Sunday 28 January 2018

ROGER FEDERER - GREATEST SPORTSMAN EVER !

Following yet another Grand Slam title for the Grand Old Man of tennis, can there be any doubt that Roger Federer is not only the greatest male tennis player ever, but also the greatest male sportsman ?

Tennis is a sport in which fitness, strength and stamina, both physical and mental, are vital. As players age, they become increasingly vulnerable to injuries and, quite simply, they begin to be overtaken by younger, fitter and more hungry newcomers. This is the general rule and, for a long time, it seemed that Federer was no exception; after winning the Australian Open in 2010, he won only one further major title in the next six years. He came close on several occasions but age and injuries seemed to have ended his winning days.

Then, completely out of the blue, he experienced a resurgence of his old powers. The Australian and Wimbledon titles in 2017 and another Australian title, his sixth and tying the record, brought his overall tally to 20 Grand Slam victories and three of the last four in which he's competed. While his great opponents of recent years, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, all suffered injury, illness, loss of form or even, in the case of Djokovic, a loss of enthusiasm for the game, Federer kept going. The oldest of them all, he seems to defy the advancing years and goes on winning. He appears to be fitter, stronger and hungrier than players 10 and 15 years his junior, his talents are undiminished, nor is his enthusiasm for the game and still more titles.

Since his first triumph, at Wimbledon in 2003, Federer has played in 56 Grand Slam tournaments, only failing to reach at least the quarter finals on six occasions. He has reached the final an astonishing thirty times, a number unmatched by any other player ever, and has won twenty of them. Four of his Final defeats have come on the clay of Roland-Garros and at the hands of the greatest ever clay court player, Rafael Nadal; if Nadal had not existed, Federer's haul of titles could well have been even higher and he, himself, may have been considered as a true 'great' of the clay court.

Federer's victories have been spread around the tournaments much more evenly than have Nadal's. Eight at Wimbledon, six in Australia and five in the US, plus his single French win. Nadal's highly impressive total of sixteen wins includes ten in the French championship, three in the US, two at Wimbledon and just one in Australia. Excluding the French, Federer leads Nadal 19-6 in titles, surely a statistic that speaks for itself.

Over a period of 15 years Federer has been sensational. Even when he wasn't winning Grand Slams, he was still ranked in the top 3 or 4 in the world for much of the time and. rather like the golfer Jack Nicklaus, was always considered to be 'the man to beat'. Today, at the age of 36, he has become the oldest Grand Slam winner since Ken Rosewall in 1972, a time at which tennis was a very different game from what it is now.

Roger Federer is the Greatest Ever male tennis player without a shadow of a doubt. The only question is whether there are any other sportsmen, or sportswomen, in any sport who can challenge him for the position as the greatest ever in any sport.

VOTES AT 16 IS INSANITY : IT SHOULD BE 21+

A so-called 'opinion piece' in a scientific journal 'Lancet Child & Adolescent Health', a few days ago is reported to be claiming that adolescence in humans now lasts from the age of 10 until 24, whereas it was previously considered to end at 19. The writers of this article refer to there being a delay in the achievement of mental maturity amongst today's adolescents and go on to say that British laws should be written in such a way as to allow for this delayed entry into adulthood.

Young people today seem to have never-ending childhoods and this is blamed on them spending longer in education and being older when they marry and have children. In effect, societal changes have allowed them to continue with a childish approach to life well beyond that enjoyed by earlier generations. In truth it's difficult to argue against this, the evidence being apparent all around us.

Adolescence is a stage of human development which encompasses far more than increasing mental maturity. It is, in essence, about both mental and physical maturity and its end naturally comes at a time when young people are mentally and  physically mature enough to assume adult roles. In the recent past, young people left school at 14 or 15, and found themselves thrust into the real world of work. Few could expect to continue in school or even dream of going to university; the best they could hope for was an apprenticeship. In such circumstances, they had little choice but to 'grow up' quickly.

