BREXIT : MORE NONSENSE FROM BRUSSELS.

It appears that the European is determined to cause maximum difficulty over the issue of Brexit. It's latest proposals, which suggest that Northern Ireland will have to remain within its Customs Union, would be laughable it they weren't so disruptive to the overall negotiations.

Such an arrangement would effectively mean that Northern Ireland would be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, being aligned with the European Union and having a border with the rest of its own country. The Irish government has its own vested interests in this, using the issue as a means of promoting eventual Irish reunification, and some remainers also using it as an argument against Brexit altogether. 

It is nonsense and Theresa May has made it very clear at Prime Minister's Questions that the proposal is an absolute non-starter for any UK Prime Minister. It seems that some in the hierarchy of the EU have already begun to 'row back' from this moronic idea, recognizing that it's an impossibility, but the question as to why it was put forward at all remains.

Rather than making any serious effort to help the Brexit process, far too many, both in Brussels and at home, are spending their time looking for ways to thwart it. In Brussels, the likes of Barnier and co. insist that it is for the UK to make all of the running while they sit back and throw brickbats at whatever is proposed; at home, the unreconstructed remainers take every opportunity to continue to promote 'Project Fear' and continue to shout loudly that Brexit will ruin our economy despite the

The solution for all parties is obvious though political machinations seem to prevent it from being implemented. All sides need to accept that Brexit is happening and be positive and cooperative; some hope.

JEREMY CORBYN : MODERN DAY STALIN.

It seems that Jeremy Corbyn is about to announce that the Labour Party will vote to remain in the European Union's 'Customs Union' after Brexit. He may well dress this up in various ways but it does seem that he is going to ignore the expressed will of the people and, instead, simply play politics. It's suggested that Labour may subsequently vote against the government in collusion with the Conservative 'remainers', led by the egregious Anna Soubry, in an attempt to create chaos.

Corbyn is an arch-socialist who has no liking for British traditions, capitalism or the ways of the western world, including democracy. His 'friends' include an assortment of terrorists (the IRA, Hamas, Isil) and his enemies are the United States, NATO and other established organisations which have helped to maintain some sort of peace, at least in the last 70 years, in the West.

It is Corbyn's desire to make further friends of Russia, China and a range of countries in South America and Africa; the common theme is that he wants to be on good terms with nations which are subject to brutal dictatorships, tyrants and, above all, anywhere that there is total government control. His heroes include such as Hugo Chavez, the former President / Dictator of Venezuela, while his supporters include the likes of George Galloway, the ultra-left wing former MP who was expelled from the labour Party, and Gerry Adams, the former leader of Sinn Fein, the left wing and IRA-supporting Irish party.

Corbyn's reaction to press reports of his connections with a known Czechoslovak spy is to denounce the press and threaten to introduce draconian controls on press freedoms 'when' he becomes Prime Minister. It occurs to me that that is the line followed by the likes of Stalin and Mao, the brutal dynastic leaders of North Korea and a plethora of vicious African dictators, not to mention the Russia of President Putin in which opponents find themselves in breach of the law or, worse, dead. 

Jeremy Corbyn is a throwback to the days of the class wars of past years and to a time when communism held sway in much of the world. His notions and ideas are those born out of a hatred of those who have anything that he doesn't have and a desire to control the lives of everyone over whom he can exercise power in accordance with his own beliefs. State control of our lives is his aim.

Corbyn is a man whose time is long passed and whose outdated notions we should reject. One can only hope that the electorate realises how shallow, prejudiced and backward looking he really is.

SIGNS OF SANITY OVER US GUNS ?

Good Lord !

Are at least some of the people of the United States finally waking up to the lunacy of allowing free access to fire arms to pretty well anyone who asks for one ?

While the National Rifle Association continues to prattle on about "rights" under the Constitution, and conflates any form of gun control with an attack on the "rights" of the people, a movement has started which has prompted several very well known companies to announce that they have stopped their support of the organisation. The car rental companies, Hertz and Enterprise, software firm Symantec and a number of others have decided that they'd rather fall in behind calls to limit the availability of guns than see their profits fall.

Of course, this is early days and everything might settle down and return to 'normal' in a few weeks, 'normal' meaning that the regular shootings will continue. With President Trump seeming to be firmly on the side of more, rather than less, guns and suggesting that the solution to the perennial problem is to give guns to school and college teachers, it's perfectly possible that there will be a true massacre in the not too distant future. Nonetheless, it appears that some in the United States are showing signs of sanity at last.

