CORBYN'S "NEW CENTRE GROUND" SPELLS RUIN.

Jeremy Corbyn, ultra-left wing leader of the Labour party, has been busy telling us that his mob is now "staking out the new centre ground in British politics". What a load of old nonsense.

Corbyn is an unreconstructed left wing extremist, the type of socialist who isn't far removed from being an out-and-out Communist. Given half a chance, he'd introduce punitive taxes on anyone who has anything and squander the takings on a raft of ruinous and madcap schemes. His new 'centre ground' is, in reality, way to the left of anything ever experienced in this country and would result in a return to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s. It is nowhere near the centre of anything.

As if to prove this point, there is to be a strike on British railways on new Year's Day, designed specifically to disrupt the lives of ordinary people at a time when they are meant to be ringing in a Happy New Year. Back in the bad old days, strikes were commonplace, the trades' unions had enormous power and what they mostly did with that power was destroy various parts of the British economy. Decades later, we have still not fully recovered from the damage done, some industries having been so badly hurt that they have disappeared altogether.

Corbynism would see a return to those days of union power. He would gladly see the unions holding company managements to ransom. He would see mass strikes and eventual mass unemployment as major industries gave up the unequal fight and moved abroad. The pound would sink and inflation rocket; the economy would collapse.

This would be the reality of Corbyn's "new centre ground". How can anyone be taken in by him ?

BREXIT : SNP DENIES DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

When the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, it was to escape the tyranny, bureaucracy and financial incompetence of a bunch of largely unelected and unaccountable officials. Yes, there is a European Parliament, but it is little more than a toothless talking shop that provides unmerited enrichment to its members while being about as representative of its electors as Kim Jong-un is of his. It was clear at the time of the vote that leaving the EU would also mean leaving its assorted anti-competitive and protectionist trading arrangements.

Despite the vote, various parties have continued to try to find ways of obstructing the declared wish of the people and today's news carries yet another story of such anti-democratic activities. It is reported that the Scottish National Party has urged the UK's Labour Party and others opposed to 'Brexit' to gang together in an attempt to keep the UK inside of the EU's 'single market' and 'customs' union'. The SNP's leader at Westminster is reported as saying that "It is time for MPs of all parties to put politics aside", presumably meaning that they should all follow his lead.

However, this statement also suggests something else. It calls on those who remain opposed to  'Brexit'  to defy the expressed will of the people, a highly political and anti-democratic act; the notion that uniting against 'Brexit' is somehow apolitical is ludicrous and has nothing to do with "putting politics aside". Indeed, if the SNP and other parties really want to put politics aside, they should all recognize that the duty of all of our elected representatives is to support the government in its negotiations with the European  Union, rather than doing whatever they can to frustrate matters and weaken the government's hand.

What is needed is a truly united front from all parties. That way, the European Union would know that it has no alternative other than to come to a quick and sensible agreement with the UK and we would be spared months of ridiculous posturing from all sides.

WHAT A SOFT LOT WE ARE TODAY.

Watching the Christmas episode of 'Call the Midwife', I'm reminded of the extent to which our society has run away from anything difficult in recent years.

The programme was set in the winter of 1962-3, one of the coldest and hardest experienced in the UK in the last 100 years at least. Snow and freezing conditions set in on Boxing Day and lasted throughout January; as a schoolboy at the time, I remember seeing snow piled high at the sides of the roads as I made my way to school and, in a way, that is the point.

A couple of weeks ago, a couple of inches of snow led to mass closures of schools across the country; in my area, almost every school was closed for 2 or 3 days due to a smidgeon of snow and a bit of ice. Health and safety was, of course, the stated driving force but a desire to avoid difficulty was the real issue.

Back in 1962-3, there was no such 'shut down'. Of course, there was huge disruption but people got on with life as best they could. Schools didn't shut up shop and I have no memories of any time off; in fact, people carried on finding their way to work, school or wherever else they needed to go; there was no alternative. There may have been feet of snow outside and ice on the windows inside (central heating barely existed), but we soldiered on without complaint and simply dealt with the problems that arose.

What a pity that 50 years of 'progress' has produced a population, and a society, so soft that it does nothing of the sort, and that can't cope with a few inches of snow and a couple of days of cold weather without running for cover.

LAURA PLUMMER : GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Laura Plummer, the English woman who was caught taking nearly 300 tablets of tramadol into Egypt, has been sentenced to 3 years in prison. Inevitably, various parties, particularly members of her family, are not happy about this and are claiming that she has been wrongly convicted. It's been said that Ms Plummer was acting out of the best of motives, that she didn't know that tramadol was illegal in Egypt, etc., etc.

Ms Plummer is reported to have had an Egyptian boyfriend for whom she acquired the drugs; she is also said to have loved Egypt as a country and to have visited there frequently. How then was she so ignorant of the local laws ? How could she even legally acquire as many as 300 tramadol tablets in the UK when no reputable doctor would prescribe so many to anyone in one go, let alone for someone entirely unknown to them ?

Ms Plummer has claimed that the drugs were given to her by a friend; if so, she must have known that these were of dubious origin. She then knowingly transported these to Egypt, paying no heed to the laws of that country, and is now paying the price. Forget the noise being stirred up by her family, she is guilty and, if this was a case of an Egyptian bringing similarly illegal drugs into the UK, there would be not the slightest sympathy shown for her.

Whether this was drug smuggling or simple stupidity makes no difference. Ms Plummer failed to abide by the laws of the country she was entering and that's all there is to it.

TAX, TAX AND MORE TAX; WHY DON'T WE COMPLAIN ?

Is it any wonder that people try to avoid paying more tax than they must ?

We pay income tax at rates of up to 45%, and national insurance of up to 12%. We're then charged every time we spend any of what's left - 20% VAT on much of what we buy, 12% tax on insurance premiums, tax when we fly (air passenger duty), capital gains tax when we sell assets, inheritance tax when we die and stamp duty on a variety of things including buying a house. Then there's taxes, usually disingenuously called 'duties', on tobacco products, gambling, fuel, beer, wines and spirits, and which often have VAT charged on them too. There's the car tax that we pay on new vehicles which, itself, is subject to VAT - one third of the price of a new car is tax. With fuel duty and VAT, two thirds of the price of the fuel we put into our cars is tax. Let's not forget the 'road fund licence' that has nothing to do with roads or funds but is just yet another tax.

There is also the council tax and many others, some of which affect businesses initially but all of which are ultimately passed onto consumers through higher prices - corporation tax, landfill tax, customs duties, business rates, the climate change levy, petroleum revenue tax and heaven knows what else.

We are taxed to the hilt so that governments can continue to spend on ever-increasing regulation, pet projects and their own extravagancies. They throw our money around with gay abandon while failing to properly maintain our roads, railways and other infrastructure; our health service, frequently lauded as the best in the world, is a shambles with patients waiting months for appointments and then months more for the results of scans and other tests. Every aspect of our public services is a mess, chronically underfunded or beset with rules, regulations and political correctness to such an extent that they can barely function.

Why on earth do we put up with it ? I pay more than enough tax, one way or another, and I resent having perfectly legal avoidance conflated with illegal evasion. How dare our government try to make us feel guilty for avoiding paying any more than we must.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WORLD OF MY YOUTH ?

Watching an old episode of 'Midsomer Murders', I've had thoughts about the extent to which our society has become increasingly obsessed with political correctness, equality, management speak and a whole load of other modern bollocks.

In Sweden, they've recently decided to abolish the use of masculine terms when referring to God; heaven, appropriately, knows how they'll now deal with 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'. In France, they're grappling with introducing female terms for a raft of jobs which have traditionally been referred to using the male pronoun only. In this country, we are assailed with the nonsense of 'chairperson', marriage between homosexuals, and so many anti-social rules and regulations that the world is very different from the one I knew 40 years ago. Socialising at work, which I used to do almost every day, is now frowned upon, as the slightest whiff of alcohol on the breath is greeted with horror, offers of referral to counsellors or, even, dismissal. In my day, it was a mark of camaraderie and led to much greater cohesion and productivity than is ever achieved now.

