Friday 27 April 2018

WEMBLEY STADIUM MUST NOT BE SOLD.

The announcement that the Football Association is in talks to sell Wembley Stadium to a Pakistani-American businessman tells us much about the state of the FA.

Wembley is our national stadium, an iconic venue for almost a century and for there to be even the slightest suggestion that it might be sold to foreign interests is shocking. Whatever money is offered and whatever guarantees are given, it simply cannot be right that future England football matches, various cup and promotion finals and assorted other national events should be held at a stadium that is not owned by British investors.

As has been said by Ken Bates, a former chairman of Wembley Stadium, guarantees become meaningless once a deal has been done and financial considerations would inevitably prevail. The potential buyer, Shahid Khan, lives in the USA and has serious interests in American football; a major part of his rationale in bidding for Wembley is to enhance and enlarge these interests in the UK. Although he also owns Fulham FC, it seems likely that Mr Khan sees the opportunity of bringing the American version of football to the biggest stadium in England as being one that will be a big money spinner; 'real' football is of little interest to him.

Again as Bates has said, Wembley has to be protected from such foreign raiders and, if necessary and against both his and my usual strong views against such action, it should be nationalised. Sadly, I really don't see this happening and I fully expect the FA to be dazzled by the oodles of cash being thrown at them. How long will it then be before we have FA Cup Finals being played at the Jacksonville Jaguars NFL Stadium ?

The FA has a chequered history of supporting English football and now it appears to be on the point of deserting it altogether. Shame on them.

Thursday 26 April 2018

TIME TO LET ALFIE EVANS DIE.

The case of Alfie Evans, a near 2 year old, is another example of the ridiculous extremes to which our society has become addicted.

Similar to the case of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans is a seriously ill child who has no chance of recovery. He has been in a coma for many months and has been described as being in a semi-vegetative state, that is, his higher brain function is effectively non-existent. He was given all of the relevant treatment and care until and doctors determined that further treatment would be futile; his parents disagreed and the result has been a protracted and highly publicised legal fight. At every stage, the courts have upheld the medical opinion and agreed that the child's invasive treatment regime should be ended and that he should be allowed to die.

Inevitably a variety of voices have been raised in opposition to these court rulings. The parents have continued to argue their case that treatment should continue, either in England or elsewhere, the Italian government has intervened by declaring that the child has now been made an Italian citizen and should be transferred to a hospital in Rome, and the Pope has also had his say. Hundreds of people have joined in a vociferous campaign, some directing foul abuse at the staff of the hospital where the child still remains.

While I have sympathy for the parents of any sick child, surely any intelligent person knows when time is up. This poor child has no quality of life and no prospect of any; he is almost certainly unaware of what is going on around him. The kind and proper thing to do is to let him fade away, as his doctors now believe is the only sensible option. That his parents and others want something different speaks more for their feelings for themselves than it does for their feelings towards the child. They are, in my view, being grotesquely selfish and are utterly uncaring of the condition of the child,

That some of the most extreme protesters are targeting doctors, nurses and other staff of the hospital with abuse and worse is disgusting; these appalling creatures should be rounded up and deported to some remote place from which escape is impossible. They are a stain on our society and should be permanently separated from it.

As for poor Alfie Evans, he should be allowed to die with what little dignity can be allowed him.

Wednesday 25 April 2018

DAVID TREDINNICK - A BELIEVER IN THE ABSURD.

Prime Minister's Questions is an opportunity for back bench Members of Parliament to ask important questions about matters which affect their own constituents; most Members do just this, though not all.

Today, my own MP, David Tredinnick, got to his feet and, rather than saying anything relevant to his constituency, asked a ludicrous question about homeopathy. As many people will know, homeopathy is a practice which claims to treat medical conditions by the administration of vanishingly small quantities of chemical substances. Also as many will know, serious studies of the efficacy of homeopathic remedies have repeatedly shown that they are useless, any claimed benefit being almost certainly due to the placebo effect.  

