TRUMP'S CATASTROPHIC FIRST SIX MONTHS

Just 6 months into his Presidency, Donald Trump's administration seems to be in utter chaos. Public rows, leaks, back-biting, sackings, Twitter rants; is this any way to run a country ?

Trump seems to have few allies outside of a close circle of likeminded friends and his major policy pledges are already experiencing serious difficulties. The abolition of 'Obamacare' has been rejected and the proposed wall between the USA and Mexico has few supporters. Trump's budget, which must be in place by the end of September, faces a turbulent time on its passage through Congress. He, himself, is under severe pressure as stories of links with the Russian government continue to circulate.

Several of Trump's original team have already fallen by the wayside, the latest being his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus was prominent as one of Trump's most ardent supporters but has clearly had enough of the quagmire now surrounding the President. The new Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci, seems to  believe that foul mouthed abuse is little more than 'colourful language', and has launched disgusting tirades against his own White House colleagues soon after taking up his post.

Donald Trump may have been a highly successful business man but politics is a different sort of business and he doesn't understand it. Shouting and throwing his weight around may work in a boardroom when he owns the company, but being President isn't the same as being Chief Executive. He has to learn to listen to others and to conciliate; he must understand how to cajole quietly and convince through argument. If he doesn't learn these skills very quickly, he has little chance of success and no chance of a second term, in fact, he will go down in history as America's worst ever one-term President.

RIP CHARLIE GARD

The disgraceful circus that surrounded the last months of Charlie Gard's life is now over. We can only be thankful.

This poor, sick child never had any chance of survival and the public battle between his parents and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie spent most of his short life, was one of the most unedifying events of the last few years. One can only wonder about the motives of his parents and those who paid their legal costs.

No parent expects their children to predecease them and seeing a child fall ill and die is heart breaking, but there also has to be a degree of sense and understanding when such events occur. A point comes at which there has to be acceptance of the inevitable in the best interests of the child; while Charlie's parents did finally accept that he was going to die, even then they still carried on an argument about where that would happen. It almost seemed that the legal fight was more important than anything else, including their child's suffering. They continually stressed what they wanted rather than concentrating on what was best for their son and, in that, they were horribly selfish and wrong.

Now that Charlie has died, one might expect that we will hear no more. Sadly, I suspect that there will now be syndication of 'his story' and 'his parents' story'; will there also be the book, the film, the stage play ? I doubt that we've heard the last of poor little Charlie Gard.

HOW DEMOCRATIC IS OUR DEMOCRACY ?

Tony Blair tells us that we, the people, got it wrong over Brexit; he wants us to understand that he's much more intelligent than we are and that he knows what's best for us.

Richard Dawkins, on BBC radio today, complained about people making decisions based on 'gut feeling' rather than on known facts. The discussion also included reference to Brexit regarding which Dawkins reckoned that too many on both sides of the argument had probably cast their votes on the basis of 'gut feeling' rather than facts about what Brexit would mean. However, he also made it clear that he considered the outcome of the vote to be disastrous for the country, as was the outcome of the US Presidential election.

Both Blair and Dawkins, as well as many others among the elite, firmly believe that they know better than the bulk of the population. They consider themselves blessed with knowledge and insight that the rest of us lack; basically, we rely on 'gut feeling' to make decisions and are too stupid to understand what's going on or to make 'the right' judgements about important matters.

What Blair, Dawkins and the rest are really saying is that they don't like democracy because it can produce the 'wrong' answers. By asking the mass of the population what they want, it risks upsetting the status quo from which those at the top of the pile benefit hugely. What the elite wants is a vast flock of sheep who will simply keep quiet and do as they're told; what they don't want is for the population to ignore the advice of their self-appointed 'betters' and take a contrary approach. This is one reason why they only hold referendums when they are both confident of the outcome and the anticipated outcome  is something that they want anyway. The Brexit referendum was a huge miscalculation that will probably ensure it's the only one of its kind ever held. So much for the 'will of the people'.

Admittedly, when the Greeks invented democracy some 2,500 years ago, life was much simpler and politics more basic. Nonetheless, we either live in a democracy in which the will of the people prevails or we don't. Which is it ?

HOW LONG SHOULD WE LIVE ?

A so-called 'health expert' from University College London has been suggesting that 'austerity' might be affecting life expectations.

Sir Michael Marmot claims to be 'deeply concerned' about this, citing data which shows that the rate of increase in life expectancy is slowing. Marmot makes the point, correctly, that there's been a consistent increase in life expectancy over the last 100 years or so, but fails to understand why this has been.

