leave the single market.

We are told, repeatedly, that those who voted to leave didn't understand the full effect as the 'Brexit' campaign never set out a true manifesto. Indeed, on this morning's 'Sunday Politics' programme, Nick Clegg attempted to make this point even though there was ample evidence presented to show that both campaigns had set out, very clearly, the implications of a 'Leave' vote. Clegg even tried to play down his own vehement and absolute comments about the referendum being a once in a generation opportunity and that a vote to leave would be absolute. Now, of course, he's actively campaigning for 'Remain' again, with demands that the UK must stay in the 'single market', accept free migration, remain subject to the European Court and so on; he's even saying that he may well vote against the triggering of the infamous 'Article 50', and that a referendum on the terms of leaving would not be a second referendum, but the first on that basis. His logic is so twisted, his language so disingenuous and his general attitude so undemocratic that the very sight of him makes me want to throw bricks at my television. This is a man who is so determined to maintain all of his 'gravy train' options that he will do anything at all in their pursuit; he was, of course, a member of the European Parliament for a few years and is now most reluctant to bite the hand that previously fed him.

Clegg aside, those who want our country's independence back face a massive task. Our own parliament has a majority against 'Brexit', the House of Lords in particular. The courts are involved and may well throw a spanner in the works; they could even refer the final decision on the triggering of 'Article 50' to the European Court, which really would be a smack in the eye for those who voted to leave. A General Election may be the only way for Theresa May to proceed and, even then, she could still be stymied.

Whoever thought that democracy had anything to do with the will of the people better think again.