Today that has changed. Now we keep children cosseted and in full-time education until they are 16 and then only allow them to leave school if they have a formal apprenticeship to take up. The rest have to endure to 18, whether or not they are suited to school life, and huge numbers then progress to pointless university courses; by the time they leave the education system, many are in their mid-20s, never having experienced the realities of work or personal responsibility, and have little or no understanding of the world beyond their own heavily protected environments. They are, in effect, kept as children for far longer than in the past. At the same time, changes in society encompassing a much more liberal approach to relationships and childish misbehaviour plus the creation of a welfare state which pumps out 'benefits' like sweeties, allied to the invention of the internet and 'social media' and a shocking liberalisation of the depiction of both violence and sexual activity in films and on television have encouraged these children to act in what they see as being adult ways, with no fear of having to face the consequences of their actions. Hence, we have vast numbers of transitory relationships and 'one-parent families', the appearance of 'sexting', young people running around with knives and guns galore, a complete lack of respect for others, the virtual disappearance of what used to be called 'good manners', and much more. Many of these young people have no real prospects of ever finding productive and settled work, or of forming lasting relationships. What they do have is a horribly distorted view of the real world in which true adults live.

While all of this has been happening, there has also been a move to give these eternal children even greater powers. In particular, those on the left wing of politics have been increasingly eager to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in elections, knowing that young people are more likely to vote for socialist policies than for conservative ones. That the opinion expressed in the journal and the proposals of those with political motivations are diametrically opposed should be obvious to all.
Already, 16 and 17 year old have been granted the right to vote in elections in Scotland, though not in UK General Elections. Now, the Welsh government wants to follow suit, one senior Welsh minister saying "I think everybody who pays taxes should be able to vote". Pardon me for finding this notion perverse but the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are at school and do not pay taxes, so how on earth is paying taxes relevant to this argument ? As an aside, the Welsh government also wants to extend the right to vote to anyone who is living legally in Wales, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, seemingly yet another ploy to try to increase the left wing vote and clearly ridiculous; such a move would allow those who would never be affected by the results of their actions to influence the outcome of elections and the lives of the rest of the population, which must be wrong.

These daft moves, claimed to be about 'modernising' the electoral process are, in fact, nothing of the sort. In truth, given the reality of the situation as described in the 'Lancet Child & Adolescent Health', 'modernising' the process should have exactly the opposite effect as far as young people are concerned. Far from reducing the voting age to 16, it should really be increased to, say, 21 or higher, to reflect the immaturity of today's crop of adolescents. I have no problem with a criterion which links the right to vote to the paying of taxes but, with close to half of all young people in the UK now going on to university, how many of the under 21s actually pay any tax ? Indeed, how many of them have any knowledge or understanding of the world outside of the educational institutions and very limited social circles which they inhabit ?

I say a resounding 'No' to votes at 16.

Friday 26 January 2018

McDONNELL'S MARXIST NIGHTMARE.

Listening to John McDonnell on the radio this morning sent shivers down my spine.

As Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, McDonnell is attending the meeting of the pompously named ‘World Economic Forum’ in the exclusive Swiss resort of Davos, along with an assortment of other people who consider themselves part of the world’s elite. Supposedly, there is much discussion about matters of great importance, though I suspect it is the opportunity to enjoy the very best accommodation and food that the world can offer, and to be seen hob-nobbing with their peers, that is the real attraction for most.

Today, McDonnell wittered on about his party ‘preparing for government’ which is a horrifying prospect. As committed Marxists, McDonnell and his pal Jeremy Corbyn would raise taxes and borrowing to terrifying levels in order to pursue their entirely outdated and discredited socialist economic model. The election of a Labour government run by these two would ultimately result in a huge increase in government borrowing, a collapse in the value of the pound and the stock market and virtual economic annihilation of a type experienced in the past only by those unfortunate enough to have lived in the command economies of Russia, China and other Communist states. It would be a catastrophe from which it would take decades, even generations, to recover.

Many have made similar claims about the consequences of the UK’s exit from the European Union, although these were based on entirely imaginary and politically driven scenarios; the consequences of a Corbyn - McDonnell government are not imaginary as we know from their own statements what economic policies they would pursue. They have made it clear that they would commit vast amounts of money, OUR money, to all manner of socialist schemes and that they would hugely increase the involvement of the state in the everyday lives of every one of us.