For generations, life expectation hardly changed but huge changes in health care over the last 100 years, including the discovery of antibiotics and major advances in all manner of treatments and surgeries, have allowed people to live a full lifespan, rather than having it cut short at a young age due to illness or injury. This has meant that we are now much more susceptible to the natural decay of our bodies and their natural end. A consequence has been a rapid increase in the incidence of cancers  and dementia, essentially conditions of old age, while no treatment has yet extended any human life to beyond 120 years.

Marmot suggests that 'austerity' has denied funds to our health services and, therefore, denied life-prolonging treatments. He ignores the fact that simply prolonging life may not even be either desirable nor achievable beyond a certain point but instead makes vague suggestions intended to put pressure on the government to spend more to little purpose.

Until scientists discover a way to actually keep us all young, we all have a limited life expectancy. The Christian Bible set this at 'three score years and ten', or 70, which has remained a fair target for millennia. Today, we look at the possibility of reaching 80, 90 or even 100, but very often in poor health. Marmot complains that the rate of increase is 'levelling off', but is this not inevitable, even desirable ? Do we really want a world populated by centenarians ?

Life expectancy in the UK is lower than that in some other countries, largely due to differences in diet and lifestyle. We are a people addicted to unhealthy fast food and little physical activity and the consequence is that, on average, we have shorter lives than some others. So what ? Since when is living longer and longer lives of any use or purpose ?

Death is a necessity, otherwise populations stagnate. Interfering 'experts' with nothing sensible to say, like Marmot, should simply shut up.

FOOTBALL : AN OBSCENE GRAVY TRAIN.

With the football transfer season in full swing, it's clear that supposed 'austerity' has had no effect on the spending of British clubs, with fee and wage inflation at record levels.

Vast amounts of money pumped into a few clubs, in fact a very few, means that it is only these which are able to attract the biggest names. Greedy agents and players line up to negotiate with the likes of Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea in England, Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain, Bayern Munich in Germany and PSG in France. These heavyweights have access to so much money that, while they pick and choose, the rest are left to squabble about the dross.

When some players are transferred for sums approaching £100m and wages of £15m per year can be handed out, one has to ask where will it all end ? The big clubs no longer bother with recruiting youngsters from their local areas and attract little loyalty from their players; all that matters is the money. In England, only 3 clubs have a strong chance of winning the Premier League, while perhaps 3 or 4 more have a slim chance; barring a year like Leicester City enjoyed in 2015-16, a highly unlikely event, the rest have no chance of even finishing in the top 6. This effectively prevents them from gaining access to the lucrative world of European competitions as well as from the marketing opportunities available to the 'big clubs'.

Many ordinary people spend thousands of pounds, that they can ill afford, every year on football season tickets, travel, replica kits and assorted other memorabilia, enriching players and clubs while struggling to make ends meet at home. While some players are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds every week, most of those who contribute towards their wages can't even dream of such wealth; players can be paid as much in a single month as their fans are in a lifetime. It's wrong.

Football has become an obscene gravy train for a few very rich people. It will end, but how long will we have to wait for reality to kick in ?

ROGER FEDERER : SPORTING SUPERSTAR AND ROLE MODEL.

If there's ever been a greater sportsman, in every sense of the word, than Roger Federer I'd like to know who it was.

Federer's eighth Wimbledon single's title, won today against Marin Cilic, sets him apart from all other men who've played in the world's most famous tennis tournament. It also brought him his 19th Grand Slam title, extending his already record number, and came 16 years after his first success. Sadly, his opponent did not seem to be at his best but one can only beat what's in front of you and Federer succeeded where Cilic and his other main rivals, Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, did not. He did not lose a set throughout the tournament and his serve was broken only 4 times; he played as well as he did in his prime and who is to say that there aren't yet more titles to come ?

As always, Federer was a perfect gentleman on court and was magnanimous in victory. According to comments from one of the ball girls, he is the nicest, kindest and most polite of players, always saying please and thank you and never being sharp or difficult. He always appears to be calm and unworried, although it was clear that today's victory, when it came, was an emotional one; the Great Man shed a few tears of joy and relief behind his towel.

In the crowd, his wife and children cheered him on along with his parents, coaching team and an array of former Greats. One senses genuine love and huge affection for this sporting icon who seems able to combine a close family life with all of the demands of playing at the very highest level. When compared with the regular tantrums, griping and whining of many others, Federer stands out as the role model that should be followed.

Roger Federer, SIMPLY THE BEST !

NEXT DOCTOR WHO : A ONE-LEGGED DWARF ?

The media or at least, the BBC, seems to be on tenterhooks about the identity of the next actor to play the part of Doctor Who. Indeed, listening to BBC news coverage one would think that this is a major issue of international importance.