While all of this is lauded as 'progress' to me it appears as regression, suppression and downright lunacy. Every left wing proposition, if voiced loudly enough, is pandered to, and 'sod the consequences'. Everyone and everything has to be controlled and made to conform to the latest idiotic notion peddled by whatever crazy fringe idea is the current 'flavour of the month'. We are controlled by the latest 'Twitter Storm', initiated by who-knows-whom and based on who-knows-what evidence.

Not very long ago, there was variety and spice in life, now we are all 'encouraged' to follow a path of common mediocrity on which we are all the same, of equal ability and of equal value; the notion that some may actually be 'better' than, or simply different from, others is a modern heresy, worthy of the greatest condemnation. At the same time, we elevate certain 'celebrities', most of whom have the talent of a mouldy piece of cheese, to a status of which the rest of us can only dream. Sports 'stars', pop singers, 'models' and various others are paid vast sums for enjoying themselves at our expense. How stupid are we ?

The awful truth is that most of the human population are, if not actually stupid, then at the very least, ill-educated. They are ill-educated and with a ridiculous emphasis on supposed 'social skills' and 'social issues', quite deliberately, so as to keep them under control, to act like sheep, or Pavlov's dogs, going where they're told and responding to whatever stimulus to which they've been found to be susceptible. The latest theories of supposed experts in management, economics, psychology, or other 'specialist' areas are embraced without question; there is a culture that accepts that anything which 'experts' say can be done, must be done, as long as it's 'socially acceptable', resulting in all manner of questionable decisions, particularly in the fields of  medicine, health and welfare and all things 'social'. Health and Safety has come to trump all common sense and many erstwhile popular activities have been effectively outlawed or seriously curtailed for no better reason than that some busybody thinks they should be.

I despair. People have come as far as they have by being free to explore and manage their own lives; some have proved better at this than others, which is a simple proof of Darwin's theory of evolution. However, what is now happening is a rejection of this theory in a way that will almost certainly result in the virtual extinction of the thinking part of the human race in favour of the vast ill-educated masses. This is all about the current elite looking to its own continued predominance regardless of the effects of the policies which it espouses. Effectively, that elite will promote any policy which it believes will maintain it in its position, regardless of the long term efficacy of that policy.

The world I knew as a child and young man is going to hell in a hand basket. Thank the Lord that I won't be around when the chickens finally come home to roost.

UK POVERTY & HOMELESSNESS IS A MYTH.

When I see the appalling conditions in which many people in the world have to live, I am disgusted by the regular complaints of supposed poverty and homelessness in the United Kingdom. With Christmas now only a couple of days away, the media is, as usual, filling space with reports of there being huge numbers of people living rough or just having a hard time, though they rarely tell us why these people are so afflicted. Why is this ?

For starters, there is little if any real poverty in this country. No one lives as they do in parts of Africa, where large numbers of people have neither food nor clean water, nor any way of accessing such essentials. Our 'homeless' have many organisations to turn to, as well as the government, and one has to wonder why they are where they are. Of  course, there are some genuine inadequates who are simply incapable of keeping a job or managing their lives. Some people have been discharged from long term mental health establishments with out receiving the support needed, but most are just indigent.

Immigrants who have travelled here without a job offer and find themselves without money can always go back to their own countries. Those with alcohol or drug addictions can always seek treatment; for those without jobs, there are always vacancies and 'beggars can't be choosers' when it comes to employment. I have no sympathy with the claimed plight of teenagers, reported to be 'sofa surfing'; where are their parents and other family members ?

In this country we seem to have forgotten that we are each responsible for managing our own lives. Sadly, the notion has taken hold that 'the State', or someone else, will forever look after us regardless of our own lack of effort. Drug addicts and alcoholics deny any personal responsibility for their problems and, instead, claim that their plight is the fault of the State, their parents, their lack of education or anything else they can think of. When they find themselves unemployable and on the streets, they whinge and whine until someone takes pity on them, but what do they do to help themselves ?

When I hear that there are 'tens of thousands' living on the streets of some of our major cities, as was claimed on the television today, I find it very hard to believe. Indeed, I don't believe it. Every time some television reporter interviews a supposedly homeless person, I ask myself why they are homeless, a question which is rarely, if ever, asked. The usual approach seems to be to find a few 'hard luck' stories and then to use these as the basis for wild claims of the extent of poverty and homelessness, none of which are ever properly substantiated.

When people talk of 'fake news', these are the kinds of stories I immediately think of.

GREEN, FALLON, PATEL : WHO'S NEXT ?

Damian Green, First Secretary of State, has lost his job, not because he molested anyone or downloaded pornographic images, but because he told a few fibs. Such is modern politics.

It seems that Mr Green did not quite tell the truth when asked what he knew about the discovery of pornographic, though entirely legal, images that were found on a computer in his offices in 2008. This untruthfulness breached what is known as the Ministerial Code and so he had to be sacked, and Teresa May's cabinet suffered another serious blow.

Mr Green is the third Cabinet Minister to be sacked, or asked to resign, in recent weeks, following Sir Michael Fallon and Priti Patel out of the door of Number 10. Both Messrs Green and Fallon were key allies of the Prime Minister, long established figures and very senior politicians; that they have both fallen by the wayside as a result of failures to behave as is expected of people in such high office must be a matter of some concern. In the case of Ms Patel, she simply went awry and seemed to get carried away with her own self-importance, also a matter of concern.

Politicians are representatives of the people or, at least, that is the theory. Sadly, it seems that too often they are people who will do anything to climb the greasy pole and will then lie, cheat, cajole and threaten to stay there. They see themselves as being above the law and codes of conduct don't really apply to them unless, that is, they get caught. Too many see political office as nothing more nor less than a doorway to honours, further opportunities and fortune.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Green's actions, or those of Mr Fallon or Ms Patel, that three senior ministers should be caught out in such a short time makes one wonder what else there is that we don't know about the activities of those in high office, now and in the past. I shudder at the thought.

MORE BLACK JUDGES, DEMANDS LAMMY.

David Lammy, Labour Member of Parliament for Tottenham, is unhappy that the current list of judges doesn't adequately reflect the social mix of our society. In particular, Mr Lammy wants there to be more black and ethnic minority judges, at least partly because there is a higher proportion of people from those backgrounds who end up being caught carrying out criminal activities. Effectively, he wants there to be quotas, which he dresses up as targets, but they are quotas, nonetheless. One wonders where such an approach might lead.

I don't know any numbers but I suspect that there is a substantially higher proportion of people from what might be considered the 'lower' social classes involved in criminal activities than from the 'middle' and 'upper' classes'. I'd also suspect that there are more criminals amongst those who were educated at comprehensive schools or who hail from one-parent families than from those who attended grammar or public schools or who come from more traditional family backgrounds. Might there be more criminals born in cities than in rural areas, or fewer criminals amongst those who attended university than amongst those who did not ?

While Mr Lammy's wish to have more judges from black and ethnic minority backgrounds might sound reasonable, it's logical extension would be to attempt to appoint judges on the basis of their ethnic and social backgrounds rather than on the basis of their ability to be judges. We could end up with judges being appointed because they are from poor and illiterate backgrounds, in order to reflect the lives of those brought up before them; what nonsense.

In any sane society, judges should only be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and ability to do the job; the only way for there to be more black and ethnic minority judges on the bench is for them to get there on ability. Of course, there should be a fair appointment process which ensures that no one is excluded purely due to their background, but that is a slightly different matter.

Mr Lammy might also consider the extent to which he and his fellow Members of Parliament accurately reflect the social mix of our population. He who lives in a glass house .......................  .

BBC SPORTS' PERSONALITY : WHAT A FARCE.

What a mess the BBC's 'Sports' personality of the Year' programme seems to have been.

I haven't watched this once unmissable offering for a few years, principally because it seems to have become a 'glammed-up' show rather than any sort of serious review of the year's sporting activities, but this year's effort appears to have come close to hitting rock bottom.

A politically correct short list for the nominations, a huge drop in voting numbers, clear influence from certain voting blocs and farcical technical problems. The odds-on favourite to win, Anthony Joshua, didn't even make the top three and the actual winner, Mo Farah, considered his chances so slight that he didn't bother to attend the event other than via a dodgy video-link.