Tredinnick has been an advocate of homeopathy for many years and has also lobbied for astrological charting to be made available on the NHS; it has been reported that he has claimed that blood does not clot under a full moon, a patently stupid assertion. He has expressed support for the use of homeopathy in veterinary practice too. Despite the fact that his views have been rubbished by every serious scientific expert, Tredinnick has continued to espouse them and has, himself, rubbished the experts.

His constituency is a safe seat and this goon has been the Member of Parliament for almost 32 years; for no good reason, the local constituency party has continued to support him despite his insane views, a 'cash for questions' scandal in 1994 and an attempt to exempt himself from having his expenses made public in 2007. 

Is it not terrifying that anyone can be represented by someone such as this ?

Tuesday 24 April 2018

CUSTOMS' UNION MEANS PRIME MINISTER CORBYN !

There is no doubt that those who are currently demanding that the UK either remains in the European Union's Customs' Union or makes some other sort of customs' union arrangement with the EU are really doing nothing but trying to keep the UK in the EU.

The Customs' Union is an integral part of the European Union and being a member implies also being a member of that bureaucratic organisation or, at the very least, being subservient to it. Such an outcome to the Brexit negotiations would fly in the face of the referendum result and would prevent the UK from pursuing the potentially lucrative free trade arrangements with the rest of the world which was a key cornerstone of the Brexit campaign. It would clearly be wholly unacceptable to Brexiteers.

Any serious moves in that direction would almost certainly lead to a major split within the Conservative Party and a smaller one within Labour. A general election and the arrival of a Marxist Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street would be inevitable.

Do we really want that ? 

Friday 20 April 2018

UNELECTED LORDS DEFY DEMOCRACY.

The House of Lords vote to ask the government to make a statement about its proposed future trade relationship with the European Union is yet another attempt by committed Europhiles to derail Brexit.

It may well be that those in parliament are more in favour of remaining in the EU than leaving it, but the people made a clear decision back in June 2016; that decision was that a majority of the British electorate wanted to leave. Ever since, much noise has emanated from certain quarters suggesting that the people were too stupid or ill-informed to make the decision, that the referendum vote was not binding on the government and that the people simply got it wrong as leaving the EU will irreparably damage the British economy.

The Lords' vote was simply another attempt to obstruct, or reverse, the result of the Brexit referendum. An assortment of former senior Conservatives, whom Mrs Thatcher would have undoubtedly labelled 'wets', teamed up with others in a vote designed to pressure the government into remaining in the EU's Customs' Union, a move that would effectively mean that the UK would stay in the EU. Labour's Brexit minister, Keir Starmer, later made his own noises, telling us how damaging a failure to remain in the Customs' Union would be, while ignoring arguments to the contrary. Starmer, of course, was previously Director of Public Prosecutions and his migration from that role to a role on the extreme left of British politics as one of Jeremy Corbyn's leading lights must raise serious question.

It seems that those of the left, who previously despised the EU, are now only too keen to keep us in it. Assorted wishy-washy liberal types', including a fair few centrist Conservatives, have always seen the EU as a gravy train and an alternative place from which to exercise power without ever really reflecting the views of the general population or being properly accountable to them. These elitists have always believed that the common people should do as they're told and not be the ones to do the telling; the result of the referendum was a nasty shock that they've yet to accept.

It's yet to be seen how the government will deal with this assault on democracy by an entirely unelected and unrepresentative body. If it was up to me, I'd throw the whole lot out and start again with an elected upper chamber. Perhaps now is a good time to do just that.

Wednesday 18 April 2018

WINDRUSH - TOO MUCH POLITICAL HYPE.

The furore that's been stirred up over the so-called 'Windrush Generation' strikes me as being nothing but an opportunistic political manoeuvre.

Undoubtedly, those who arrived in Britain from various Commonwealth countries in the period from the late 1940s to early 1960s were invited and had expectations of remaining here for the rest of their lives. That some now appear to have been threatened with deportation due to an inability to 'prove' that they have a right to be here is wrong but appears to be more a result of lack of foresight and a degree of incompetence than anything else. Claims by some that the destruction of landing cards in 2010 is to blame are ludicrous.