For me, there only ever has been one Doctor Who and that was the wonderful William Hartnell who created the character. Other early incarnations had their good points but none ever compared with Hartnell's slightly eccentric, 'mad professor' portrayal. Over the years, the BBC paid less attention to the character and more to attracting a particular audience, culminating with Sylvester McCoy who was the last Doctor of the original series; by McCoy's time in the role, the series had completely lost its way and it came as no surprise when it was ended in 1989..

Resurrecting the series in 2005, the BBC turned the Doctor into some sort of 'super hero', quite different from the original concept. Now he was portrayed by a succession of dashing young studs with an assortment of politically correct companions. The latest incarnation has seen Peter Capaldi, an actor of some note though not exactly top drawer, taking on the role but now he is set to breathe his last and is to be replaced; as has become customary the revelation of the name of the new Doctor has been turned into a media extravaganza.

There has been speculation that the chosen actor will be a woman, presumably as a sop to the 'equal rights' brigade though why such nonsense should be relevant is a mystery. It might just as well be a one-legged dwarf or a deaf, dumb and blind trapeze artist; it's simply ridiculous and it's nothing more than pandering to an ever more faddish audience and a hierarchy obsessed with 'political correctness'.

Doctor Who is an eccentric, slightly bumbling but very, very clever and very, very old alien. He, and I emphasise 'He', is not a trendy young thing nor is 'he' female. He is not disabled and he is not a super hero. David Jason would have been a good choice, possibly John Nettles, certainly Richard Briars. Michael Gambon, Deek Jacobi or Bill Nighy could all have brought their own styles to the role without betraying, the original as, no doubt, could many others but the BBC, in its determination to 'keep up with the times' chose to select a succession of very different characters.

Whoever is chosen to replace Capaldi is most unlikely to be any sort of successor to William Hartnell and his original portrayal of the Doctor. It is, in truth, a travesty to call the current series 'Doctor Who' as it bears neither similarity to nor comparison with the original. What a shame.

BLAIR WON'T GIVE UP ON EU.

Tony Blair, a disingenuous and devious politician as well as being an arch-Europhile, is at it again.

Today, he's reported as making some vague remarks about the European Union being prepared to compromise on the issue of immigration into the UK in order to keep us in the Customs Union, Single Market and, in effect, the EU itself. In making these remarks he's been at pains to suggest that he 'knows something' while not actually indicating what, now where his supposed knowledge comes from.

Blair is hell-bent on keeping the UK inside the EU, seeing himself as some kind of 'elder statesman' who knows much better than the fools who want us to leave one of the most bureaucratic and corrupt organisations in the world. His latest attempt to convince us to change our minds centres on an assumption that we only voted as we did because we are opposed to the flood of immigrants coming to our country in recent years, ignoring all of the other reasons for voting to leave.

Of course, immigration is an issue but so is the bureaucracy, the vast tomes of pettifogging rules and regulations, the lack of democracy, the plans for a European super-state and army, the interference from the European Court of Justice, the massive financial 'bail-outs' and general waste of huge amounts of money, and much more.

The EU hamstrings its most productive and successful economies while also bankrupting the poorest. It interferes in more areas of our lives than we can easily know and is highly protectionist; vast subsidies paid to some have to be paid by the rest of us for no good reason. Its accounts have been highly suspect for ever since its foundation, with money spent but no clear understanding of where it's actually gone.

Forget Blair's devious entreaties and vague suggestions. The EU is a club to which we neither need nor want to belong.

IS BREXIT HEADING FOR THE ROCKS ?

Listening to politicians from all parties witter on about the European Union and the UK's exit from it, I'm becoming utterly convinced that they are out to ensure that leaving is impossible.

Rather than talking of opportunities and looking for solutions to the perceived problems, they do nothing but talk of the terrible difficulties that we face. There is talk of setting up a variety of joint committees and panels to determine various things after we leave, arrangements which would be simply ridiculous.

When, or if, we leave, we leave and European Union rules and regulations, laws and courts, will no longer apply, and yet our political masters seem not to want to accept this. Of course, in suggesting that they will be, obstructive the Labour party is actually doing nothing more than looking for an opportunity to bring the government down and take power themselves. The Liberal Democrats are Euro-fanatics and will do anything to keep us in the bureaucratic nightmare of the EU as will some Europhile Conservatives such as Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry.