Let's hope it's catching.

JEREMY CORBYN : FOREIGN AGENT ?

The prospect of Jeremy Corbyn ever becoming Prime Minister of our country is a terrifying one, made more so by an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. That Corbyn's Marxist policies would lead to economic catastrophe is something that anyone with a ha'p'orth of common sense already knows but allied to his previous political affiliations he becomes a man fundamentally unsuited to leading any western democracy.

The 'Telegraph' reports on Corbyn's cold war links with a Czechoslovakian spy who claims that the Labour leader, who was then merely an ultra left-wing back bench MP, met with him several times in the late 1980s and was a regular source of information; he says that everyone knew that he was a spy and describes Corbyn as "an honest man, but stupid". The former spy, Jan Sarkozy, also says that the information provided to him by Corbyn was rated highly by his masters in Moscow. To be fair to Mr Corbyn it should be noted that surviving records of the period apparently provide no verification of Sarkocy's claims, though it also seems that the vast majority of such records were destroyed once the Soviet Union collapsed and the eastern European countries which it had dominated turned to democracy.

Mr Corbyn has denied Sarkocy's claims and the Czech authorities have also said that there are no extant records to support them, but one is left wondering what the former spy has to gain by making such allegations. He was expelled from the UK in 1989 and now lives in Bratislava but, some 30 years after the events to which he is referring, why make such claims if there is no truth in them ?

While Mr Corbyn may be able to rely on the passage of time and destruction of records to at least afford him some protection from charges of being a foreign agent, he certainly can't deny his links with assorted other questionable causes. He has been associated with lunatic groups which deny that the NAZI 'holocaust' ever happened, has referred to members of Islamist terrorist groups Hizbollah and Hamas as his 'friends' and has recently been lauded by Gerry Adams, former leader of Sinn Fein and a supporter, at least, of the IRA. Early last year, it was discovered and reported that MI5 actually opened a file on Mr Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA and he was, apparently', monitored by Special Branch officers for two decades.

Although it seems that nothing concrete can be laid at Mr Corbyn's door, the old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" comes to mind. It is clear that Corbyn's sympathies lie not with the British people nor their history but with assorted groups of malcontents and revolutionaries. His attitudes are those which many younger people may have but which age, and increasing wisdom, usually dispel; in Corbyn's case, it seems that age has not brought that wisdom, simply a blind adherence to ideologies that will lead him, and this country, down a blind alley if we are fool enough to let him.

Let no one be in any doubt. Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn would be very, very bad for the health of the United Kingdom and everyone in it.

NEGRO IS OFFENSIVE BUT FUCK ISN'T ?

It's reported today that there is uproar in some quarters due to a crossword puzzle including the word 'negro'. Really ?

In a world in which words such as shit, fuck, bollocks, crap, fanny and even the appalling cunt, are regularly used on television and in films, to make a fuss about a word like negro is risible. I fully appreciate that to refer to someone as a nigger may be seen as being highly offensive, but negro has no such connotations to anyone with any intelligence. It may be a word that is rather outdated but basically that is all; it has fallen out of fashion or favour.

Negro is simply a descriptive word, not a pejorative one. Those who find it offensive need to get a life.

FLORIDA SHOOTINGS SIGNIFY A SICK SOCIETY.

Yet another murderous rampage in the USA has reignited the debate about gun control but it seems that many Americans are still in denial about their violent society.

Listening to some of the comments of those who were in the vicinity of this latest outrage was at least as terrifying as the event itself. Rather than calling for greater control over the right to own and carry guns, a right granted to US citizens under their 1789 constitution, many claimed that it was more guns, not less, that was the answer. How insane can they be ?

The constitution was enacted nearly 229 years ago, a very different time and when most of what would become the continental United States was largely unexplored. Through the next 100 years the continent was explored and developed, with much conflict, the legends of cowboys and Indians arising, the 'Wild West' and everything that went with it. Vicious killers such as Billy the Kid and Jesse James in conflict with famous lawmen, often little more than hired killers themselves, such as Bat Masterson and the Earp brothers. Good and bad, they all rode around shooting each other and behaving like animals.

How on earth is the lifestyle of those times relevant to today ? Those who argue for more, rather than less guns, as being the answer to the present malaise are living in and glorifying a long-dead past. There is no reason whatsoever why guns of all sorts, shapes and sizes should be freely available to a population in the 21st century in the same way as they were in the 18th. It is not the mental illness of any individual that is the issue but the insanity of an entire section of that society which values violence and aggression above all else.