Be under no illusion and don’t be conned by the promises of a glorious tomorrow. It would be anything but.

Wednesday 24 January 2018

BARONESS TESSA JOWELL

I have never had much time for former Labour MP Tessa Jowell but I was genuinely moved by her interview with Nick Robinson on the 'Today' programme this morning.

Baroness Jowell, for she is now a member of the House of Lords, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer, glioblastoma, in May 2017 and her subsequent life expectancy is limited. In this morning's interview she spoke openly and candidly about her condition although she clearly had some difficulty in getting her words out. Her interviewer has also had his own recent brush with cancer and showed great sensitivity in his questioning. It was a fine piece of broadcasting and a credit to both parties, in particular to Baroness Jowell who demonstrated considerable strength and fortitude in the face of great adversity.

As it happens, I had lunch yesterday with a long-time friend who has lived with her own brain tumours for some 12 years. When initially diagnosed, my friend was only 38 and was told that she could expect only 3 - 5 years more; last week she celebrated her 50th birthday and continues to defy doctors' predictions of her future prospects. A positive outlook and determination to live as normal a life as possible, despite some serious bad times and the effects of long-term medication, have undoubtedly contributed to her survival. She has done her best to help others in a similar situation by being a leading member of a support group, almost from its foundation, and has been a figure of strength and a fine example to fellow sufferers..

Baroness Jowell is a lady of great determination and will undoubtedly face this challenge with the same fortitude as has my friend; from her interview, it was clear that she will also do her best to use her position to do whatever she can in support of other brain cancer sufferers, which must be applauded. One can only wish her well and hope that she enjoys the same long-term survival as has my friend.

Sunday 21 January 2018

UKIP - RIP

If ever a party was over it is for UKIP.

Less that 3 years ago, UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, was the scourge of the established political parties, having won elections for the European Parliament in 2014 and given David Cameron such a fright in the 2015 general election that he decided to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. Since then, it has been downhill all the way.

Nigel Farage successfully resigned the leadership in July 2016, having tried and failed to do the same a year earlier. He was followed by Diane James who survived just 18 days and, after an interim holding role for Farage, Paul Nuttall was elected leader  in November 2016. Nuttall lasted until immediately after the 2017 general election in which UKIP performed dismally, having been unable to change their image as a one-policy party, and that a policy which was no longer relevant. There was then a further period with a stand-in leader until Henry Bolton was elected at the end of September 2017.

Now, Mr Bolton is under attack, having reportedly left his wife for a much younger woman shortly before Christmas 2017, but having left his new partner in the last few days following the revelation that she has previously sent a number of offensive text messages. The party's National Executive Committee, its ruling body, has passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in Mr Bolton, although he has refused to step down and remains leader as only a vote of the whole membership can oust him.

If this isn't a mess, I don't know what is. Having achieved its primary objective of getting the UK electorate to vote to leave the European Union, UKIP has failed to maintain its momentum or even to produce a coherent set of policies, and is now on the point of fading away. It has been unable to find a leader who can come anywhere near to matching the charismatic character of Nigel Farage and, indeed, its subsequent leaders have been notable mostly for their lack of public persona. Infighting between various factions and interest groups within the party has done nothing to aid its cause and the general perception now is that it's akin to ferrets fighting in a sack, with little likelihood of anything positive emerging.

Henry Bolton is a leader with no public profile whose time in office has produced little if anything. His character is surely summed up by his fickle approach to relationships and by his refusal to resign even though he is clearly not wanted. His stated reason for this is that he believes yet another leadership contest would signal the end of the party but that, surely, will be the consequence of his remaining in office as well.

Whatever Mr Bolton does, or doesn't do in the coming days, the UKIP party is undoubtedly over.

Monday 15 January 2018

CARILLION : AMBITION + HUBRIS = COLLAPSE

The collapse of facilities management and construction company Carillion is a sad example of the hubris shown by some who manage large companies, governments or other organisations. They come to believe that they are all-powerful, unstoppable and unbreakable, when they are anything but.