There can be no reason, other than playing political games, for anyone to suggest that we should remain under any sort of EU control after March 2019. There can be no reason why the European Court of Justice should continue to have any role in British life after that time and suggestions that it should continue to oversee the 'rights' of EU citizens in the UK is insane; it would lead to a situation in which people living and working next door to each other could be subject to different laws, something which would be a nonsense. Quite clearly, those who live in the UK should be subject to UK law while those who live in other countries are subject to the laws in effect in their chosen homes.

With EU officials meeting representatives of the Scottish and Welsh governments, and Jeremy Corbyn also trying to get in on the act, it's clear that anti-democratic forces are massing against the result of our 2016 referendum. Likewise, the way in which many of those in parliament are inventing all manner of perceived problems and proposing ridiculously complicated solutions which would effectively negate 'Brexit' makes me fear that 'Brexit' will never happen.

If it doesn't, or it does but only in highly marginal terms, what price democracy then ? Roll on the revolution !

E.U. SEEKS TO IMPOSE 'HARD BREXIT'.

There's been much talk about the 'type of Brexit' that we in the United Kingdom want, but nothing whatsoever has been said about the European Union's desires.

Those in this country who desperately want to reverse the result of the referendum try to scare the rest of us with talk about a 'hard Brexit', without ever defining what they mean; of course, what they mean is that they want us to stay bound to the EU as closely as is humanly possible and preferably not to leave at all, while they see anything else as being a 'hard Brexit'. In truth, 'hard Brexit' means no more and no less than that the UK leaves the EU and all its stifling bureaucracy, though the diehard remainers make out that it's some sort of Armageddon.

The leadership of the EU, upset by the UK's decision to leave it, is torn between agreeing a realistic and mutually beneficial deal, and punishing the UK mightily for its temerity. We have been told that leaving will incur a huge 'exit bill' and that life outside can be nowhere near as comfortable as inside. We have been told that we cannot, under any circumstances, have the same deals outside as we have enjoyed as members of the Union. Ummm.

Now it seems that that some EU officials want to have their cake and eat it, while denying the same privilege to us. Last week, the Prime Minister made some proposals regarding the future arrangements for EU citizens living and working in the UK; this week, the EU parliament's chief negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, says that Theresa May's proposals are simply not good enough. He wants EU citizens to retain all of the rights they currently have or accrue prior to the effective date of 'Brexit', FOR EVER, which also implies that that they would retain the right to take any grievances to the European Court of Justice. This would be a 'hard Brexit' imposed by the EU on the UK or, put another way, a 'soft Brexit' for the UK.

So, while telling us that we cannot have the same rights and terms outside of the EU as in it, Mr Verhofstadt actually does want the same conditions to apply when it suits him. He should be told to GO TO HELL, or Strasbourg, if that's closer.

SO SORRY IF YOU HEARD A SWEAR WORD !

For some obscure reason, sports' commentators seem to feel obliged to keep apologising for 'bad language' that may, or may not, have been heard by viewers after it's been picked up by the microphones habitually present on sports' fields today.

Football, rugby, cricket and tennis seem particularly vulnerable to this nonsense which simply ignores the unpleasant nature of much of modern life. The most disgusting language is routinely heard everywhere - at home, in the street, in schools and colleges, on television and in films. It is hardly surprising that, in the heat of battle, the occasional curse might escape the lips of players but for commentators to keep apologising for things that aren't heard by most, are no different to what is heard everyday and in every place, over which they have no control and for which they have no responsibility, is idiotic.

Our society seems to have such confused values.

CHARLIE GARD MUST BE ALLOWED TO DIE.

I am becoming quite appalled at the manner in which an assortment of people and organisations have attempted to involve themselves in the case of this poor, unfortunate child.

President Trump, Pope Francis, American researchers and doctors at an American hospital have all had a go at exploiting this situation. Why Trump and the Pope have tried to intervene only they know, but the US doctors and researchers clearly have a vested interest in trying out their experimental drugs and therapies. Sadly, Charlie's parents have continued to ignore the best interests of their dying child and have actively encouraged all of this brouhaha.

The child's condition is clear and unequivocal; their are no therapies which will improve his condition and he will die very soon after his various life support interventions are removed. The treatment offered by US researchers would do nothing other than prolong his distressing life without any chance of improvement; surrendering him to their tender mercies would be to turn him into a laboratory test animal. All of this has been accepted and agreed not only by doctors and courts in the United Kingdom but also by the European Court of Human Rights, a body well known for leaning heavily on the side of anyone whose 'rights' are in danger of even the slightest contravention.

Charlie Gard's own interests are best served by allowing him to die. The sooner his parents, politicians, priests, uncle Tom Cobley and All simply accept this and let him go, the better.

AN OLD MAN'S VIEW OF THE WORLD.

Whenever I look around me, I see a world that I have difficulty understanding.

