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.