Several presidents have tried to change things but always the National Rifle Association has stood in their way. This appalling organisation supports a continuation of their 'right' to bear arms and provides vast funding for all like-minded politicians; in many places, it's impossible to be elected without their support. The result is that the US political establishment is dominated by these bought men, and ubiquitous gun ownership remains the order of the day.

In truth, the US is a nation that lives in its past. It has so little history that what it does have it celebrates and glorifies and that includes the shocking butchery of the 'Wild West and even the virtual genocide of the native Americans. It's gung-ho and jingoistic attitudes towards the rest of the world are testament to this as is its readiness to send troops to fight wherever there is the chance of a good bust-up.

There is only one way for this country to prevent incidents such as has just occurred in Florida and that is to introduce draconian laws for the control of gun ownership, as exist in most civilized nations. Sadly, history tells us that this is the last thing that will happen and the regular mass murders in schools and colleges, as well as in other places, will continue.

BREXIT IS ALL OR NOTHING.

When I voted in the referendum of June 2016 it never occurred to me that there were different 'types' of Brexit, nor did I suffer any confusion. Both sides in the argument produced their cases, often with dubious statements of the supposed benefits or otherwise of voting one way or the other; undoubtedly, both sides exaggerated the benefits of supporting them and the consequences of supporting their opponents. However, the choice was clear - it was 'in' or 'out'.

Currently, some of the most fanatical Europhiles are continuing to fight their cause and are continuing with 'Project Fear', putting forward all manner of supposedly damaging scenarios that will arise from Brexit. In support of this approach, the Treasury has continued it's production of gloomy economic forecasts and the Bank of England has also continued to be less than enthusiastic about the UK's prospects once it has left the EU. All of this despite the pretty awful record that both organisations have in respect of their previous forecasts of economic catastrophe.

Some of these diehards claim that the people didn't understand what they were voting for or that the questions of remaining or leaving institutions such as the customs union and single market weren't fully explained and explored. They ignore the obvious fact that this is utter rubbish but carry on regardless. Some, such as the egregious Anna Soubry and Chuka Umuna, are now threatening to oppose the expressed will of the people by the spurious act of voting against what they have termed 'Hard Brexit'; in truth, there is no hard, nor, soft Brexit, just Brexit, but it suits their purpose to continually talk as though such a distinction actually exists. It does not.

Like me, the vast majority of those who voted did not consider the possibility of there being different 'types' of Brexit; they voted either to stay in or to leave the European Union. leaving meaning leaving the EU and all of its associated organs, treaties, agreements and so on. They did not vote to leave this but stay in that. One day there will be a new agreement between the UK and the EU, but that is for after we have left.

The likes of Anna Soubry and Chukk Umuna refuse to accept this and are now working assiduously to thwart what the people voted for. They must not be allowed to succeed.

CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME, NOT WITH OXFAM.

I do my bit for charity but I've never given to the huge international corporations such as OXFAM and it seems that my reluctance to support these vast multi-nationals was the right course.

The current horror stories about abuses being perpetrated by OXFAM workers in various places, plus acknowledgement from several other similar organisations that they've also had their fair share of problems, tells me that they are more like big businesses than charities. Senior executives receive large pay packets and enjoy the same type of corporate perks as do the bosses of multinational companies. Much of the donated funds goes to maintaining huge buildings and central administrations rather than to helping those in need and now, it seems, even the money that does filter its way down to the workers on the coal face, ends up being used for the procurement of prostitutes and other unsavoury purposes.

Year after year, the general public has its pockets picked by the crooks who run these organisations; costly advertisements on television and in the newspapers show us the horrors that must be abated but, year after year, the horrors seem to stay unchanged. Famine in Africa never gets resolved, squalor in Brazil or Bangladesh remains the same. Where does the money go ?

Billions upon billions of pounds, dollars, euros, yen and heaven knows what else gets poured into the bottomless coffers of the big charities and still they ask for more; just like governments of all types they swallow our cash and squander it on their own comforts and luxuries with barely a thought for the donors whose hearts have been moved by shocking pictures of the plights of others. 