When I was a child my father went out to work while my mother stayed at home to look after my brother and I as well as carrying out the necessary household chores of cleaning, washing, shopping and cooking; the house was always clean and tidy. When she eventually returned to work, it was part time so as to ensure that she was at home by the time that her children came back from school in the afternoon. My father worked office hours, Monday to Friday, but was also late home on some days and often worked on Saturday mornings. Both of my parents dressed smartly at all times, while my brother and I were proud to wear our school uniforms, complete with caps, and, later, to dress smartly for our chosen employments. My brother could not have been more proud of his army uniform while I always wore a suit to work..

On buses and trains I would always offer my seat to an older person or to a pregnant woman or anyone who seemed infirm. I would always hold doors for those coming after me or, indeed, would stand back and hold a door for those coming through in the opposite direction. I would not 'jump' queues and thought nothing of offering assistance to anyone who needed it. I would not be rude to my parents or to others and neither I nor those around me used 'bad language'. My parents' lives revolved around their children; when we went out, it was to child-appropriate places, not to pubs, clubs or other adult environments.

Today, everything seems different. Simple politeness no longer exists in many quarters, with the very notion of surrendering a seat on public transport being long forgotten. It is now quite normal for a door to swing back into one's face, as the previous entrant takes no time to look behind and really doesn't care who may be there. Queuing is a nicety only indulged in by those who are too weak or reserved to force their way to the front; saying 'excuse me', 'please' and 'thank you' is an alien concept not to be bothered with.

School uniform is not quite a thing of the past but, where it is worn, it is too often worn reluctantly, with shirts hanging out, no ties, caps or blazers and certainly no pride. Many people now wander around our towns and villages in such scruffy attire that it astonishes me; while a wrinkled t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops may be the clothing for a holiday resort, is it really the right wear for shopping in the local supermarket ? It seems that scruffy is the new 'smart' and many older men appear to think this is a way to regain their youth. It used to be said that a woman who dressed inappropriately  to her age was 'mutton dressed as lamb', but today the men have joined them and, frankly, some of the sights one sees are grotesque. Do these people never look at themselves ?

Shop and office workers are increasingly turning up for work in their everyday attire; no longer does suit and tie or a smart skirt and top hold sway, and the most senior managers of major companies appear looking as if they've just fallen out of bed. There seems to be modern fashion for men to be unshaven, showing a sort of 'designer stubble' which owes more to being bone idle than to anything else. Even in Parliament, men have now been told that ties are no longer required; how long before suits are replace by t-shirts and jeans ?

Getting out of bed in the morning, particularly for those passed school age but not yet in full-time work now seems to be merely an option and, when they do emerge, they roam around aimlessly in their night attire for the rest of the day, glued to their tablets, 'phones or whatever other devices they use to satisfy their addiction to 'social media'. House work is a thing of the past, shopping an occasional necessity unless it's for the latest designer clothes or other fashionable items, cooking only when the takeaway is closed and washing up done only when there is no more clean crockery available; as for washing, of self and clothes, one wonders.

Priorities revolve around self-aggrandisement, satisfying one's own wants and desires at the expense of all else. A new 'phone comes ahead of the children's clothes and a foreign holiday before paying the household bills. Drinking and smoking take precedence over buying decent food, tattoos and piercings come before children's entertainments. Children are routinely taken to public houses, not for their own good but because their parents want to be there and have no one to dump the children on while they enjoy themselves.

Radio and television is awash with programmes and content that would have shocked my grandparents to the core and had my parents leaping for the 'off-switch'. The language now common on both mediums, and worse in the cinema, is mirrored on our streets with words that were absolute taboo in my youth being bandied about without thought by the illiterate and as a sign of their supposed power by many others. Children hearing torrents of foul mouthed invective from their parents can hardly be expected to know any better when they grow up.

Society has become increasingly libertarian, even libertine. Personal responsibility has been surrendered at almost every turn, as drink, drugs and sexual freedom have taken hold. When things go wrong it's all blamed on someone else and the state is expected to sort out the mess. While homosexuals demand the 'right' to be married, marriage amongst heterosexuals has become simply another disposal aspect of modern life. Children are, far too often, no more than a fashion accessory, being left to grandparents or others to care for while the parents carry on as if their children didn't exist. Huge numbers of children have complicated family arrangements and little stability as they are ferried around between the homes of separated parents, accumulating hordes of step-relations and half-siblings along the way, while neither true parent exercises any real parental influence. What hope is there for such children ?

I despair. We live in a world of slovens and slatterns, in which their are no standards of morality and in which anything goes. The day of reckoning will surely come.