Carillion's demise, under a mountain of debt, has echoes of the collapse of the once all-conquering giant of the electrical engineering world, GEC. Under the management control of the late Sir Arnold Weinstock, the company was oft criticised for its niggardly ways and its mountains of cash, but it thrived. Once Weinstock departed, the new management dispensed with thrift and, through overconfidence, unfulfillable ambition and foolhardiness spent the cash and built up piles of debt. The inevitable result was collapse and a once-mighty giant of the stock market vanished forever.

Carillion was formed out of parts of the former Tarmac company and seems to have gone the same way as GEC, gobbling up smaller names such as Mowlem, McAlpine and John Laing (later demerged), accumulating huge debts and ultimately collapsing. Thousands of employees are left in limbo, not knowing whether or for how long they will be paid, and many contracts are now at risk. Shockingly, it's reported that some analysts began to have misgivings about the company as long ago as 2013, and yet nothing was done to rectify matters.

As with GEC, the company's auditors must bear a great responsibility, having failed to ring alarm bells. The management of the company did nothing until it began to issue profit warnings quite recently, while saying nothing about the true and parlous state of the company's finances. The governments' 'Financial Reporting Council' has failed miserably in its role of overseeing the application of good standards of Corporate Governance.

Carillion's creditors, mostly large banks but also including many sub-contractors, employees and pensioners are left wondering what, if anything, of what they are owed will ever be paid. No doubt, the government will set up an inquiry; there will be much hot air, political claptrap and grinding and gnashing of teeth, but the result will be the same - little, if anything, will change and many people will lose money.

If it was up to me, the entire board of the company would go to prison and be barred from ever holding any similar role, while the auditors would be heavily fined. What hope is there of any of that happening ?

Sunday 14 January 2018

JOHN WORBOYS - TO PAROLE OR NOT TO PAROLE ?

John Worboys was accused of 23 offences against women and found guilty on 19 counts - 12 of drugging, 1 of attempted assault, 5 of sexual assault and 1 of rape. He was given an indeterminate sentence that required he serve a minimum of 8 years, although the judge also made it clear that he should not be released until the parole board was satisfied that he was no longer a threat to women.

On 4th January 2018, it was reported that Worboys was due to be released following a hearing by the parole board. He has now served about 10 years in prison, including time on remand, and his release will be accompanied by stringent licence conditions; should he breach any of these, he would be returned to prison. However, the fact of his proposed release has resulted in considerable media comment; it's reported that some of Worboys victims are unhappy that they weren't told of the impending release and it's also reported that the police "believe" that he was responsible for a large number of other assaults for which he was not tried. Inevitably the media has responded fairly hysterically to all of this and the government has now indicated that it is considering ways of preventing the release.

That any involvement of the government is dangerous and anti-democratic should be obvious to all. In this country, the system provides for the government to set out the framework and for the rules and laws to be applied by the judiciary in properly constituted courts. Additionally, what the police, or anyone else, "believe" is not evidence and has no relevance in determining criminal liability.

If there are further allegations which the police believe can be substantiated, then the details should be passed to  the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) for consideration. If they believe there is sufficient evidence, Worboys should be re-arrested and charges should be brought for testing in another court case. Alternatively, if the parole board has failed to correctly follow its own procedures then Worboys  release could be reviewed and even prevented by wholly legitimate and appropriate means.

However, media reports suggest that the government is proposing to go somewhat further. It's reported that the Justice Secretary, David Gauke, is considering instituting a 'Judicial Review', in other words, a review by a judge of the lawfulness of the parole board's decision.

While such a review can be a legitimate part of the legal process, for the government to initiate it in a specific case involving a convicted criminal is highly unusual. Conviction in the courts, sentencing and subsequent release are matters outside of the remit of government beyond the setting of the framework within which they occur. Should any government go beyond this point then the convict becomes, in effect, a political prisoner, held not because of the outcome of due legal process but at the whim of politicians.

Mr Gauke's action is treading a very fine line. He has apparently indicated that a judicial review will only be considered if there is "good chance of success", though that phrase is open to interpretation. Does it mean a 51% chance or a 95% chance ? Given that the government would be involved, how independent would any review really be ? How long would such a review take and what would happen to Worboys in the meantime ? What would happen if the review concludes that the legal process has been followed correctly and that the decision of the parole board should be upheld ?