Charity used to be real but now is simply another branch of big business, though without most of the controls which real big business works under. Wasteful and corrupt, largely unaccountable and supported by taxpayers money, these organisations have become bloated and self-satisfied, basking in the glow of the good deeds which they claim to have done but with no evidence that they've done anything at all. One has only to think of the appalling case of 'Kids Company' to realise just how out of control some are and how easily they can con their sponsors.

If people must give, then they should look for charities nearer to home and that provide clear and visible help. Local hospices and organisations such as the Leonard Cheshire Homes, medical charities which seek to find cures for diseases such as cancers and arthritis but steer well clear of those with more nebulous aims such as 'helping the homeless'; after all, what does that really mean ?

BREXIT : PLEASE LET US WALK AWAY !

The European Union's Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has been at it again. In a speech delivered today, he's been at pains to tell the UK what it can and cannot do, regardless of the fact that there are actually 2 sides in these negotiations and the eventual outcome will have to be acceptable to both sides.

Barnier talks quietly and exudes claimed logicality while actually behaving like a petty dictator. To him, the UKs exit from the EU will be on terms determined by the Union and only the Union; what the UK wants is irrelevant. He issues barely concealed threats and implicit criticism of the UK's senior negotiators; he does nothing to advance the process of Brexit while regularly referring to the short time available to reach agreement on a transitional deal.

If anyone needed convincing that leaving the EU is the only intelligent thing to do, it's the approach adopted by Barnier and his fellow EU bureaucrats; it's their way or no way. In my book, that means no way; the UK should tell them where to go and simply walk away from the whole bloody mess.

BREXIT : WHAT'S IT TO DO WITH SOROS ?

George Soros is a Hungarian-born American billionaire. Today it's reported that he's involved himself in a campaign to subvert the UK's democratic process by providing a substantial donation to and organisation which is committed to keeping us in the European Union.

Soros has donated £400,000 to "Best for Britain", an organisation headed by a former Labour minister, Lord Malloch-Brown. On the radio this morning Malloch-Brown exuded clear contempt for both the result of the 2016 referendum and the people who voted to leave the EU; in his view, we were all traduced by misleading promises issued during the referendum campaign. He and his pals know better and are determined to make us understand that we got it wrong.

Malloch-Brown is a career diplomat and politician with a background in journalism and public relations. He worked for a considerable time at the World Bank and United Nations and has spent much of his life elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. He is basically one of the political elite who believes that he knows what is best for the rest of us, whether we like it or not.

 

George Soros is a very rich business man and political activist, who rarely does anything out of the goodness of his heart and now is attempting to interfere with the British democratic process for reasons of his own; as an American, he has no business involving himself in our affairs and the likes of Malloch-Brown should know this. However, the two men have a long association so it's hardly surprising that they've teamed up in this venture.

 

Once again, rich and highly privileged people are lining up to thwart democracy and to maintain the status quo from which they benefit so greatly. These people love bureaucracy and complexity because it prevents the 'little man' from ever being able to negotiate the convoluted systems that are contained within. They hate the prospect of anyone escaping from the clutches of organisations such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, EU and hundreds of other lucrative international bodies which have served them so well for so long. Forget national governments, these are the real rulers of our lives and they are all entirely unelected and undemocratic.

 

I am sick to death of hearing from these whining and whinging 'remainers' like Malloch-Brown. They lost the argument in June 2016, why can't they just shut up ?!

NORWAY LEADS WAY ON PLASTIC RECYCLING.

When I was rather younger than I am now, it was normal for bottles to be recycled. Empty glass milk bottles were left out to be removed, cleaned and reused; glass bottles of drinks such as squash, lemonade and similar types were usually sold with the promise that returning them, once empty, would carry the reward of a few coppers being returned, often to a child who would be only to happy to 'run to the shop' with the empty knowing that there'd be money for sweets as a result.

 

Over the years, the milkman and his bottles have largely disappeared and the very notion of returning 'empties' of any sort has gone the same way. It's far too much trouble and far easier to simply throw the now ubiquitous plastic bottles away. Of course, the number of bottles has also increased exponentially as it's become a habit for many to carry around bottles of water wherever they go, though heaven knows why. The result is that the recycling of these mountains of mostly unnecessary plastic bottles has now become a serious problem.

 

Today's news carries a story which suggests the UK may now adopt a recycling bottle scheme in use in Norway. Sparing no expense to investigate the obvious, a ministerial delegation has apparently visited Norway to see if the UK could adopt the scheme which, it is claimed, has increased the rate of recycling for plastic bottles to some 97%. Unsurprisingly, the Norwegian scheme is based on there being a refundable deposit attached to each bottle, thus encouraging purchasers to return them.