A few years ago, this was a genuine chance to see the nation's sporting superstars but now it is no more than the BBC parading its collection of former competitors (as hosts) and making a noise about the few sports that it still covers. When the short list of nominations for the main prize include representatives from taekwondo, speed skating, women's cricket and superbike racing, of whom most of the viewing audience have never heard, there is clearly something wrong. At 540,000, the number of votes cast was almost a quarter of a million less than for last year and was merely one third of the 1.5 million that were cast 5 years ago; while viewers still seem to be watching, they obviously aren't much enamoured by what's on offer.

Was Mo Farah really the right choice given his opposition ? Surely Anthony Joshua, Lewis Hamilton or Adam Peaty had superior claims and Chris Froome certainly would have had but for the recently raised questions about his use of anti-asthma drugs. Even Harry Kane, whose exploits have seen him emerge as England's best striker since Alan Shearer, had at least as good a claim as Farah and yet he polled only a miserable 18,000 votes.

Runner up Jonathan Rea, a performer unknown outside of the world of superbike racing, was buoyed up by organised voting amongst devotees of that sport and one suspects that something similar happened in respect of Jonnie Peacock, whose achievements will also have passed by the majority of the population. Given that the BBC brands its award as 'Sport' Personality', one has to wonder how people who are virtually unknown can possibly emerge as serious contenders. It is, of course, all down to the Beebs fanatical pursuit of equality and diversity, rather than to any desire to identify a genuine and nationally known sporting personality.

Having been in the schedules since 1954, for many years being essential viewing for all sports' enthusiasts, this 'show' has surely now run its course. Cancel it and bury it, before this farce becomes nothing other than a national embarrassment.

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF ULSTER ?

Royal marriages are often accompanied by the bestowal of a ducal title and one assumes that the forthcoming nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will be no different. Indeed, unless Harry does receive a new title, Ms Markle could end up as plain old Mrs Wales. So what title might Harry get ?

It might be assumed that Harry will be created Duke of somewhere, but where ? His uncles, Andrew and Edward, were created Duke of York and Earl of Wessex (later to be Duke of Edinburgh) upon their marriages, and the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are in the hands of other Royal Family members. His brother is Duke of Cambridge, his father, Prince Charles, is Duke of Cornwall, his grandfather, Prince Philip, is Duke of Edinburgh and various other dukedoms are already taken up by non-Royals. What's left ?

It has been suggested that Harry might be created Duke of Sussex, a currently vacant title previously used by the Royal Family. There is also the Dukedom of Lancaster, a title that has been merged with the Crown for centuries but which carries with it access to the income of the Duchy of Lancaster, something which could be attractive; however, the Crown may also be reluctant to give up this source of funds. With his brother's title honouring Cambridge, might Harry find himself Duke of Oxford ?

When Prince Edward married Sophie Rees-Jones, he was rewarded with the title of Earl of Wessex, thus reviving an ancient English regional name and a title once held by the King Harold who got an arrow in his eye at Hastings in 1066. Might Harry receive something similar and, perhaps, be created Duke of Mercia, Northumbria or East Anglia ? Another thought is that the government might see some profit in granting Harry a title which emphasises the 'united' nature of the United Kingdom, hence, might he find himself Duke of a Scottish city or region, the Duke of Strathclyde, perhaps or, as a nod to his great grandmother, Duke of Glamis ?

A title which would really send a message would be to create Harry Duke of Ulster. There is already an Earl of Ulster, the son of the Duke of Gloucester, and the creation of such a dukedom would no doubt be welcomed by unionists in Northern Ireland, but disliked by those who wish to see the end of the division between north and south. However, it would make it extremely clear to all, including the government of the Irish Republic and the European Union, that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland now and for the foreseeable future. As Brexit negotiations grind inexorably on, it would be a bold and definite signal to those who wish to use the Irish border as a bargaining chip and the negotiations as a means of hastening Irish reunification, but do our masters have the nerve to do it ?

So what will it be ? Any of the above or something entirely different ? All will be revealed next May.

ORGAN DONATION : PRESUMED CONSENT IS WRONG !

I have mixed feelings about organ donation but of one think I am certain. Whether or not one's organs are offered for transplantation after death is a personal matter and nothing to do with the government.

It's reported today that the Department of Health is launching a consultation designed to measure opinion on a proposal to change the current system of opting in, to one of 'presumed consent', that is opting out. Such a change would mean that a person's organs - heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, eyes, pancreas, bowel and who knows what else - would automatically be considered available for transplantation unless that person had specifically and officially registered that they did NOT consent. To me, this is utterly wrong and should not happen.

By announcing the consultation, the government has effectively said that it intends to go ahead with such a scheme. They are well aware that many medical and research organisations will support the proposal and that very few members of the public will have the slightest idea about the fact of the consultation, let alone knowing how to go about lodging any objections. Essentially, government consultations do nothing more than pay lip service to the democratic process, the decision to proceed having already been made in closed door sessions with interested parties and pressure groups.

My body belongs to me and not to the state. When I die, what happens to it is up to me and my family or friends, not the government and certainly not to doctors greedy to carry out all manner of interventions for little other reason than that they can. I have never quite made up my mind regarding whether or not I would consent to my organs being used, but I have now. 'Presumed consent' has no place in a democracy; what will I be 'presumed' to have consented to next ? Once the government, any government, introduces the idea that it can do whatever the people have not specifically objected to, democracy is dead.

The day after the 'opt-out' register is opened, my name will be on it, not because I necessarily oppose the use of my organs but because I will not willingly surrender control of my life or body to any government.

BREXIT 'DEAL' NOTHING BUT BELGIAN FUDGE.

Is Teresa May a saint or sinner ? It's hard to tell from the assorted stories now emerging about the supposed 'deal' reached between the UK and EU last week.

In truth, it seems likely that the 'deal' was little more than a political fudge, capable of being interpreted according to the prejudices of the reader. Agreement over the Irish border question, a problem which would almost certainly be on a par with the 19th century's 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' in its incomprehensibility, is absolute according to Irish politicians but not according to the UK's Brexit minister, David Davis. The UK has agreed to cough up something like £37bn according to some but more or less according to others; the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in the EU have been protected or are still open to debate even though some nebulous nonsense has been agreed. As has been said by some, 'Nothing is agreed until all is agreed', so what is really going on ?

Both the UK and EU were actually desperate for an apparent agreement on Phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations to enable progress to Phase 2, the all-important trade negotiations. Consequently, both sides had an interest in being able to present some sort, indeed any sort, of deal last week and the fudge was the best that could be found (keep in mind that the Belgians do make excellent fudge !). Whatever the rhetoric spouted by the representatives of either side, the only thing that really matters to the makers of German, French and Italian cars, French, Italian, Spanish and German wines, French cheeses, Italian and Greek olive oil and lots more, plus the owners of hotels across the continent, the Spanish, Italian and Greek holiday industries and the purveyors of vast quantities of meat and vegetable produce across the continent, is a trade agreement that avoids disruption and potentially catastrophic effects on their livelihoods.

The UK has an enormous trade deficit with the EU, that is the UK buys much more from EU member countries than it sells to them. Ergo, the EU has a huge vested interest in maintaining a good trade relationship with the UK though it also wants to discourage other states from thinking of having their own exit plans - Grexit, Spexit, Frexit are simply out of the question. Therefore, the EU's negotiators have been making all manner of unfriendly noises towards the UK while secretly knowing that the UK has a much stronger hand than is publicly stated; perversely, the UK's government appears to have also followed this line, "Why ?" is a major question that no one seems willing to address.

 

The good news is that talks will now move on to trade, the bad news is that progress is likely to be every bit as tortuous as before, with much huffing and puffing, much rhetoric and little substance until, that is, we reach the point at which a deal must be done for fear of there being no deal; that, of course, is a scenario that the EU dreads above all else. The UK simply needs to hold its nerve and it will get the deal it wants. The question is whether it has the stomach for the fight.

Ding-Ding : Seconds Out, Round 2 !

Btw, the 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' was about the complex relationship between 2 European duchies to the governments of Denmark and Germany. The one-time British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, was reported to have commented : "The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead, The second was a  German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it" 

BREXIT : REMAINERS STILL KEEP PLUGGING AWAY.

There is much feigned amazement amongst some in the anti-Brexit community today after David Davis, the 'Brexit Secretary' told a House of Commons committee, chaired by Labour's Hilary Benn, that the government had not carried out any specific assessments of the impacts associated with the UK's exit from the European Union. While this has been made to sound calamitous, the truth is surely rather different.