Ship's passenger lists and other associated records have been routinely destroyed for many decades and the destruction of these particular records is irrelevant. If there was an error, it was in not transferring the information to some other form such as a simple list of names, dates of birth and places of origin. Equally, it seems to me that the immigrants themselves might have taken steps to adopt British nationality or, at least, to obtain some other form of evidence of their origin and status. Being able to demonstrate continuous residence in the UK, a tax or national insurance record, school or college records, and much more, could certainly have been useful and an inability to produce such records must raise questions whoever was involved.

It is apparent that some civil service officials have been somewhat over-zealous in their approach to a few of the people caught up in this messy situation but for there now to be an attempt to stir up a political wind storm is ridiculous. No one did anything deliberately to create this problem and the government has now acted to reassure those affected by it. Yes, there have been difficulties for some but the extent of the issue shouldn't be blown out of proportion for political purposes.

One wonders if there'd have been the same fuss made if the immigrants in question had been from predominantly white Commonwealth countries and been more difficult to make political capital of.

Sunday 15 April 2018

MAY v CORBYN - WHO'S WINNING NOW ?

Nine months ago, few gave Theresa May any chance of surviving as Prime Minister for more than a few months at most. Jeremy Corbyn, having brought the Labour party close to winning June's general election, was seen as Prime Minister in waiting. What a difference 9 months can make.

Today, Theresa May is still in office and seems to have regained control of her party, as well as having made significant progress in negotiations with European bureaucrats over the arrangements to be put in place after the UK leaves the European Union. Additionally, she has now shown herself to be a strong an determined leader in her reaction to the appalling use of a nerve agent in Salisbury and has made the decision to send British armed forces into action against the barbaric regime in Syria. Mrs May now seems secure in her role for at least the next 2 to 3 years, with there being little sight of any realistic challengers from within her party.

Conversely, Jeremy Corbyn has had an increasingly difficult time. There's been all manner of infighting within his party as he has attempted to remove all of his opponents and replace them with his likeminded supporters, in a style reminiscent of the dictatorships of Russia, China, North Korea and those other left wing dictatorships of which Corbyn is such an admirer. He's been mired in accusations of anti-Semitism, both personally and within his party, and has failed so far to quell these. While Mrs May has appeared Prime Ministerial, Corbyn has prevaricated and procrastinated over the attempted murder in Salisbury and has been less than supportive of government actions both in relation to this case and in the matter of the recent attacks on Syrian chemical weapons facilities, preferring to waffle about the need to have a dialogue with Russia as if this hasn't already been tried and failed.

At this stage in a parliament, it would be expected that the main opposition party would be well ahead and the Prime Minister would have falling support, but it's not like that today. While opinion polls continue to show the Conservative and Labour parties too close to separate, Mrs May's personal ratings are rising, Corbyn's are falling; Mrs May has grown into her roll while Corbyn has surrounded himself with inexperienced, likeminded acolytes who have failed to make any real mark. Labour's 'big hitters' have almost all migrated to the back benches, distancing themselves from a leader whom they see as being extremist and unrealistic.

There will be local elections taking place on 3rd May and it will be interesting to see how the parties fare in these. Anything less than significant gains for Labour will be a failure for them and the pressure on Corbyn will mount. His popularity may already have peaked and it may well be downhill all the way from here.

Saturday 14 April 2018

TRUMP v PUTIN : WHO WILL BLINK FIRST ?

Thinking more about the events occurring in Syria, I've begun to wonder whether comparison with the Cuban missiles crisis of 1962 is wholly appropriate.

In 1962, the US President was John Kennedy, a very flawed man but not an unpredictable one; neither was he a 'one man band'. Similarly, the Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, was a seasoned politician who had spent many years rising through the ranks of the communist regime. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev was likely to make a truly rash decision and, in the end, sense prevailed and Khrushchev withdrew his missiles.

Contrasting that with today is worrying. In Donald Trump, the USA has probably the most unpredictable and arrogant President of modern times while, in Russia, Vladimir Putin is vain and arrogant as well as being a serious bully and tyrant set on re-establishing Russia as a major world power. Neither of these men will want to be seen to back down, so what will happen ?

