FRANK FIELD : RESPECTED BY MOST, HATED BY A FEW.

Frank Field may be a Labour party member and long serving Member of Parliament for Birkenhead but he is also a figure who is highly respected across the political spectrum, excluding the 'hard left', that is.

Field does not adhere to ideological dogma come what may, he espouses and supports generally over socialist views but modified with an element of common sense and pragmatism. In other words, he's an honest and decent politician, one of a very few left. Of course, while his approach may be applauded by many, it does not find favour with those members of the Labour Party who demand total adherence to a totalitarian Stalinist way of doing things. These people are unreconstructed members of a cabal which hates what they see as privilege and elitism, the 'upper class' and the 'rich'; they continue to fight a 'class war' that is no longer relevant and they demand total obedience from anyone who wishes to be associated with them. Frank Field has now made it clear that, while remaining a Labour Party member, he no longer finds it possible to be associated with these extremists.

The Labour Party has a current problem with its attitude towards Jews and anti-Semitism. For months, there have been arguments about various actions of its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and some other senior figures and it's also been in turmoil over what its own definition of anti-Semitism should be. Personally, I find the whole argument incomprehensible but clearly the Labour Party likes to have its members dancing on pin-heads. Frank Field has become fed up with this rubbish and decided that enough is enough; accordingly, he's resigned the Labour whip in parliament, though remains a party member. 

Inevitably the 'hard left' elements in the party have criticized him loudly, notably the ultra-left and ultra-obnoxious Owen Jones who, incidentally, has been one of the BBC's regular guests in recent times. There have been demands that he resign his parliamentary seat, a constituency in which the local Labour Parry has been taken over by extremists who have already passed a motion of no-confidence in Mr Field as a precursor to getting him replaced by some fellow traveller of their own choice; they don't want an MP who represents the constituency and decency, they want one who will be likeminded and do their bidding.

Field may be forced to resign and trigger a by-election, though he will stand again as an independent Labour candidate. If this happens, we will see just how strong is the 'hard left' in that part of the country. If Field is forced out of parliament and replaced by some extremist, one wonders what the future holds for the Labour Party nationally.

MURDER AND MAYHEM IS EVERYWHERE.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of crime in our country today of a type which did not exist 50 years ago. This is not to say that the country was necessarily a better place in the past but it is to say that criminal activity has become more diverse.

The murder of 2 Syrian women on the streets of Solihull by an Afghan man is a case in point; in my youth, murder on the streets anywhere in Britain, was rare to say the least. Yes, there were criminal gangs who stalked certain parts of London and other major centres and, yes, on occasion violence would erupt, but the murder of ordinary people going about their normal everyday business hardly ever happened. Psychopaths such as John Christie carried out their shocking work and petty thieves like James Hanratty committed atrocities in the course of other crimes, but the type of crime that we see today was virtually unknown.

In recent times we have seen gangs of mainly Pakistani origin abducting young white girls and forcing them into prostitution, and drug dealing gangs, often of Caribbean origin, running amok with knives and guns, particularly in parts of London. We have seen the introduction of the particularly nasty habit of throwing acid over people and we have seen incidents such as that which occurred in Solihull a couple of days ago. So called 'people trafficking' for the purposes of bringing in girls to be forced into prostitution or to be used as unpaid servants, effectively slaves; so called 'honour killings', murder followed by the burning of the corpse, and girls smuggled out of the country to be forced into arranged marriages in various parts of the Indian sub-continent. All of these are crimes new to our society, but imported with the influx of immigrants from around the world, bringing with them ways which are alien to our country.

Perhaps I have been misled by the media's coverage of such events and politicians' reaction to them, but perhaps not. In the last couple of weeks there have been shootings in Kingsbury, Rayners Lane and Southall, all parts of west or north west London which I used to know well and in which such events were unknown. Two teenagers were stabbed in Harrow last Sunday in an area which I know well even today. It seems likely that these incidents have involved gangs, drugs, 'honour' or some other modern cause of criminality.

This escalation in the extent of violent crime has come at the same time as immigration from all quarters of the globe has reached historic heights; whether or not there is a causal link between the two issues, there can be no doubt that our society, with its assorted 'communities', is in increasingly serious trouble.