The fact of the UK's departure from the EU is not in dispute. That exit automatically means that the UK will leave the EU's Customs' Union and Single Market; the trading and other arrangements that will be put in place after Brexit have yet to be agreed. What possible benefit could there be from committing resources to assessing impacts that are as yet utterly unquantifiable and are, in any case, irrelevant ?

Given this situation, carrying out many highly detailed impact assessments would be a pointless exercise, wasting valuable time and expertise that could be utilised far more profitably elsewhere or on other issues. Those who are so keen on assessments being carried out are die-hard 'Remainers', people who seem to think that they can still prevent any real Brexit from happening by keeping the UK inside of the Customs' Union and Single Market; their pseudo-horrified reaction to David Davis' comments is aimed wholly at this. They are simply trying to put the Government in a bad light and to raise issues that sound of huge importance but are, in reality, entirely specious. Others, such as Labour's Keir Starmer, use every opportunity to denigrate the UK and its negotiators while saying nothing about the intransigence and sheer bloody-mindedness of those in the EU.

Instead of getting behind the clearly expressed will of the people, these individuals are continuing to put as many obstacles in the way of the government as they can and to, effectively, 'talk Britain down'. They should be ashamed of themselves.

BREXIT : IRISH BORDER NOW THE ISSUE.

There have been conflicting reports today regarding the latest Brexit negotiations but one thing is clear. The Irish government is hell bent on using Brexit for its own ends.

At one point it was reported that the UK and EU had reached an agreement over the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It was said that the UK had agreed to some sort of arrangement whereby Northern Ireland would be more closely tied to the EU than the rest of the United Kingdom, allowing for the retention of the current very loose border between north and south. However, it soon became apparent that either this story was wishful thinking by those on the EU / Eire side or that it was true but completely unacceptable to many on the other side. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been a degree of backtracking.

Arlene Foster, leader of the  DUP, has made it clear that no such arrangement would be acceptable to them while representatives of the administrations in Scotland, Wales and even London, have asked that if Northern Ireland can have a special relationship with the EU, why can't they ? Some Conservative 'Remainers' have also been upset by this proposal, fearing that it could, indeed, lead to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Conversely, the government of the Irish Republic was all in favour but is no disappointed that the proposal has struck the rocks; from their point of view, nothing could better suit their aim of establishing a united Ireland than to create a rift between the North and the rest of the UK.

That this issue has been given the importance which it has is nonsensical. The UK government has made it very clear that it does not want  a so-called 'hard border' and yet it is the UK which is being held up as the 'bad boy' in this argument. It is actually the EU which is causing the difficulty by demanding that there is a 'soft border' across which all of its rules and regulations must also apply. It's crazy.

Theresa May seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the demands of the bureaucrats of Brussels and it's time that she stopped. Tell them, in clear terms, that the UK will not impose a 'hard border' but that  Northern Ireland will continue to operate as a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom, whether the EU likes it or not. If they don't like it, they're at liberty to institute whatever border controls they like or they can just accept things as they are.

Come on Theresa, show some steel and stand up for your country.

CROYDON CAT KILLER GETS MY VOTE !

There are reports that the so-called 'Croydon cat killer' has expanded his area of operation and is suspected of killing 5 animals in Northamptonshire. It's suggested that the same person, or persons, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of cats across England.

Frankly, I'm on the side of the killer. Cats are little more than vermin with so many of them now wandering around our neighbourhoods that they are becoming a nuisance. Unlike dogs, which form clear relationships with their owners, cats are utterly self-centred creatures. They are soft and furry and can be cuddly; they will sit and be stroked so long as it suits them but they owe no allegiance to anyone. They drain resources that could be far better used elsewhere.

Many people will say that cats are clean animals although the truth is that they are usually afflicted with at least a few fleas and their cleanliness comes from a rather unsavoury habit of licking themselves all over. Their normal activities including sleeping for most of the day and then slinking around overnight in search of small animals to kill. They mess wherever they like, often in gardens and on flower beds, and sit in wait for opportunities to chase and catch small birds. They contribute nothing of any value to our society.

The owners of cats take no responsibility for them beyond feeding and housing them, although most cats will just as happily bed down anywhere and accept food from anyone. These verminous creatures are not kept under any control and are left to roam freely, causing damage and injury without the owners showing any concern or being held responsible.

Surely it is time for some order to be brought to the ownership and proliferation of cats.

DAMIAN GREEN : TRIED AND CONDEMNED BY BBC !

The utterly appalling 'trial by media' of Damian Green continues, with the BBC revelling in claims made by a retired police officer. Whatever happened to 'trial by jury' and 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

I find it quite shocking that, in the middle of an investigation by the Cabinet Office, any media outlet should act in this way and especially one seen as being our national broadcaster. There is no evidence to link Mr Green with the allegations against him, there is no actual evidence that anything illegal was done by anyone and 9 years have passed since the alleged activity took place; what on earth is going on ?

Of course, this is little more than a left wing witch hunt aimed at further destabilising an already weakened government and the BBC is only too happy to be in on the act. Its behaviour in this matter, which it will undoubtedly claim is 'in the public interest' although it is nothing of the sort, shows it to be no more than an organisation which lives in the gutter, dredging up whatever salacious stories it can find in order to boost its viewing figures. It is obsessed with left wing causes and will do anything it can to bring about a Corbyn government. It is a disgrace and it's well passed time that it was done away with.

There was a time when the BBC was a highly respected and impartial broadcaster, now it is a dirty little scandal sheet. How times have changed.

UK COUGHS UP FOR EU DIVORCE.

It's being reported today, with a degree of fanfare from some and fury from others, that the UK government has 'agreed' its bill for leaving the EU. A sum in the region of £45bn has been suggested and it's said that this has been the subject of communications between the UK and EU over the last few days.

Given that the UK and EU have yet to agree the details of their relationship after the UK has left the bloc, I find it difficult to understand how the size of any 'divorce bill' can be agreed. Yes, the UK undoubtedly has commitments relating to agreements it entered into whilst a member of this profligate club and these should be honoured, but how can any other costs be assessed at this stage in the negotiations ?

The EU has a 7 year budget cycle and its members agree the basic principles for each cycle before agreeing individual budgets for each of the years concerned. Thus, the current budget cycle, to which the UK agreed and for which the UK is committed, runs from 2014 to 2020. Allowing that the UK will be leaving the EU in March 2019, this means that we have a basic commitment to continue to make payments up to and including the 2020 budget year. As the UK's net annual contribution is around £10bn, a 'divorce bill' of about £18bn to cover that period might be a reasonable starting point, and this was the initial suggestion made by UK negotiators; anything more than that figure is all about perceptions and negotiations.

The EU expects the UK to pay for future costs which have already been initiated, such as for the pensions of EU employees, an amount which is not exactly easy to calculate; additionally, it wants payment for other long term costs which are equally nebulous. It now seems that these largely unquantifiable costs have been assessed at around £25bn, bringing the UK's bill up to its latest estimate.

Inevitably this won't be the end of things. There is continuing discussion about the nature of the UK's relationship post-Brexit and we will undoubtedly finish up paying for membership of an assortment of EU organisations as well as being expected to contribute to whatever trading arrangements are eventually arrived at. Nonetheless, things are progressing, it seems. 

HARRY & MEGHAN : NON-EVENT OF THE YEAR.

An unemployed man named Harry has announced that he is going to marry a 36 year old woman named Meghan. So what ?

Well, the man happens to be a member of a very rich family and his mother is probably the most famous woman in the world. The woman is an American divorcée who is a very minor film and television actress; she is a Catholic of mixed race and from a fairly well-off Hollywood family. The woman is also one of those 'rich kids' who has an assortment of supposedly humanitarian roles with various organisations.

Henry Charles Albert David, otherwise known as Prince Harry, seems to be an amiable chap who had a successful career in the army before giving that up to become ------ ? As the younger son of the heir to the throne he is in a similar situation to that of his uncle, Prince Andrew, who has never quite appeared to have a clear role to play. Andrew also had a military career and then married someone who was not the usual type to become a royal princess.