Clearly, the Russians will respond to the West's bombing raids though their response could be diplomatic rather than military; perhaps we are in for some more diplomatic expulsions. Alternatively, might President Putin choose to launch his own assault elsewhere, maybe another threat towards Ukraine or by massing troops on the borders of the Baltic states. Whatever Putin decides to do is unlikely to reduce the current tensions and whatever he does is likely to result in more bombast from his US counterpart.

The next few days and weeks may well see the development of the most frightening scenario than has existed since 1945.

IS WORLD WAR THREE AROUND THE CORNER ?

The announcement that the USA, UK and France have launched bombing raids on targets in Syria came in the early hours of this morning. The raids were in response to chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces on their own civilians and came after attempts to organise an international investigation into events in Syria were vetoed by Russia at the United Nations. That this seriously increases still further the tension that exists between Russia and the Western world hardly needs to be mentioned.

Following on from the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in March and the previous suspected use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, solidly backed by Russia, matters are now escalating rapidly. Presidents Trump and Macron and Prime Minister May, supported by the EU and NATO, have clearly decided that the situation in Syria is too dire for them not to intervene, regardless of the attitude of the Russian government. Where this will lead is anyone's guess.

Way back in 1962, there was a 'stand off' between President Kennedy and the then Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev over the location of Russian missiles in Cuba. Kennedy stood firm and the missiles were withdrawn, but not before the world came closer to a nuclear war than at any other time. The present crisis in Syria has not yet reached this level but much will depend on the reaction of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

Putin, who appears to have considerable public support, is the most powerful Russian leader since the bad old days of the Cold War. His control of the state seems to be total and his ruthless removal of opposition politicians has echoes of the behaviour of the likes of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Putin is a vain man who became a colonel in the Russian secret police, the KGB, before the collapse of the Communist regime. After this, he quickly moved into the political sphere and has been the effective dictator of Russia since 2000; he has become increasingly bellicose and most recently has provided support to the brutal regime of President Assad in Syria. Unsurprisingly, the Russian ambassador to the US has said that the attack on its ally "will not be left without consequences".

Will Putin back down and risk losing face ? Will he really launch any form of military response against the Western states involved in the attacks ? Is it possible that the world is on the verge of an all-out war for the first time in more than 70 years ? With the Russians carrying out a nerve agent attack on the streets of Britain and supporting chemical weapons attacks in Syria while vetoing diplomatic attempts to investigate these appalling incidents, it suggests that they are determined to test the resolve of the West.

Now, the West has responded and the next move is up to Putin. Let's hope that he shows at least some semblance of sense and pulls back from the brink.

Monday 9 April 2018

RORY McILROY - ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY.

Oh Dear ! Once again, and despite a considerable amount of hype, Rory McIlroy has messed up a great chance to win the US Masters golf tournament.

Having managed to get himself in a strong position going into the final round and after claiming a share of the lead in the early stages of that round, McIlroy's challenge faded away as his main opponents at least kept their heads above water. In the end, McIlroy finished 6 shots behind the leader in joint fifth place.

The eventual winner, Patrick Reed, had a difficult time but still managed to return a final round of 71, 1 under par. Jordan Spieth mounted a phenomenal challenge to return an 8 under par round of 64 and Rickie Fowler managed a 67; Jon Rahm returned a 69 to finish 4th but McIlroy could manage no better than a rather hopeless 74, one of the poorest rounds of a day when sub-70 was the going rate. Clearly, something is amiss with McIlroy's game.

McIlroy is a powerful hitter and can produce some moments of brilliance but he is inconsistent and erratic. From the tee, he usually hits the ball as hard as he possibly can, looking for distance rather than anything else and, too frequently, he finds trouble; yesterday, he hit drives wildly into the trees on several occasions, losing any chance of picking up shots. In like fashion, his play from the fairways, and the trees, saw him thrash the ball for all it was worth rather than playing for position; the results were there for all to see. 