JOSE MOURINHO : THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

Jose Mourinho really should be in politics; his ability to twist the truth, or even to deny it, is remarkable.

After losing 3-0 at home to Tottenham last night, he appeared in front of the media and claimed that his side were far superior and should have been at least 2 goals ahead at half-time. Yes, Lukaku did miss something of a sitter, but Tottenham were also denied a clear penalty after Phil Jones blatantly fouled Lucas Moura in an incident which was missed by the officials. In the second half, Tottenham scored 3 times and could have had more had Dele Alli passed to Kane when the latter was clear, and managed to get his feet sorted out when he had only De Gea to beat; additionally, Kane missed a header when it must have been easier to score.

Mourinho sees only what he wants to. Nothing is ever his fault, this time it all appears to be down to the failure of the club to cough up millions more to buy new players, despite the fact that the arrival of Romelu Lukaku and Paul Pogba alone had cost at least £165m. Tottenham, on the other hand, have never paid more than £40m for a single player and have never spent a tiny fraction of Mourinho's annual transfer budget; they rely on developing young players through a programme of early identification of talented youngsters followed by intensive coaching. This year, they brought in no new players at all, relying on the squad they already have.

Mourinho doesn't do development. He has thrived by only managing teams with big budgets and established players; as soon as things have started to deteriorate, he's moved on. He's never been challenged to achieve success with an existing squad enhanced only by a minimal transfer budget; basically, he doesn't have the ability, or desire, to do it.

When things go wrong, Mourinho whinges; he deflects questions and criticisms, as he did yesterday when he confusingly turned a discussion of a 3-0 home defeat into a conversation about him having won the Premier League 3 times, using the number 3 as some sort of anchor for his argument. Mourinho relies on an arguable reputation to keep him in his job; effectively, you can't sack me, I'm too good. "Give me the resources I demand, and I'll win for you", is his argument. Well, he's had millions and it's still not enough; he needs more for defenders, midfielders or whatever. The truth is that he could be given an unlimited chequebook and he'd still complain. 

If Manchester United are to regain their old prowess, Mourinho has to go. The media stories about conflict between him and his chairman, Ed Woodward, or between him and his players may or may not be true but they are symptomatic of problems at the heart of the club. Those problems won't go away until Mourinho does. 

PLASTIC BAG TAX IS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.

The suggestion that the government is about to extend, and double, the levy on plastic bags is another example of our masters using moral blackmail to bamboozle us into paying more taxes. Be under no illusion, this 'levy' is, in reality, just another tax, even though the government dresses it up as part of some sort of moral crusade.

Government habitually contributes, one way or another, to a wide range of charities; the plastic bag levy is supposed also to contribute to charity, assuming that the businesses which collect the levy really do pass it on in that way. However, rather than this being additional money for charities, one wonders how much it is more of a reduction in the amount that government pays for these supposed 'good causes'.

If our government was actually serious about preventing the pollution caused by plastic bags, it would simply ban them. Instead, it has chosen to dress up its approach as a fund raising measure when it's nothing of the sort; it's just another tax, pure and simple. Worse, it's a tax which the collectors, the big companies, can opt to pay, or not, at their whim. After all, who is actually checking that the 5ps charged are all being properly accounted for ? 

If this tax is extended to small retailers, the opportunities for fraud will simply increase and an increase in the tax to 10p per bag will make the incentive all the greater. We, the consumers, will be stung not only by a government tax that achieves nothing but also by fraudsters who simply enjoy the profitable opportunity offered by our moronic masters. 

A tax on plastic bags, straws cups, bottles and all the rest reads as very laudable, but the real answer is simply to ban their use. Instead, our government uses the current publicity surrounding the environmental damage caused by plastic waste as an opportunity to raise taxes. That this is an abominable and corrupt use of power, and nothing other than the nationalisation of antisocial behaviour is obvious. Tobacco, alcohol and now plastic - all are deemed antisocial and all could just be banned to avoid problems, but government prefers to allow the damage to continue while collecting vast revenues from their continued use.

So much for political morality. 