Rachel Meghan Markle is, according to some genealogical research reported by 'Wikipedia', descended from some 16th English Baron and also from King John. On her mother's side, she is apparently descended from slaves and her overall ancestry is a mixture from several countries. However, given the propensity for Americans to grab hold of the first vague indication of anything genealogically interesting, I'd need a bit of convincing before I believed any of it.

Prince Harry's ancestry is similarly mixed and he is, of course, definitely descended from King John as are all of the modern day Royal Family; other than questions about paternity, the genealogy of the Royal Family is well known going back to William the Conqueror and even earlier. Harry is, for instance, also a descendant of King Alfred the Great, though not of King Richard, King Henry VIII or King Charles II, unless through illegitimate routes.

A little over 80 years ago, another proposed Royal marriage between a British prince and an American divorcée led to a constitutional crisis and an abdication; the Queen owes her place on the throne today to this. Prince Harry's proposed marriage is not likely to result in any such problems and has been welcomed by the establishments of both countries. Of course, neither he nor any offspring of his marriage are likely to ever ascend to the throne rendering his marriage a bit of a non-event in constitutional terms.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note the distance travelled by the Royal Family over the last 100 years or so. From not even contemplating the possibility of a marriage outside of other royalty or, at least, nobility, and no possibility of divorce, we now have a raft of divorced Princes, Princesses and others, and marriages to all and sundry, divorced or not.

Is this progress or is it just the Royal Family joining in with the general descent into decadence that afflicts the rest of our society, in which money and celebrity is all that matters ?

POLITICIANS ARE NOT ENTERTAINERS.

It seems that the former leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, now sees herself as a media celebrity; she is to be a contestant in the cretinous programme 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here'.

Dugdale isn't the first politician to demonstrate this type of desire for media exposure and she's unlikely to be the last. Sadly, the level of basic intelligence and self respect of our representatives has rarely, if ever, been so low; far too many are little more than loud-mouthed egotists or rabble-rousing blow-hards.

Dugdale follows in the footsteps of Nadine Dorries, Ed Balls and Penny Mordaunt, all of whom have debased themselves in similar television shows in recent times. Boris Johnson has made appearances on 'Have I got News for You' as have other political figures such as Ken Livingstone. Jeremy Corbyn recently appeared in something called 'Celebrity Gogglebox', whatever that may be and many others have popped up in various television 'soaps' or radio quizzes.

All of this is about appearing to be 'one of the people' and it's all equally tasteless. These people have been elected to represent us, not to entertain us and for them to see themselves as celebrities is egotistical in the extreme. If they have a message to communicate, let them do it in a forthright way, don't have them simply pretending to be cuddly figures who are our friends and just like 'ordinary people'. No matter how friendly and warm they may appear to be, they aren't; they are the ones with the power and they'll do anything to keep it, and themselves in the limelight.

It's no wonder that our country is struggling when our politicians see themselves as entertainers and our entertainers too often use their celebrity status to voice political opinions. Whatever happened to the notion of sticking to the 'day job' ?

MUGABE GOES : WILL MNANGAGWA BE ANY DIFFERENT ?

So, Mugabe has gone.

After much pushing and shoving, Robert Mugabe, a man who should be in prison for his assorted acts of brutality, fraud, theft and much more, has resigned as President of Zimbabwe. Having terrorised his country for 37 years, he's left it in a parlous state that will no doubt have the aid agencies coming round with the begging bowl, while Mugabe himself clears off with his stolen billions. If it wasn't true, you couldn't make it up.

Mugabe's replacement as head of state will be his erstwhile deputy, Emmerson Mnangagwa who was vice-President until Mugabe sacked him a few weeks ago. Given that Mnangagwa is one of Mugabe's oldest associates one has to wonder whether there will be much real change; the dominant force will still be the ZANU-PF political party and there must be a fear that all that's happened is a transfer of power from one thieving tyrant to another.

The next weeks, months and years will show us just how much the country-wide celebrations of recent days were justified.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT : ACCEPT IT.

In our oh-so modern 21st century world in which we are cajoled into believing that men and women are essentially the same, can anyone explain why it is that most advertising is aimed at women ?

Watching television advertising, of which there is a frighteningly vast amount, much of it is about products or issues specifically associated with women; clothes, assorted adornments and perfumes, sanitary products, household wares, items for the care of children and so on. Yes, there is advertising aimed at the more vain men and there are advertisements for some more male orientated items such as cars but far more is aimed at women. if men and women are essentially the same, why is this ?

The very simple answer is that men and women are not the same. As groups, they have different priorities in life and different biological urges. In the same way that other animals have ways of attracting mates, so do humans; men have to show their power and dominance in some way while women have to demonstrate their attractiveness in other ways. Looking 'beautiful' has become a major way for women to show this and being up-to-date in knowing the best way to care for their children is another. Hence, we have this strange concentration of advertising aimed at women.

It must also be the case that women are considered more susceptible to the power of advertisements; again they are thought different from men, and yet when it comes to so many other things, we are compelled to believe that men and women are the same and should be equally represented in all things and places.

What utter rubbish.

UNIVERSAL CREDIT : WHAT A NIGHTMARE !

I have an intense dislike of our economic model in which huge numbers of people rely on state hand outs, otherwise known as 'benefits', for their financial wellbeing. It is a ridiculous system which is designed to give the appearance of wealth and to allow people to buy what they otherwise couldn't afford. In most cases, much of what is then purchased comes from imported goods, thus impoverishing the country, or is paid out in rent, thus enriching those who already have more than they need. In an ideal world, such a system wouldn't exist.

However, it is what we're lumbered with and for decades successive governments have fiddled around with it. The latest attempt to change it has been the introduction of co-called 'Universal Credit', a single payment designed to replace several separately assessed and paid benefits. While there is undoubted merit in such a change, this new all-encompassing benefit has not had an easy birth; in fact, it's already several years behind in its originally planned implementation schedule. Today, yet another problem has been uncovered.

Many claimants already have to wait up to 6 weeks from submitting a claim to receiving their first payment, something which has been severely criticised.  Now it has been revealed that, because many claimants are paid their wages weekly while the benefit is assessed and paid (calendar) monthly, in months in which there are 5 pay days claimants may not receive any Universal Credit and will then have to submit a new claim for it to be reinstated.

Apparently, this is how the system is designed and the government is quite happy with it; that it is utterly ludicrous is obvious to almost everyone else. Whatever one thinks of the system, for those weekly paid workers who rely on Universal Credit this can create a nightmare scenario. Not only are they denied the money they need to pay their rents and other bills in one month but in the following month as well due to the time taken to process new claims. The additional workload created for staff assessing claims has its own cost, with an estimated 100,000 claimants believed to be affected.

While Universal Credit may be a good idea, whoever designed the rules for claiming and paying it needs to be shot.

OUSTING MUGABE WILL CHANGE NOTHING.

No one can be quite sure what's going on in Zimbabwe but if it results in the removal of Robert Mugabe from power, it can't be bad.

Once upon a time, Southern Rhodesia was a prosperous nation. Run by the descendants of the original white European settlers, it wasn't perfect but it was far from the mess it has since become. From the time of its independence in 1980 and the transfer of power from the government of Ian Smith to the tyranny and dictatorship of Mugabe, it has descended into utter chaos. In common with so many African countries, independence really meant the passing of power to tribal leaders whose ambitions were self-serving. Tribal animosity lead to murder and mayhem, with the winners then systematically enriching themselves at the expense of the common people.

In the newly named Zimbabwe, Mugabe won the struggle against Joshua Nkomo and established such a control that he has remained in power for 37 years; Prime Minister initially, then President once his opponents had been eliminated. Under his watch, white farmers have been driven from their lands, some being murdered while the government looked away. Inflation has reached levels never seen before anywhere in the world and the people have lived in abject poverty. Anyone who has spoken out against Mugabe has found themselves in deep trouble; the common people have lived in fear, terrorised by Mugabe's thugs.

Mugabe has undoubtedly robbed his nation of billions of pounds that will never be recovered. He has reduced his country to a state of such poverty and chaos that his going can only be a good thing, so long as whoever replaces him is not from his own circle of monstrous allies. Even then, it is unlikely that much will improve as tribal conflicts and loyalties plus self enrichment will continue to be at the forefront of any new regime.