With all of this, Mr Gauke has opened a can of worms which raises expectations, quite possibly wrongly, offers the prospect of government interference in the due process of the legal system and opens him up to serious criticism whatever the outcome. None of this is good.

Friday 12 January 2018

MARGARET COURT v BILLIE JEAN KING AGAIN.

With the Australian Tennis Open due to start, the row over the naming of the 'Margaret Court Arena' has erupted again. This time, it's Billie Jean King who seems to have got her knickers in a twist.

Margaret Court, or Smith as she was originally, was the greatest woman player of her generation and certainly one of the best in history. She also happens to be a committed Christian with strong views that arouse anger amongst some others in the tennis fraternity, particularly the lesbian contingent of which Mrs King (note the 'Mrs' as she was originally 'Miss Moffit') is a leading member. Mrs King and her like-minded friends want the name of the arena to be changed because of Mrs Court's views and comments that she has made in recent times.

Mrs Court is as entitled to her views as is Mrs King, Miss Navratilova or any of the other players who have competed over the years. Mrs Court has not said anything that is actually incorrect though some may have found her words uncomfortable. Women's tennis certainly seems to have had more than its fair share of lesbians over the years, perhaps a consequence of aggressive physical sports being more suited to that particular mind-set, although it hasn't stopped plenty of heterosexual women from rising to the top as well. In saying that tennis is "full of lesbians" Mrs Court has done no more than voice an opinion which seems to be at least partly supported by the facts.

Mrs King is also upset by comments to the effect that transgender children "were the work of the devil". While Mrs Court's words may have been intemperate, few can deny that there is something uncomfortable about the whole notion of 2 men or 2 women someone conspiring to produce a child. I see it as the misguided work of scientists, Mrs Court sees it as the work of the devil; neither of us see it as natural. As a Christian pastor, Mrs Court believes in the Christian Bible and its teachings and she made her comments in an interview on a Christian radio station. She did not make a great public pronouncement on a major television station, in a mass circulation newspaper nor at Hyde Park Corner or on the steps of Sydney Opera House. However, her critics have done just that by making a huge public fuss about the issue.

The organisers of the Australian Open are apparently very anxious to emphasise that their tournament is "Open4All" in an effort to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, whatever those buzz words actually mean. However, if they are to be true to the spirit of their initiative, they can have no truck with Mrs King's complaints; their words make it clear that all people and all points of view are to be accommodated, and that includes points of view with which some may disagree or even find distasteful.

Margaret Court and Billie Jean King will both be remembered as great tennis players who enjoyed many great battles together; whatever views they hold on matters outside of tennis will be forgotten long before their sporting prowess. We are in the realm of 'sticks and stones' and Mrs King should just shut up and let the tennis records speak for themselves. A few words here and there don't really matter.

TRAIN DRIVERS HOLD COMMUTERS TO RANSOM AGAIN.

Following what seems like years of industrial action by railway workers, more is still to come. Commuters of Southern Region have suffered badly from the action of members of the RMT union for a long time and now it's union members in other parts of the country who are causing disruption.

Ostensibly the action has been about the rail companies deciding to introduce what are termed 'driver-only' trains, on which there is no need to employ the services of a guard; the union say this isn't safe while the rail companies insist that it is a system which has operated perfectly well in many places for many years without creating any difficulties. In support of their cause, union members in the Northern, South Western, Great Anglia and Merseyrail areas are taking a day off, causing anguish to many thousands of commuters.

In the Southern region, train drivers, who have to do little other than open and close the doors and watch out for red or green signals, are reportedly now being paid around £70,000 as part of the deal to resolve this issue. No doubt drivers elsewhere are keen on cashing in as well, hence the current round of strikes and the real reason for their actions.

Putting aside all other considerations, how can it possibly be right or justified to pay train drivers 3 times as much as a qualified nurse or twice as much as a doctor entering his specialist training ? Commuters complain bitterly about the cost of rail fares and yet no one seems to talk about the wholly excessive pay of train drivers which must be a significant factor in the annual price rise. Why not ?
 