ALCOHOL - KILLJOYS AT IT AGAIN.

Yet again the do-gooders and killjoys are at it.

A report published in the medical journal 'The Lancet', claims that alcohol is simply bad. The authors reckon that the only safe level of alcohol consumption is zero. This conclusion has been reached by researchers from the 'Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation', a highly pretentious sounding name, based in Seattle, Washington, who are responsible for the equally pretentious 'Global Burden of Diseases study'. 

However, when I refer to these people as researchers, I may be giving them a status that is undeserved. It seems that what they've actually done is to combine and re-analyse the results of hundreds of meta-analyses of real studies by real researchers in order to come up with what they describe as "the most comprehensive estimate of the global burden of alcohol use to date". More pretentious twaddle.

No one would argue that alcohol consumption is devoid of risks and clearly excessive consumption is potentially dangerous, even fatal. However, this applies to many other things as well. Drinking excessive amounts of carrot juice, even of water can be dangerous; eating too much meat is supposedly bad and dairy products such as cheese and butter are frowned upon by many, while sugar and salt are absolute evils. So why pick on alcohol ?

Perhaps alcohol consumption can be linked to health problems and assorted diseases but what about the relief from stress that it can bring at the end of a hard day ? What about the social interaction that can be enjoyed over a glass of beer or wine ? Are we to be denied these benefits because a few killjoys are determined to save us from ourselves with their meta-analyses of other people's meta-analyses ?

I, for one, will continue to drink moderately and if I suffer a few consequential side effects, so be it. I'd rather live a reasonably happy and sociable, if shorter, life than a miserable and lonely long one. 

BREXIT IS OFF AND THE ELITE WILL HAVE THEIR WAY.

Sadly, I see little likelihood that the UK will ever really leave the European Union.

Yesterday's publication of a number of 'no deal' scenario documents was clearly designed to add to the growing weight of anti-Brexit sentiment, while Chancellor Hammond's later pronouncement about economic gloom for years to come, while wholly in keeping with the Treasury's long term stance, added more fuel to the fire. Today, a representative of the World Trade Organisation, courtesy of the BBC, were able to add yet more fuel by pointing out that reverting to WTO rules also carries complications.

It is clear that the powers that be do not want Brexit to happen, regardless of the expressed wish of the people. Few, if any, of those in power mention anything but the supposed problems, difficulties and economic woes that will flow from Brexit; only voices from the political wilderness talk of the manifold advantages of being free from the bureaucratic nightmare that is the European Union.

As this sorry saga trudges on, one is driven to the conclusion that this is what the political classes intended from day 1. Do as little as possible until near the end, then emphasise the terrible consequences of the people's decision but in a way that seems to imply that the government is actually on their side; crafty, very crafty. Inevitably, the people, fed up with the whole drawn out process, will turn against the notion of Brexit and clamour to leave things alone after all.

When you're up against not just your own government but the whole of the political establishment, what can you do ? The mighty forces of the European Union, World Trade Organisation and International Monetary Fund, as well as the lesser but even more vociferous Confederation of British Industry, Institute of Directors, Institute for Fiscal Studies and many more protectionist organisations are lined up on one side of the argument; what chance does any counter view have ?

If Brexit happens, it will be in name only. The UK will remain tied to the EU and will, in fact, be even more subservient than before as it will have no voice in the decision making processes. We will become a vassal state, going cap in hand to our masters in Brussels who will, by then, be cock-a-hoop over their success and our failure.

How the mighty are fallen. 

GCSEs : 20% IS A PASS !

The news is currently full of stories about GCSE results and the students who have done well. What is less reported is the unbelievably low scores needed to achieve passes, or top grades, in some subjects.

It seems that around 20% is sufficient to achieve a pass grade of C/4 in mathematics, while no more than about 25-26% sees pupils gaining a pass in biology, chemistry and physics. These same critical subjects have seen pupils awarded grade A/7 for between 50% and 58%.

How can these gradings be justified ? How can anyone be deemed to have achieved a pass in any subject when they've only managed to get 20% of questions right ? How can anyone be judged to have achieved a grade A when they've only answered half of the questions correctly ?