When Harold MacMillan's "Winds of Change" swept through Africa from the late 1950s to 1980, little thought was given to what that really meant. Stable western style government was replaced with home grown administrations in countries riven by tribal and religious conflict. Tyrannical dictatorships arose everywhere, civil wars broke out, economies collapsed and the common people suffered. Despite this, the western world largely sat on its hands and did nothing to try to help a situation which it had created, other than to pour billions of pounds, dollars, franks and marks into the continent, to little effect. Much of the money was stolen by the brutal regimes which had taken control and, year after year, the same round of famine and disease occurred.

That this still continues is almost unbelievable. We are still annually asked for donations to help starving children in some part of Africa, these days most often in places such as Ethiopia, Somalia or Sudan, but with the same basic lack of success. The conflicts in these countries, and others, originates entirely from a misguided attempt by the Western World to hand power to local people, when the local people were simply not able to exercise it democratically. While they may have access to Sky television and the internet, play with mobile 'phones and X-Boxes, far too many of these people are basically medieval in social development.

Worst of all, South Africa is now heading rapidly down the same path as its corrupt leadership repeats everything that the likes of Mugabe have done before. Apartheid may not have been right but at least South Africa was a prosperous nation under the leadership of successive white governments. As with Southern Rhodesia, government by Europeans has been replaced with government by tribal leaders and the result is increasingly one of corruption and tribal in-fighting. Current President, Jacob Zuma, has faced so many charges of illegal activities that it is astonishing that he remains in office, but that's the way it is in Africa today. High officials exercise their tyrannical rule with an iron grip, and make money while the nations fall apart.

If anything proves how useless and toothless the United Nations is, it's the state of the continent of Africa. Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Jean-Bedal Bokassa, Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, Robert Mugabe and many, many others have destroyed their countries while enriching themselves, and the UN has stood by, powerless to intervene.

Will we never learn ?

LAURA PLUMMER : STUPID OR A DRUG SMUGGLER ?

There are currently various reports about a British woman who's found herself in trouble in Egypt. Inevitably the British media is putting the best spin it can on the story though it seems that there's much about it which suggests guilt.

Laura Plummer, a shop assistant from Hull, was arrested after being caught with 300 'Tramadol' tablets in her luggage. Ms Plummer apparently has an Egyptian boy friend who has a bad back and she claims that the tablets are for him; it also appears that she travels to Egypt on a regular basis.

Now, 'Tramadol' is available in the UK on prescription but is illegal in Egypt due to its use by addicts. Ms Plummer claims that she did not know that it is illegal in Egypt.

That this story has several rather large holes in it is obvious. Firstly, no doctor would be likely to prescribe 300 tablets on a single prescription and certainly not for a person who is not registered as a patient and does not live in the UK; Ms Plummer says that she obtained the drugs from a friend, which certainly suggests that she knew her actions were questionable.

Secondly, 'Tramadol' is an opioid used to treat moderately severe pain but, no doubt, there are other pain killers available in Egypt which her boyfriend could have taken for his bad back. Why did Ms Plummer need to be taking such a large quantity of the drug with her, 300 tablets probably amounting to several months supply ?.

Thirdly, why did her boyfriend not obtain the 'Tramadol', or some alternative, for himself; that he didn't strongly suggests that he, and therefore she, was well aware that there is an issue with them as far as the Egyptian authorities are concerned. It could also suggest that the story of the bad back is simply cover for a trafficking operation.

Ms Plummer seems to be relying on a claim that she did not know that she was breaking Egyptian law by bringing 'Tramadol' into that country. Not unsurprisingly, and in common with British law, the Egyptian authorities simply respond by saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Given this stance and the clearly doubtful nature of Ms Plummer's activities, what defence does she have ?

Clearly, Ms Plummer is either stupid or a drug smuggler; either way, she surely deserves whatever punishment the Egyptian authorities determine.

EU ISSUES ULTIMATUM : UK SHOULD REPLY IN LIKE MANNER.

Michel Barnier, one of the European Unions gaggle of bureaucrats involved in Brexit negotiations, has said that the UK has two weeks in which to clarify key issues or make concessions if progress is to be made in the talks. Rather more reasonably, David Davis, the UK's chief negotiator, has said that it's time for both sides "to work to find solutions"

While Barnier threatens, Davis attempts to conciliate; the difference in approach is stark. The EU is attempting to blackmail the UK into handing over piles of cash and accepting whatever it demands in relation to issues such as citizens' rights and the Irish border before it will agree to talk about a post-Brexit trade agreement.

Surely it is clear to everyone that the EU has no interest in having fair-minded discussions, what it wants is its own way and the total surrender of the UK to its demands. The UK should stand up for itself and tell Mr Barnier and his pals where to go.

Despite the way in which most of the media portrays things, that is, that the EU holds all of the cards, the UK holds the most powerful card of all; it can walk away and pay nothing more into the EU's bottomless money pit. Mr Davis should make it very clear to his opposite number that this option is now very much to the fore and will be actioned unless the EU adopts a more realistic and reasonable approach. There is no chance that countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain and others would suddenly refuse to trade with the UK or to impose massive tariffs on its goods; quite simply, our trade is too valuable to them.

If Barnier wants to threaten us, we should react in kind and give the EU two weeks to start genuine negotiations, otherwise, we will leave without a deal. See how he likes that.

NHS FUNDING : INSURANCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

It seems to be accepted that the NHS is horribly underfunded. Today, the Chief Executive has made a speech in which he's argued that the government should pump in huge additional resources right now, in anticipation of the supposed windfall that will arise when the UK leaves the European Union. Would this really be the right way to go ?

When the NHS was founded, it was expected that it would result in improved health for the nation and that costs would actually fall over time; that this was a foolish and hopelessly misguided expectation is now apparent to all. In fact, the notion of a national health service, paid out of taxation and free to all at the point of delivery is no longer plausible. Over the years, an assortment of charges have been introduced to cover optical, dental, prescription and other services but, at the same time, the range of services and treatments provided has expanded massively and to such an extent that ever increasing sums of money have to be found in order to keep the service solvent. Unless things change, the NHS and the associated Social Services, will expand to such an extent that they will absorb far more money than any government can supply without raising taxes to a degree that the population will find unacceptable.

New drugs and treatments, new equipment which allows for much better diagnostic services, a rapidly aging population and an expansion of services well beyond anything originally envisaged all combine to render a 'free for all' NHS no longer viable. The government could pour in billions of pounds more than it has in recent years and it would still not be enough; every year, senior NHS managers and clinicians would still demand more. How much would it really take to bring the NHS to a point at which these cash-hungry voices would be satisfied - £10bn, £20bn, £50bn ?

If we take the middle one of these figures, £20bn, which I suspect would be the least necessary to achieve what some say is needed, that would need income tax to be raised by a eighth, national insurance to be raised by a sixth or VAT also to be raised by a sixth. My, admittedly amateur, calculation suggest that this would equate to around £30 - £40 a month for an average earner; would people really be happy to see such increases in their taxes ? More of their hard earned wages being sucked into the government's ever-open coffers with no real guarantees that the money would actually bring about the service improvements that are needed.

No, I don't think they would. We already pay huge amounts into a vast black hole whose efficiency is questionable and whose profligacy is legendary. The NHS, in common with most nationalised services, is subjected to a ludicrous level of pointless and costly rules and regulations; it's required to

commit considerable resources to all manner of central reporting and is hugely bureaucratic by nature. What is needed is a total rethink.

The NHS in its present form is unsustainable. The original idea was fine but it's now grown into a something that couldn't even be imagined back in 1948 when it came into being; the only sensible way forward is a hybrid  system, part state-funded and part insurance based. Emergency services and what flows from them should be funded by the state, as should preventative services such as vaccination and services for those who are unable to make their own arrangements. Services for the more common conditions and associated treatments, children's services and health education should also be free but much else should be moved to an insured basis; individuals should make their own arrangements based on the increasing availability of information that is available to them. One has to expect that, within a very few years, DNA analysis will be commonplace and people will be well aware of what conditions are likely to affect them and what are not. Aided by such information, people should be well able to arrange insurance that will cover them for any required treatments.

We have to stop thinking that the state can pay for whatever we need while forgetting that the state is actually us. Personal responsibility is the key and we all have to prioritise our spending; for those who prefer to have spend on cigarettes and beer, a new mobile 'phone', fancy holiday, or new car rather than providing for their health needs, tough. "You pays your money and you takes your chance" should be the mantra.