On the greens, he seemed to be trying to get the ball into the hole as quickly as possible and failed to take adequate time to assess his putts; the result was several short putts missed and shots thrown away. In all, he played like an inexperienced amateur rather than a seasoned professional. Sadly for him, his opponents were the exact opposite.

McIlroy went away talking about frustration and things learnt, but the real issue is temperament. Every good, or lucky, shot was greeted with a swagger but one could see the adrenaline taking over; 2 good shots in a row was always unlikely.  It's all very well hitting drives of 350 yards but it's no good if they land in unplayable positions. By all means look to play quickly, but not so quickly that an opponent's tardiness leads to frustration or that there is insufficient consideration of each and every shot.

If he is ever to win another major tournament, let alone the Masters, McIlroy must learn to slow down a bit, calm down a bit and power down a bit. If he does that, he could be unbeatable.

Friday 6 April 2018

SUGAR TAX - SOCIAL ENGINEERING BY TAXATION.

Today sees the introduction of a so-called 'sugar tax' which is being imposed on drinks of which the government disapproves. It is said that the proceeds of the tax are to be directed at activities intended to benefit the health of children. Ha-ha.

Taxing anything in order to try to 'encourage' people to behave differently is a form of social engineering that is abhorrent to me. We already have punitive taxes levied on tobacco and alcohol and now we have the same approach to sugar. No doubt the health fanatics will, in due course, convince a future government to introduce taxes on salt, fat, carbohydrates other than sugar and lord knows what else in an effort to make the population bend to their will. On every occasion, the tax will be dressed up as being directed at health related issues but will, in fact, simply vanish into the vast black hole that is the government coffer.

If tobacco, alcohol and sugar are really so bad for us, why are they not simply banned ? The answer, of course, is that banning things a) doesn't increase government income and b) usually results in a black market that has to be policed and so costs more. Hence, we have social engineering by taxation. There is an alternative which is a proper programme of education but this also has a cost and, again, taxation  is the preferred option because it raises rather than costs money and satisfies the fanatics more quickly.

When I was a teenager, I was an ardent chemistry student, so much so that I built up a significant home laboratory. One of the experiments I had a go at was to see what happened when a cigarette was incinerated; I heated a crushed cigarette and collected the resulting products by distillation. Brown fumes condensed into a thick dark brown liquid and a black tarry mass was left in the original vessel - needless to say, I never even considered smoking as a lifestyle choice. Something as simple as this experiment, performed in a classroom of 12 year olds would surely put off most of them, and something similar could surely be devised to demonstrate the perils of other products.

Taxation is a blunt instrument and its use as a means of changing people's habits is fundamentally wrong. Nonetheless, governments find it an easy way to raise money and to silence pressure groups; how long will it be before we have a tax on toothpaste that doesn't contain fluoride or some packaged item that doesn't contain enough of a then favoured vitamin or mineral ? We already have mass medication through the addition of fluoride to our drinking water and there are regular calls for the addition of other chemicals to various foodstuffs, notably folic acid as a preventative agent for spina bifida, but can such actions truly be justified when education about diet and lifestyle is available as a simple alternative ? My view is that they can't be.

Once this type of bandwagon starts to roll, stopping it is well nigh impossible and we will all pay the cost.

Tuesday 3 April 2018

LONDON MORE DANGEROUS THAN NEW YORK.

It's been reported that London is now as dangerous as New York in terms of murders committed. Thus far in 2018, there have been 46 murders in the British capital city compared with 50 in New York, but the incidence of this ultimate crime has been greater in London in the last couple of months.

This shocking statistic has already been added to in April with a 17 year old girl being shot in Tottenham yesterday while two boys, aged 16 and 15, have been found in injured in Walthamstow, the first having been shot and the second stabbed. What is going on ?

When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, murder was a relatively rare crime. People did not routinely run around shooting or stabbing each other but now it seems all that has changed. The 'gang' culture now prevalent in some immigrant communities added to the trade in illicit drugs has turned some parts of our major cities, most notably London, into criminal rat-holes. Our police seem quite unable to stem the tide of violence and the result is dead children. 