With many exams adopting a 'multiple choice' approach, pupils could very well gain 25% by pure chance; given that they are sitting subjects in which they have been rigorously instructed all year and for which they have been specifically trained, 25% is a ludicrously low target for a pass. An online list published by Sky News offered 10 typical questions from a range of subjects and challenged readers to try to emulate the success of the youngsters who sat this years GCSEs - I managed 90%, which would have been 100% had I read the tenth question properly, in no more than 5 minutes, without any tuition and having left school nearly 50 years ago. Does this make me clever or the exams unbelievably easy ?

I'm sure I recall that when I was at school, pass marks were generally in the region of 45%; to achieve an A grade, one had to reach more than 70%. The reduction in grade boundaries serves our young people very badly indeed. They are given false notions about their knowledge and abilities which result in them having expectations which cannot be fulfilled. This culture in which no one can be allowed to fail is nonsensical; failure is a normal part of life.

The government and so-called educationalists laud the results as being proof of the excellence of our schools. What rubbish. One has only to talk to many young people for a few minutes to realise that their basic knowledge and understanding across a wide range of subjects is abysmal but, having been schooled towards merely achieving 20 or 30% to pass a specific exam, what more can be expected ?

When on earth will common sense and reality ever be restored ?

BBC - TIME TO DITCH THE LICENCE FEE.

There was a time when the BBC was predominant and the was always my preferred choice, whether for television or radio. No longer.

Today, the BBC is dominated by left wing thinkers far more interested in following crackpot notions of supposed equality and human rights, political correctness, promoting social cohesion or multiculturalism and God knows what else. I now watch or listen to their output only rarely.

We are confronted with giggling women presenting most sports' programmes and bulletins, notwithstanding that the sports themselves may be predominantly male orientated. We have women presenting news reports from anywhere and everywhere with often not a man in sight; we have female-only programmes, even though male-only ones appear to have been banned. Our mornings are dominated by drivel from the lips of Jenny Murray, Victoria Derbyshire, Stephanie McGovern, Sally Nugent and a host of other hugely annoying figures.

I have nothing against women and some of those who appear are excellent - Naga Munchetty and Louise Minchin can't be faulted - but others add nothing and take away much from previous arrangements. The lightweight Jo Coburn and Sarah Smith are no substitutes for Andrew Neil; Gabby Logan may know her football but suddenly she is everywhere else too. We have women conducting post-match interviews with sweaty rugby male players - why ? 

To add insult to injury, we also appear to have an overrepresentation of stories and programmes about third world countries, customs and cultures. The tiniest 'disadvantaged' or ethnic minorities are given a prominence which cannot possibly be called for. Every left wing liberal cause is supported while every opportunity to criticise the right wing is embraced enthusiastically. As the bastion of political correctness, the BBC has no rivals.

If ever there was an argument for doing away with the licence fee, it's this madcap nonsense. Why should I pay for a pile of tripe which I do not consume ? Why should anyone other than those dwindling few who share the BBC's approach to the world ?  

ARETHA WHO ?

The news media seems to  be full of tributes to a 'singer' who has died. Apparently, Aretha Franklin was just about the greatest singer ever and her death is supposed to be mourned by everyone.

Well, while I knew her name, I would have happily passed her in the street without knowing that I'd just been within touching distance of the 'Queen of Soul', whatever that ridiculous epithet means. While I may have heard her on the radio at times, it was not by choice and I wouldn't have known who was performing unless I was told.

To me, Aretha Franklin was a woman with a powerful voice which she used to make the most appalling noises - screams, shrieks and yells merging into a caterwauling cacophony which merely encouraged me to switch off without delay. Mine may be a discordant voice amidst the paean of praise, but it's no more discordant than were the screeches which too often emerged from the throat of Ms Franklin.

The world of the media and entertainment seems to have lost all sense of perspective when it comes to its own.

STOKES AND CIPRIANI : SIMPLE YOBS.

Guilty or not in the eyes of the law, Ben Stokes was undoubtedly involved in a drunken brawl outside of a nightclub. Danny Cipriani was involved in a fracas at a nightclub in Jersey that saw him charged with assault and resisting arrest, charges to which he subsequently pleaded guilty.