 

It seems that we are heading back to where we started all those years ago. So much for new and modern being better than old, tried, trusted and proven.

LET'S PARDON THE SUFFRAGETTES, OR LET'S NOT !!

Yet another crazy story in today's news is that the Fawcett Society, a left wing feminist organisation, wants the convictions of women who were found guilty of various offences during the suffragette campaign of the early 20th century to be overturned. Really ?

The rewriting of laws, and even the rewriting of history, in order to conform to current views, mores, populist ideas and so on, seems to be taking hold with a vengeance. Already, those convicted of homosexual offences in the past have been pardoned, as have those shot for cowardice in the First World War. Now we are to pardon those women who committed an assortment of acts which were then, and often still are, criminal offences, simply because, I suppose, their cause is now considered to have been 'just'.

This really is lunacy. Law and history cannot be rewritten just because what happened in the past is at odds with current thinking. The death penalty has been abolished in most western countries; should we now posthumously commute the sentences of those NAZI war criminals who were hanged at Nuremburg, just because we no longer like the notion of the death penalty ? Should we issue posthumous pardons to those who were transported or hanged for minor offences in the 19th century, because their crimes no longer call for such draconian punishment ? Should we issue apologies to the descendants of those who were flogged, sent to the treadmill, keel-hauled or press-ganged, just because we no longer do such things ?

Of course not. By all means recognize that some people suffered unfairly and horribly, but that is history and we can all learn from it. Over time, opinions change and  laws are changed, but laws should not be changed retrospectively in order to magically obviate responsibility for acts which were criminal at the time of their commission.

FORMULA 1 TO EXPLOIT CHILDREN.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear !


With 'grid girls' having been abandoned by the bosses of Formula 1 motor racing, the obvious question that arises is of who or what should replace them. In their wisdom, it is to be 'grid kids'. God help us.


The children to be used in this unedifying spectacle will apparently be budding future drivers who are currently competing in karting or other junior categories of the sport. This is said to be an attempt "to make the pre-race ceremony more relevant and interesting for fans, especially the younger ones".


What a load of politically correct, utterly meaningless tosh. What is really happening is that the new
owners of Formula 1 are falling into line behind the most recent big media story and using it as an opportunity for self-promotion. The non-existent 'exploitation' of 'grid girls' will be replaced by the real exploitation of 'grid children'.


Appalling.

ANNA SOUBRY : ARCH-REMAINER & ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

Today's news stories are so ludicrous as to make me think that I am living in an increasingly insane world.

First up, Ann Soubry, a Member of Parliament whose ridiculous over-promotion in David Cameron's government is matched only by her gross arrogance, stupidity and blind adherence to all matters feminist, has now revealed herself to be utterly anti-democratic too.

It's reported that Soubry, now no more than a loud mouthed back-bencher, has called on Prime Minister Theresa May to "get a spine" and expel what she considers to be "hard ideological Brexiteers" from the Conservative Party. Needless to say, Soubry is one of the most ardent Remainers, but she seems unable to accept that there may be others who hold different views; in her world, you either agree with her or get fired.

This appalling creature has apparently told the BBC that she is willing to leave her party if the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg 'take over', and has said that the Prime Minister's Brexit "red lines" about leaving the EU's customs' union and single market are wrong.

Thankfully, a far  more seasoned and intelligent voice, Lord Lamont, has said that Soubry is being "quite ridiculous", although his comment is rather lost amidst the cacophony from the lady herself, not to mention the way in which her words have been reported. Nonetheless, Lamont is quite right as are Messrs Johnson and Rees-Mogg when they call for Brexit to be real and not a sham. As for Soubry, she has always been well to the left of her party on most issues, what would have been termed a 'wet' in the days of Margaret Thatcher, and would probably be far more at home elsewhere, perhaps the wishy-washy backwaters of the Liberal Democrats who are equally enamoured of the European Union.

Soubry's entry into Parliament was on the back of David Cameron's approach of prioritising female candidates through a list system; her career has been one of rapid rise and even more rapid fall, with her taking every opportunity to shout loudly without actually doing much at all. Even this latest outburst can be seen as little more than an idle threat; would she really leave the Conservative Party and migrate to the Liberal Democrats or, worse, Corbyn's Labour, knowing that it would signal the end of her lucrative parliamentary career ?