I don't pretend that changing the current system would be easy, in fact it would be very difficult as the political pressures and ingrained nature of the NHS would be hard to overcome, but it needs to be don. Sooner or later, it will have to be.

TAX AVOIDANCE : LET'S HAVE MORE OF IT !

Yet another media storm has been kicked off by the so-called revelations contained in a huge number of papers which have been 'leaked', though from where doesn't seem to be stated.

It seems that evil people have been using 'tax havens' to avoid paying their taxes. Shock ! Horror ! Even worse, it's reported that some of the investments of the Duchy of Lancaster, from which the Queen benefits, have been made in these dreadful places.

It's hardly a surprise to find that the BBC is deeply involved in reporting these supposed wrongdoings. Indeed, this morning it had the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell in full voice on the 'Today' programme; he went on and on without saying anything other than sounding outraged, though I have no doubt that many will have believed that his bluster actually did have meaning.

For the avoidance of doubt, Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, in fact many would say that it's the duty of every citizen to ensure that they abide by tax law, exploit whatever 'loop holes'  are available and only pay the taxes which are due. Successive governments have actually introduced some 'loop holes' quite deliberately into the system, with special tax treatments for pensions, ISAs, investments in the arts or forestry and so on. Why should using these 'loop holes' be considered acceptable, while using others is considered something akin to a capital offence ?

The way in which Tax Avoidance has been conflated with Tax Evasion in recent years is worrying. Those who use Tax Avoidance measures are being increasingly portrayed as Tax Evaders, which is fundamentally wrong. Tax Evasion is illegal and should be met with the full force of the law; Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal and should be applauded.

Those like John McDonnell who simply can't abide the thought that there are people who have more than them should shut up whining, and organisations like the BBC should stop giving them an outlet for their tedious political posturing.

SEX AND POLITICS : A MEDIA FRENZY.

As the furore about sexual misconduct in the world of politics rolls on, the media is full of claims by various people, mostly women, about supposed, but wholly unsubstantiated, sexual assaults of one sort or another. While some of these individuals have made their claims in the full glare of publicity, others have hidden behind cloaks of anonymity.

Anyone can make allegations against anyone else, whether they be true or not. When the accusers choose to remain anonymous their claims must be treated with considerable caution though this is rarely the approach adopted by the media, which seem to love repeatedly raking over every sleazy story they can find. People are publicly accused of all manner of misdeeds while their accusers remain hidden in the shadows of television studios or newspaper offices. Claims are literally 'dug up' from years, sometimes decades, ago without any consideration as to their validity or any thought as to the damage which false claims may cause.

Those who have been the victims of genuine sexual assaults have every right to feel aggrieved and should take their claims to the police. The police have a duty to then investigate and, where the evidence allows, make arrests and bring the full weight of the law into force. When the evidence cannot be found or is insufficient, the 'victim' may have recourse to other avenues but surely evidence is still required. For Members of Parliament, and others, to be pilloried when the evidence is no more than one person's word, is wholly unjust. Whether or not an offence was committed, everyone is innocent until proven guilty and, in the absence of corroborated evidence, there has to be an assumption of innocence.

The current witch hunt is wrong.

HARASSMENT OR FLIRTATION ?

We seem to be in the middle of a witch hunt.

Since the revelations about the shocking behaviour of Harvey Weinstein, people have been popping up left, right and centre to claim that they have been harassed by various public figures. While some of these claims relate to fairly recent incidents others refer to supposed inappropriate activities decades ago. This has horrible echoes of the claims made against Edward Heath, Leon Brittan and Lord Bramall.

There is no doubt that harassment, particular sexual harassment, is abhorrent; unwelcome physical contacts which amount to assault and can even culminate in far more serious events such as rape should result in the perpetrator finding themselves behind bars. However, it is also the case that men and women have engaged in flirtatious behaviour since time began, indeed, this is how relationships begin. The question that has to be asked is "When does flirtation become harassment ?"

Michael Fallon has been forced to resign from his government post and Labour has suspended its MP, Kelvin Hopkins after both have been accused of sexually harassing women, in Fallon's case a journalist and in Hopkins a female party worker. Julia Hartley-Brewer, the journalist in Fallon's case, said that she hadn't been upset or offended by him placing his hand on her knee, although there have subsequently been claims that Fallon made lewd and suggestive remarks to, or about, other women as well. The claims against Mr Hopkins remain undisclosed making any comment here unnecessary.

Clearly, Ms Hartley-Brewer is made of sterner stuff than some of the shrinking violets who now seem to abound. Do women really dislike the attentions of men, including the occasional flirtatious physical contact, so much that men must now remain at arm's length ? Is it no longer permitted for a man to make a comment for fear of being accused of 'harassment' ?

Is "Hello my dear, you're looking particularly lovely today" accompanied by a touch on the shoulder now to result in cries of "Harassment !!!" As is usual with such matters, the media has overreacted and the Parliament has got its collective knickers in a twist. Drawing the line between flirtation and harassment is something that has to be done but indulging in a witch hunt isn't the way to do it.

And while on the subject, what about unwelcome advances by women towards men or homosexuals on heterosexuals, of which I've seen a few ? Why is it always the supposed hordes of nasty men who supposedly attack women and children who bear the brunt of such media frenzies ? Could it be because of the current liberal left, politically correct feminist attitudes which now are all-pervasive in our society ?

Instances of inappropriate, even criminal, behaviour have to be dealt with, but who will define 'inappropriate' ? What is inappropriate to one is mere fun and flirtation to another, whichever side of the coin that they're on. We are in danger of imposing standards on society which reflect the attitudes of a tiny minority of particularly sensitive people, or of people with a particular axe to grind, while ignoring the rather more grown up attitudes of the rest.

What a sad and frightened little world some people inhabit; the rest of us must not be dragged in.

BREXIT : BANK OF ENGLAND AT IT AGAIN.

On of the major 'anti-Brexit' players is the Bank of England which has done nothing but issue dire warnings about the consequences of leaving the European Union since well before the referendum. In fact, led by George Osborne's pal, Canadian Mark Carney, it seems to have been at the forefront of the 'Remain' campaign throughout the last 2 years.

Having got many of its prognostications wrong does not seem to have affected its desire to continue to try to scare us all into changing our minds about the EU. Today it appears to have 'leaked' that it is assuming job losses of 'up to 75,000' in the financial services sector, a number which has been seized upon by the BBC, another major anti-Brexit campaigner. It's reported that 'senior figures' at the bank believe that 75,000 is a 'reasonable scenario' though what this number is base on isn't stated. As a get out clause, the bank is also accepting that the number could change depending on the UK's post-Brexit trading relationship with the EU.

What a load of old cobblers. Those from the 'Remain' campaign who refuse to accept the verdict of the referendum have continued to toss out scare stories willy-nilly. Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and Mark Carney's ban are merely the tip of the iceberg; can we forget Gina Miller, the pro-European who vociferously denied that her own campaign had nothing to do with our EU membership but was simply about making sure correct legal procedures were followed ? Ms Miller is another who now continues to pop up here and there voicing her strident opposition to Brexit.

Perhaps there will be job losses in financial services but perhaps it's about time. There are far too many grotesquely overpaid bankers, stockbrokers and insurance officials who all make their money by robbing the rest of us blind and who would really care if we got rid of a few of these leaches ?

Contrary to the dire predictions made around the time of the referendum, the UK's economy has continued to grow, the pound has not collapsed and unemployment is at levels not seen in decades. Yes, it's not all been plain sailing and there may well be a few difficult times still to come over the next 18 months but don't be conned by these doom-mongers. The UK will emerge from Brexit stronger and fitter than it's been for many years and fully ready to venture out into a much wider world than is encompassed by the protectionist, bureaucratic and inward looking European Union.

SOCIAL CARE FUNDING : USE MY HOUSE !

With the next Budget due very soon, there have been the usual speculations about what steps Chancellor Hammond might take in order to boost the popularity of the Conservative government. As usual, most of the speculation is likely to be nothing but the imaginings of the fevered minds in the media, but some suggestions may be closer to the mark.