These 2 'sports' stars' are a disgrace and have brought their respective sports into disrepute. Both have behaved like yobs and yet assorted voices seem to be calling for them to be effectively pardoned and allowed to continue their international careers as if nothing had happened. Indeed, Stokes has already been recalled to the England squad for the next test match against India.

It appears that so-called 'sports' stars' can do almost anything they like with very little chance that it will impact on their careers and income. They continue to be selected to represent their countries as if nothing has happened, and gain all of the kudos that comes with such prominence. To be fair, in Cipriani's world of rugby union, there is a crime which carries a sentence of banishment from the national team, which is the crime of daring to play for a non-British club side; so playing for the wrong club brings an international ban but brawling in a nightclub is pardonable !!

Somewhere along the line, things have gone seriously wrong.

BORIS HAS NO NEED TO APOLOGISE.

Boris Johnson is being condemned for making a few quite harmless remarks about women who wear burkas. His suggestion that they look somewhat like letterboxes is surely correct and mildly humorous; that they could be mistaken for bank robbers is less likely but equally harmless. Nonetheless, the forces of liberal egalitarianism have rounded on him.

One wonders, if Johnson's comments can be construed as being so offensive and deserving of the most severe censure, what we should make of the far more offensive treatment meted out to President Trump during his recent visit to the UK or, indeed, to the streams of pretty offensive cartoon depictions of politicians such as Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn or Boris himself. Why is it considered perfectly alright to ridicule and lampoon people such as these, often in ways which are highly offensive, but wrong, even criminally so, to make what were, after all, a few passing remarks about others which are a reflection of reality ?

If I pass a one-legged man in the street and comment that he looks like 'Long John Silver', is that offensive ? Should I be made to apologise or even be arrested ? If I'm heard to remark that someone 'of colour' with shocking table manners is eating 'like a pig', will I be charged with some sort of 'hate crime' ?   

The firestorm that's being stirred up over Boris Johnson's comments is a fine example of the way in which our society is being subverted. Imaginary crimes involving 'offence' or 'hate' have been invented for no good reason other than to curtail free speech and, even, freedom of thought. Crimes are deemed to have been committed not because any offence has been proven but because supposed victims says they have. This isn't the application of justice, it's tyranny.

Undoubtedly some words or actions may be considered to be offensive but can simply using words which some dislike ever be considered criminal ? Boris Johnson did no more than voice views which are shared by millions of his fellow citizens; that some found his words 'offensive' is no reason for him to withdraw them or to apologise. If people don't want to be singled out for comment, they shouldn't draw attention to themselves.

BORIS, MUSLIMS AND LETTER BOXES.

Boris Johnson is being pilloried for his description of women who wear burkas as looking like letter boxes. Inevitably, he's been accused of Islamophobia and some of those on the left of politics want him investigated for breaches of equality and human rights laws. What a load of old cobblers !

What is 'Islamophobic' about making a statement of the obvious ? The ridiculous face covering worn by some Muslim women is antisocial in the extreme, separating these women from the rest of society. Mr Johnson says that he doesn't favour a ban on such forms of dress but surely the rest of our society has its own rights, one of them being to know who is standing next to them in a queue. This type of dress clearly has the potential to hide wrong-doers and has already created discussion about the extent to which it should be allowed in particular situations, such as in court or when other proper identification is necessary.

With Boris's words being blown out of all proportion, Theresa May has said that he should apologise as his remarks have "clearly caused offence"; this is quite ridiculous. Many things which are said or done may cause offence - I'm offended by the gratuitous nudity and foul language which regales our television screens and by the obscene amounts of money paid to footballers, though I don't expect anyone to apologise for these or any other offences that I perceive. Mr Johnson has used our right to free speech to make a valid point and it would be a dangerous precedent if he is forced to apologise for what were harmless words. Whatever happened to the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" ?

It is insane that we are allowing our country to be dictated to by people, on the one hand, who want to drag us back to the dark days of religious wars and intolerance and who see women as second class citizens and the property of their male relatives, and on the other by those who despise the very notion of anyone holding views contrary to their own and who take offence at the merest whisper of dissent.