If she truly believes what she says, rather than issuing silly threats, it is Ms Soubry who should be the one to "get a spine" and just go. She will be neither mourned nor missed.

BREXIT : WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE ?

It seems that we are in for a further bout of argument about Brexit.

Following Theresa May's visit to China, during which she achieved some valuable new trade agreements, there has been nothing but negativity from many quarters. The media, and particularly the BBC, seems obsessed with digging up every possible story of the Brexit horrors yet to come while advancing no evidence apart from the semi-mystical projections, forecasts and predictions of diehard Remainers. Assorted political figures, with Philip Hammond at the forefront but others such as the arrogant and annoying Vince Cable in tow, keep banging on about the 'type of Brexit' we are going to achieve and talk of staying as close to the European Union as possible; some still campaign for another referendum in the hope of reversing the nation's decision.

On the other side, and do doubt driven by the need to keep true Brexit at centre stage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and others have felt compelled to voice their concerns about the government's direction and ultimate objectives. They, too, have been drawn into the crazy world that imagines different 'types' of Brexit and are becoming increasingly vocal. The result is that the government, and Conservative Party, appear to be in disarray, something which is meat and drink to their opponents, notably Jeremy Corbyn, who keeps remarkably quiet on the subject of Brexit while simply criticising the government for its apparent indecision.

Amid all of this, what seems to be forgotten is that there are no 'types' of Brexit, only Brexit itself. The United Kingdom will leave the EU at the end of March 2019, when a transition period will begin; this will end on 31st December 2020 at which time we will be finally and fully free of the EU. How close we remain to the countries of the European Union will then depend on whatever trade and other agreements have been reached. We may pay for access to some services or facilities but we will be OUT of the Union, which also means OUT of the customs union, OUT of the single market and OUT of the agreement on freedom of movement. If we are not out of all of these agreements, we will not be out of the EU and Brexit will be a sham.

Those who argued that Brexit would be a catastrophic disaster for the UK have already been proved totally  wrong and yet they continue to forecast a bad outcome. Why ? Even David Cameron, one of the most ardent Remainers, has admitted that voting to leave the EU was not a disaster but, in his words, was a mistake. The UK economy has fared far better than the naysayers predicted and the sky has not fallen in, and yet those such as Philip Hammond and Vince Cable continue to talk it down. It already seems likely that the next round of official government forecasts will revise Hammond's miserable budget predictions from November, increasing predicted growth figures and tax revenues, and finding billions more funding for the NHS.

While our economy may not be booming, it has not collapsed and shows no signs of doing so. Once we are free of the EU and its volumes of bureaucracy, restrictive practices, corruption and simple waste, we will be free to invest as we wish to. We will not have to pay to keep French farmers in business nor allow Spanish trawlers access to our fishing grounds, except on our terms rather than  theirs. We will not have to pay for an entirely unnecessary tier of European government that  encompasses a parliament, commission, courts, ambassadors, council, vast civil service and heaven knows what else. We will make our own laws, free from European Union diktat; we will trade freely with whomsoever we like on terms that suit us, rather than being bound by the grindingly slow processes of EU negotiation.

What can there possibly be about leaving the European Union that is not to like ?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH 'GRID GIRLS' ?

The recent decisions to end the traditions of glamorous girls being involved in ceremonies at darts and Formula 1 events is surely a rather ludicrous response to the ever-increasing hype about the supposed exploitation of women.

The killjoys who have applauded these decisions must, indeed, be sad figures. Driven by political correctness, extreme feminist attitudes, hatred of men and even a hatred of the women who are more than happy to make bucket loads of money from their harmless activities. In many ways, it is those who pay the wages of these admittedly unnecessary, though decorative, additions, that are being exploited and not the women.

It strikes me as absurd that we are regularly presented with naked men and women on our television screens, often rolling around in the those of feigned sexual ecstasy, while beautifully clothed young women doing no more than walking around are now to be banned. Will we also see the ending of advertisements in magazines and on television and billboards for various female clothing and other feminine accessories which are adorned by scantily clad figures ? Will semi-clothed men spraying themselves with deodorant vanish into oblivion ?

While little would be lost by getting rid of the advertisements and completely unnecessary nudity on our screens, what harm is done by the glamorous girls of darts and Formula 1 ? In fact, where will they now find employment ? It seems that the lunatics really are in the process of taking over the asylum.