The problem, to my mind, is that we have been far to slow to react to such activities, fearing accusations of discrimination and racism. Instead successive governments have introduced new but totally ineffectual laws relating to the carrying of various potential weapons or trading in drugs, which sounds good but achieves nothing. Those who routinely carry guns and knives and trade in drugs don't care about the law and continue to act as before.

The police institute 'Operation something or other' and pretend that this is a solution when it's nothing more than a smokescreen for their failure, not that the failure is down to them alone. The source of the failure lies fairly and squarely with governments which have placed so many strictures on the police that for them to have any real impact on the perpetrators of these appalling crimes is almost impossible. Instead of stopping this wave of violence, the police chase motorists who've dropped litter or failed to comply with some other useless law. They spend their time monitoring us via the vast numbers of surveillance cameras that now follow our every move, though not, it seems, in the areas where they're really needed. They pursue the innocent victims of accusations of child abuse, rape or whatever the latest faddish crime is.

Our society is crumbling around our ears. Does no one else but me see it and hear it ?

Sunday 1 April 2018

RELIGION - THE ULTIMATE APRIL FOOL !

With Easter Sunday falling on April 1st, I am driven to wondering if the whole concept of religion isn't simply a huge 'April Fool' played on the human species.

There are hundreds of religions in the world and many divisions within each one; they can't all be right, indeed why should any of them be right ? Their adherents gather together and praise their god or gods, sing songs, wear funny clothes and practice weird rituals. All seem to claim that only their beliefs are the right ones and most of these disparate groups have engaged in vicious conflict in support of their particular notions even though most of them also espouse peace.

Over the centuries, and even millennia in some cases, they have persecuted, tortured and murdered those who don't agree with them. Jews, Muslims and Christians have fought, and continue to fight, bitterly in various parts of the world even though their beliefs all stem from the same common source. Different flavours of Jews dislike each other while different brands of Islam openly fight each other. Christians, of which their are a huge number of different branches, have not only fought the Jews and Muslims but have also butchered each other over assorted questions of biblical interpretation.

Catholics and Protestants have a long history of torturing and killing each other in the most gruesome ways ever since the reformation which began in the 15th century. The 'Spanish Inquisition', the battle for religious supremacy in Britain, the 'troubles' in Ireland which continue to this day, all have hatred between Catholics and Protestants at their core. The 'Pilgrim Fathers' and Mormons who left Britain for the Americas left because their ideas did not accord with those of others in their communities. Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Anglican, Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Calvinists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Plymouth Brethren, Quakers and many more all profess to be Christians and yet all believe something different - they can't all be right, indeed, why should any of them be ?

And, of course, it doesn't end there. In the past there were the gods of Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt and Scandinavia, the gods of the Maya, Toltecs and Aztecs, those of ancient China and Japan. In India, the ancient gods of the Hindu religion are still celebrated - Vishnu, Ganesh, Kali and the rest. There are Buddhists, Parsees, Sikhs, Jains and who knows how many others ? They all have different beliefs, they can't all be right.

With all of this lunacy going on around us, religion serves one purpose and always has. It was used in ancient times to exert power and control over the mass of common people and it still is today. Adherents are required to obey the diktats of their specific order, take part in that order's rituals and, usually, hand over their hard earned cash at the same time. The leaders of the orders then live in splendour while their followers frequently starve. Perhaps unsurprisingly, political leaders also profess religious beliefs; the British Royal Family and successive Prime Ministers all claim to have fervent religious faith, something which seems quite impossible given their levels of education. In like fashion, American Presidential candidates always make religion a cornerstone of their campaigns knowing that not to express strong Christian belief would be disastrous for their hopes of gaining power. Could Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and the rest have been elected if they'd said they were atheists in a country beset by religion? Of course not, so they all professed Christian beliefs, regardless of whether they really held them; all that mattered was gaining power and they'd do and say anything to achieve that end.  

If I was God, I'd think this was a pretty good April Fool given that so many billions of people seem to have fallen for it.