Wake up, Britain, before it's too late.

ORGAN DONATION PRESUMED CONSENT IS WRONG.

It seems that our masters are determined to return us all to the dark days of the 19th century when even our bodies were not our own.

It's reported that the government is planning to introduce a new law under which the question of organ donation would be dealt with by 'presumed consent'. In other words, unless the deceased person had specifically opted out of such donation, their organs would be presumed to be available for doctors to do with as they please. The law would not apply to children, which I imagine means those under the age of 18, but would, no doubt, apply to those who, for example, died unexpectedly and had simply not got around to opting out of the scheme. It also seems likely that relatives, other than those of children, would no longer have a voice.

Back in time, the bodies of executed murderers were made available to medical schools under the provisions of the Murder Act of 1752. However, the increasing interest in medical science and a fall in the number of available bodies meant that this source of supply gradually became insufficient and this gave rise to the rather unsavoury trade of the 'resurrectionists', people who dug up freshly buried bodies and sold them to medical schools and students for their research and training. By the early 1800s, it was becoming clear that the law needed to be changed though it was not until the passing of the Anatomy Act in 1832 that anything actually happened.

Under this Act, the needs of physicians, surgeons and students were met by giving them legal access to corpses that were unclaimed after death, which meant many of those died in prison, hospital or a workhouse. The Act also allowed next of kin to donate a relative's body in return for burial at the expense of the anatomy school, something which was akin to the selling of the corpse, and individuals could also donate their own bodies although relatives could object to this.

The real effect of this Act was to make the corpses of the poor generally available for anatomical dissection, whether they liked it or not. Inevitably, there were protests although these were mostly ignored and the effects of the 1832 Act remained in force until it was repealed in England and Wales in 1984; access to the bodies of the deceased is now regulated by the Human Tissue Authority, but the wide-ranging access which was available under the 1832 Act no longer exists.

What the government is now proposing is a return to the days of the 1830s when the poor and uneducated were not even allowed the dignity of burial, but could have their bodies chopped up by any passing doctor. The latest proposals would mean much the same, with the wealthy and knowledgeable being able to opt out of the scheme while the poor and uneducated could well find themselves being cut up simply because they didn't understand how the law worked or hadn't known how to opt out. No doubt, opting out of the scheme will be made confusing and difficult, so as to ensure that few actually do it, poor or not.

One wonders how the much vaunted rules and regulations around 'equality' will be applied in the event of an opt out system being introduced. Will those who opt out of donating their own organs still be entitled to receive the organs of others should the need arise ? How will different religious beliefs be accommodated ? Would the law apply to all who live here or would, say, foreign nationals be excluded ? 

The enactment of such a law would be an infringement of the liberties of every single person in our society. My body belongs to me, not to the state and for the state to 'presume' authority over it after my death is anathema to me, as it should be to every right minded person. I have no objection whatsoever to organ donation but it must be by the specific wish of the donor, not a result of theft by the state.

Should this law come to pass, I will be among the first to opt out, however difficult the government makes it.

FOR MUGABE, READ MNANGAGWA

One of the most appalling tyrants of modern times, Robert Mugabe, may have gone but little else seems to have changed in Zimbabwe.

'Free and democratic' elections have been held but have been accompanied by the same scenes of violence as before. Days of rioting, opponents hustled away by police, claims and counter-claims about vote rigging; it's all as if Mugabe had never left the scene.

Whatever the truth, it's clear that many Zimbabweans believe that there has been foul play and that the voting, and its results, have been subject to manipulation. In such circumstances mistrust will endure and the state will continue to subdue all opposition in any way that it can. If that means police brutality, manufactured charges, false imprisonment or even murder, so be it.

Emmerson  Mnangagwa has said that his victory in the Presidential election paves the way for a new beginning for his beleaguered country but isn't this the same old tosh that was spouted by Mugabe, over and over again ? As a former associate of Mugabe's, is not Mnangawa just another old man who fancied grabbing the limelight, and the power, before it was too late ? 

Zimbabwe, as Southern Rhodesia, may not have been perfect but it was surely a lot better than the appalling cess pit of corruption, violence and murder that it has become.