And, as a footnote, if trains really need a driver and a guard to be safe, how can anyone be contemplating putting driverless 40 ton trucks onto our roads ?

Tuesday 9 January 2018

THERESA'S RESHUFFLE ISN'T HALF AS BAD AS SOME SAY.

Media reaction to Theresa May's Cabinet reshuffle has been almost universally negative. Some reports, mostly the more left wing ones, have gone so far as to say that the outcome so far demonstrates the Prime Minister's weakness rather than any strength.

To my mind, these reports seem to have ignored reality and been the product of preconceived notions. Theresa May has been Prime Minister for around 18 months and, since the ill-conceived General Election only some 7 months, which is surely far too short a time to be messing around with the most senior positions in her government. The Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary surely had every right to expect to remain in post and yet the sneering BBC and much of the rest of the media has gone into a frenzy about this showing Mrs May's inherent weakness. What rubbish.

Jeremy Hunt appears to have put forward strong arguments for him staying as Health Secretary and has even had 'Social Care' added to his remit; is this a demonstration of Prime Ministerial weakness or of a Prime Minister who has been willing to listen to sense and act on it ? Allied to the fact that Justine Greening, the Education Secretary, seems to have tried something similar and failed, ending up out of the Cabinet altogether, has not Mrs May shown just the sort of strength needed ? In one case she has listened to argument and responded positively while in the other she has stuck to her guns; two similar situations and two decisions of opposite nature.

There seems to have been a bit of a cock-up from Conservative HQ when they announced that Chris Grayling was to be the new Party Chairman when that role was to go to Brandon Lewis but was that the fault of Mrs May ? It hardly seems likely. Half-a-dozen new faces in Cabinet and a tranche of new Party vice-Chairmen doesn't seem a bad job, so why all the negativity ?

When he was Prime Minister, Tony Blair also had his 'immovables' though he wasn't pilloried for it. David Cameron and George Osborne were joined at the hip and others such as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable were untouchable, but little was said about that showing Cameron's weakness. With Theresa May, it all seems to be different. Every cough or hiccup is trumpeted as her 'last hurrah'; the media is constantly on the look out for the next potential banana skin and talking her down. Is this simply a 'hate campaign' because she doesn't play the rather nauseating 'touchy-feely' and media friendly part that Cameron and Blair did ? One wonders.

The biggest problem Mrs May faces from her reshuffle so far is that she's sent Justine Greening to the back benches where she will no doubt team up with those other disaffected harridans, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry. That the Prime Minister was strong enough to risk yet another noisy 'Remainer' making trouble says much about her. She ain't that weak nor is she a quitter.

Monday 8 January 2018

HOLLYWOOD HARASSMENT : HAVE THE WOMEN REALLY WON ?


No one can defend the appalling behaviour of the likes of Harvey Weinstein but the nonsense which apparently went on at the 'Golden Globes' awards last night was a typical example of the media making a real meal out of anything that might bring it a bit of publicity.

It seems that an assortment of actresses, and others, showed their 'solidarity' in various ways, with men in general being pilloried and not just those who've behaved so badly. However, one wonders what the ultimate result of all this verbiage might be. While the immediate story is one of women in the entertainment industry 'taking back control' might not the final outcome be of far fewer women popping up as instant stars, before vanishing from sight ?

I am frequently amazed by the release of films with 'stars' of whom I've never heard and of whom I never hear again. Now that the old 'casting couch'  has been consigned to the dustbin, might the opportunities for this raft of pretty but largely talentless women, and a few men, be suddenly cut back ? When those who choose whom to cast can no longer gain any personal benefit from selecting the prettiest young thing in the room, will they not simply go back to picking an already established 'star' ?

Only time will tell whether the women of Hollywood, and elsewhere, have really won this argument
or simply shot themselves in the foot.

Sunday 7 January 2018

KILOM-ETRE ? WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I get older, I must also be becoming more grouchy and less tolerant. More stupid things seem to annoy me and one of the things that annoys me most is the pronunciation of the word 'kilometre', though there are others.