One of the ideas suggested has been that the Chancellor may look for ways to transfer resources from the elderly to the younger generation who are currently less than enthusiastic about the Conservative Party. It's been suggested that there could be some form of tax increases that would only affect the elderly though how realistic, and politically acceptable, any such move would be is questionable.

One of the main reasons for the failure of the Conservative election campaign was their suggestion of using the resources tied up in property to pay for social care in old age; the idea, as presented, proved electorally disastrous. For some reason that I can't really understand, it has become an accepted fact that 'the family home' is somehow sacrosanct and can't be touched. Government has even added weight to this notion by providing some inheritance tax exemptions for family homes, quite illogically in my view.

People who were able to save during their lifetimes traditionally did so for the purpose of being able to live a reasonably comfortable old age. Savings may have been as money in the bank, investments or even insurance policies, though for most, by far the most significant saving was their family home. Paid for out of their income over many years, their home was their principal asset and, as such, was realisable in the event of financial need. No more, it seems. The home is now protected to be passed on to subsequent generations who have done nothing to earn their good fortune.

If Chancellor Hammond really wants to transfer resources from the elderly to the young, he needs look no further than to a reversion of this crazy approach. My home belongs to me and I can see no logical reason for it's value not being used to fund any social care needs that I may have in old age. I see no logical reason why my home should be passed on, tax free, to the next generation when it is that generation that is then expected to pay for my social care costs - it's nonsensical.

Assets that are accumulated during a lifetime are not for the purpose of passing on but as a hedge against old age and infirmity. The Chancellor should remove the inheritance tax exemptions that currently apply and make it clear that social care costs are the responsibility of individuals, with appropriate safeguards and limits in place. Taxes could then be reduced, largely benefitting the young, one of those taxes quite possibly being inheritance tax itself which is currently levied at a penal rate of 40%, and this on assets which have been accumulated out of already taxed income, too.

That our tax and benefits system is a mess is something that everyone knows. If Chancellor Hammond wants to make a name for himself, he should do something about it, and tackling the stupidity that surrounds houses and the funding of social care would be a good place to start. The policy proposed in the Conservative election manifesto was right all along.

BREXIT REALLY DOES MEAN BREXIT !

Those who refuse to accept the result of the EU referendum continue to try to scare our population into changing its mind on the matter. Today, it was the turn of the oily Peter Mandelson who trotted out the same tired old clichés on the 'Today' programme.

As with all of his like-minded pals, Mandelson repeatedly uses meaningless phrases such as 'hard Brexit', suggesting that the government is hell bent on some sort of horrible action that will hurt us all. The fact is that there is no 'hard Brexit' any more than there is a 'soft Brexit'; there is no option to leave the European Union but stay inside the Customs Union and Single Market which is the supposed 'soft Brexit' option promoted by the dyed in the wool remainers. Banal as it sounds, Brexit does actually mean Brexit - the UK will leave the EU in March 2019 and what matters are the bilateral agreements that are then put in place, not any nonsense about staying in various bits of the EU.

Remainers are continuing to make the same arguments that they made in 2016; leaving the EU will destroy our economy, the pound will collapse, everyone will be poorer, blah blah. So far, it hasn't happened and the truth is that it won't. Yes, there may be a few rocky times but aren't there always ? The UK has suffered a few unpleasant economic times over the last 40 years - Healey's trip to the IMF, our exit from the ERM and the 2008 'crash' among them; we were INSIDE the EU on these occasions and at least one of them was directly caused by the EU.

Remainers tell us, repeatedly, that 'everyone knows' that Brexit will be disastrous and a 'hard Brexit' the worst of all worlds. Quite clearly, 'everyone' does not 'know' this and it is just more of the scaremongering which is the only real weapon of this undemocratic bunch of elitist, left-leaning, so-called intellectuals.

There will be a deal. It may come at the last second of the last minute but it will come. It will also be realistic. The UK will agree to pay some money but not as much as some have suggested. There will be a trade deal, largely because the EU wants it as much as does the UK. The UK's involvement in a variety of European organisations and projects will continue through partnership agreements. The European Court of Justice will  no longer have power over the UK. European citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Europe will all be protected.

All of this will happen because it must. The political posturing of the puffed up bureaucrats of the EU will dissolve into nothingness as the desperate need for an agreement becomes apparent to all. Pragmatism will prevail over hype and rhetoric, obstructionist jargon and political shilly-shallying.

Roll on April 2019 when all of this twaddle will be over.

MAY GOES OFF TO SWAY EU LEADERS

Theresa May has trotted off to make yet another approach to leaders of the European Union in an effort to get them to see sense. Sadly, their negotiators have continued to be obstructive and unhelpful over the 'Brexit' discussions but there is a meeting of the national leaders which could change all of that.

While the UK appears to be bending over backwards over the question of citizens' rights, and has no desire to create difficulties over the Irish border, the EU's negotiators have been 'hung up' over money; they won't accept that a financial bill cannot be agreed until the overall terms of the UK's departure are known and refuse to allow the discussions to move onto trade arrangements.

In talking to the leaders today, May hopes to be able to encourage the EU to be more realistic and positive; her chances appear slim. She is under pressure to issue ultimatums about walking away without a deal but won't do that; what she might do is to alluded to the pressure and the possibilities of a 'no-deal' while making it clear that she doesn't want such an outcome. Maggie would have done this and been taken seriously, but could May get away with it ?

The only thing that's clear is that nothing's clear. Politicians are a universally disingenuous and untrustworthy bunch, interested only in maintaining their own power and authority and achieving their own ends. Whether anything will result from this latest talking shop, God knows.

BREXIT BAD SAYS OECD - THERE'S A SURPRISE !

It's just been reported that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development - usually referred to as the OECD - has issued another negative statement regarding the supposed effects of Brexit.

This time, following several previous negative statements, the OECD is predicting that growth in the UK's economy will fall and the pound will slump, although a reversal of the Brexit decision would be universally positive and save us from Armageddon. The BBC has leapt upon this news as another opportunity to promote its anti-Brexit position, but exactly what is the OECD ?

Originally founded in 1948 as an entirely European organisation, the present incarnation came into being in 1961, when non-European countries were invited to join. The organisation is based in France and is, in effect, a talking shop for political representatives from numerous nations to try to apply pressure wherever they feel it's needed.

Twenty two of the current 35 members of the OECD are also members of the European Union, including the United Kingdom. A number of major 'emerging' economies are not members, notably the so-called BRICs countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - and also Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia, and other countries which are likely to be the major growth areas in the coming decades; only one country form South America and 2 from Asia (excluding Turkey and Israel) are members. In essence, the OECD is a protectionist Western organisation run by the current leading economic powers and for the benefit of the same powers; it's hardly lacking in bias.

Along with assorted other protectionist lobbyists, the OECD is keen to avoid any disturbance to the 'status quo'; it likes things as they are and hates the uncertainty of change. That it's forecasts for the UK's economy are repeatedly and universally gloomy is hardly a surprise, though listening to the way in which its prognostications are reported could make one believe that it is the fount of all knowledge and wisdom and to oppose it can only lead to catastrophe.

Perhaps the OECD is right and Brexit will lead to disaster, but what if it's wrong and Brexit actually opens up a brave new world of opportunity ? Over the centuries and millennia of recorded history, those who decried exploration, new ideas and change were almost always wrong. Those brave souls who sailed the oceans to discover not only that the world wasn't flat but also new continents would never have been funded by the OECD; those who claimed that human beings could never withstand the 'high speeds' of trains were shown to be ludicrously wrong. Man could never fly, said some, and the earth was at the centre of the universe claimed others. So many discoveries and inventions would have been stifled had those with the mind set of the OECD won the day.

Today, the OECD and like-minded international organisations do everything that they can to support their economic world view; they reject all alternatives and sail on, ignoring the danger signals that are everywhere. Vast debt, both personal and governmental eventually has to be settled; vast inequalities between nations that mean the 'developed' economies are living on borrowed time, as well as money, are ignored. Withdraw and protect is the policy and it's doomed to failure.

The next major war will be all about economic power and opportunity. The billions in Asia, Africa and South America will eventually demand their pound of flesh, and the sooner we in the West realise it, the better. Free and fair trade for all is the way forward and the OECD needs to look outwards not inwards if it's to be taken seriously.