Yes, it's pretty silly to get annoyed about the way in which a word is pronounced but 'kilometre' does it for me. It turns up regularly on television, spoken by so many supposedly educated and intelligent people, as well as presumably illiterate 'voice over' artists, that it drives me insane.

The word is clearly composed of 2 parts - 'kilo' and 'metre' and so it is correctly pronounced as such : kilo-metre. Horribly and for no reason other than a lazy Americanised version of English, it so VERY OFTEN turns up as 'kilom-etre'. WRONG !!!!!

No one says 'kilog-ram' or 'kiloc-ycle'; we don't have 'centim-etre' or 'millil-itre'. When talking bombs, we don't say 'kilot-on', so why are we assailed with 'kilom-etre' ?

The 'kilo' indicates a thousand and 'metre' is self explanatory, and so the word is 'KILO-METRE ! I don't ask for much in life but to never again hear the egregious 'kilom-etre' would be the fulfilment of a dream. 

CAN I SHOUT IT ANY LOUDER ?

Thursday 4 January 2018

TONY BLAIR JUST WON'T LISTEN.

Way back in the 12th century, King Henry II is supposed to have called for someone to rid him of a turbulent priest, meaning the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. Today, it would not be surprising to hear calls for the similar disposal of Tony Blair.

Having led the UK to economic disaster during his 10 years as Prime Minister, Blair simply refuses to go away, in fact, just the opposite. He has spent the last few years trotting around the world playing at being an international mediator, negotiator and statesman though he has achieved little if anything of note. Nonetheless, he still turns up regularly just like the proverbial 'bad penny', spouting his half-baked and usually disruptive messages.

As Prime Minister he managed to bamboozle Parliament into sending troops to Iraq on utterly spurious grounds; to say that he lied might be considered libellous but it's not far from the truth. Today, on the BBC's 'Today' programme, Blair was at it again, this time giving us all the benefit of his huge intellect on the subject of Brexit. He has never liked the idea of Brexit and, at one time, had clear ambitions to become President of Europe; now, he wants us to go back and rethink the result of the 2016 referendum. Just like his like-minded pals, he believes that the bulk of the electorate was simply to stupid to understand what it was voting for and that they need to be given another chance to get it 'right'.

In today's interview by John Humphrys, Blair used his usual scatter-gun approach, throwing in every conceivable issue and conflating all and sundry. He spoke rapidly, again as usual, giving the impression of being knowledgeable while actually waffling an awful lot and leaping from topic to topic at breakneck speed. He emphasised points which he believed supported his arguments and ignored those that did not. In essence, he was simply arguing for a rerun of the 2016 referendum, in typical EU style, in an effort to get what he considers to be the 'right result'.

Blair's arguments are spurious at best and rubbish at worst. He continues to make all manner of claims about the British economy now and in the future which are either misleading, plain wrong or, at this stage, unknowable. Above all, he simply wants to prevent Brexit and he'll do and say anything that might help his cause.

Thankfully, Norman Lamont had a brief opportunity to counter Blair's tirade immediately afterwards though I suspect that many people will already have switched off by then. More significantly, there have been negative comments from the Labour side as well, suggesting that Blair's continued interventions are less than helpful. Sadly, this shockingly arrogant member of the left-leaning metropolitan elite simply has too thick a skin to be put off by such adverse remarks or to hear what the people have already said. He, after all, is an international statesman of huge experience; he knows best.

We are left with only King Henry's approach, though perhaps sending knights in armour to bump him off would be a little extreme. Instead, could he not be made the UK's ambassador to somewhere vitally important to mankind's survival but also distant, somewhere like Antarctica perhaps ? There he could be assisted by those other fanatical Europhiles who have an equally arrogant approach to democrarcy, such as Peter Mandelson, Andrew Adonis, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Paddy Ashdown and, of course, Ken Clarke.

I'm sure they would all relish the opportunity to get stuck into solving the environmental problems affecting that part of our world, something that, in the overall scheme of things, is probably far more important than wasting their time on the piddling little issue of Brexit.