REMAINERS GALORE !

The last few days have revealed just how hypocritical it is possible for our democratically elected representatives to be.

In 2016, Members of Parliament agreed to accept and act upon whatever result came out of the referendum on the vexed matter of the UK's membership of the European Union. Of course, they also expected that, with the full weight and power of the establishment behind it, the campaign to remain members would win comfortably. When it didn't they were thrown into turmoil.

Even so, in March 2017, Parliament approved the enactment of 'Article 50', which set in motion the process for leaving. Ever since, voices have been raised against a 'hard Brexit', a Tory Brexit' or, indeed, any Brexit, blatantly ignoring everything that Parliament had previously approved. Now, Vince Cable has stated unequivocally that the principal policy of the Liberal Democrats is to prevent the UK from ever leaving the European Union, the Green Party and Scottish Nationalists are equally in favour of continued membership at all cost, and the ludicrous assemblage of misfits who comprise 'Change UK' have also made it clear that they want to prevent Brexit. 

All of these pro-EU voices had their chance to make their case back in 2016. The fact is that they lost but, like spoiled children, they refuse to accept being told that they can't have things their way. They have gradually moved from grudging acceptance of the referendum result, via suggestions of further referendums and 'soft Brexits', to outright campaigning to reverse the result of the only referendum that matters, that of 2016. They have proved themselves to be anti-democratic, arrogant and dictatorial.

These people, the likes of Vince Cable and Chukka Umunna, Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry, Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and the rest, have no right to claim that they represent any views but their own. Add to them others who have remained within the Conservative and Labour parties but disloyal to their millions of voters who expressed a clear desire to leave the EU - Hilary Benn, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Amber Rudd et al - and it is obvious that none of them, or their adherents, deserve our votes.

That is why I shall be spoiling my voting paper next Thursday rather than voting for any of the party hacks on offer, and I'll be voting for the only acceptable candidate, that of the Brexit Party, on 23rd May when we all go to the polls again for the European Parliamentary elections.

TRUMP SNUBBED BY CORBYN, CABLE AND BERCOW.

Like him or loathe him, as President of the most powerful nation on Earth and, incidentally, the UK's most staunch ally, Donald Trump is entitled to respect, for his office even if not for himself.

Nonetheless, Jeremy Corbyn, an avowed Marxist and friend of terrorists such as Hamas and the IRA, Vince Cable, a failed socialist who found a home with the liberal elite of the Liberal Democrats although his stance on Brexit demonstrates that he is no democrat, and John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons although he seems to speak for no one but himself, have all refused invitations to a state banquet when Mr Trump visits this country in June

Cable, Corbyn and Bercow; three real heavyweights of world politics, men who bestride the globe, whose every word is awaited with baited breath ………….  Only in their own fevered imaginations. These three object to President Trump's expressed views on various issues and also to his general political approach, and yet they have had no such difficulty in welcoming Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, Chinese dictator, Xi Jinping and paying court to assorted other unpleasant characters. While Putin and Xi imprison, torture and murder their opponents, Trump fights his in court; Trump is accused of "racist and misogynistic rhetoric" while Putin invades neighbouring countries with impunity and Xi consigns millions of Muslims to internment camps.

The utter hypocrisy of Cable, Corbyn and Bercow is hard to believe, and yet it is true. These bigoted, arrogant and pompous little men are perfectly happy to snub the United Kingdom's biggest ally while pandering to its greatest foes. 

What is this country coming to when people such as this are in positions of power ? 

LEAK ENQUIRY OVERSHADOWS BREXIT SILENCE.

Following the reported 'leak' from the National Security Council regarding Chinese technology company Huawei, the government has announced the establishment of a 'Leak Enquiry'. Ha, Bloody Ha !!

Anyone who is old enough may well remember the utterly brilliant series 'Yes Minister', one episode of which revolved around just such a matter. A 'leak' of supposedly secret government information was initially received with horror and threats of terrible retribution, but then everything was calmed down by the suggestion that there should be a Leak Enquiry. The logic to this was that such enquiries never actually discovered anything but they did enable the problem to be kicked into the long grass and ultimately forgotten. It was also mentioned that leaks nearly always came from Number 10, so there was very little desire to discover their source anyway.

Some 35 years on, little has changed and life seems to be imitating art. Uproar has been succeeded by the setting up of the inevitable enquiry and the problem will be quietly forgotten; after all, how long will this investigation take ? How thorough will it, or can it, be ? What real benefit can there be in discovering and naming the supposed offender ? 

It occurs to me that the main beneficiary of all this noise is the Prime Minister, for whom this is another story to overshadow Brexit for a day or 2. Attendance at a media funeral, missing PMQs, now a right furore about leaked information; with local elections next week, is this all designed simply to keep Brexit out of the headlines ? Can it be that our government and opposition, who are colluding, are really that cynical ?

You bet they are !

MPs BACK FROM HOLIDAY - CHAOS RESUMED.

No sooner have Members of Parliament returned from their Easter holiday than all hell has resumed at Westminster and government of our nation remains in turmoil.

Prime Minister Theresa May has no authority in Parliament nor over her MPs, and has lost the confidence of party members nationwide; in all normal circumstances, she would have resigned or been forced from office but, with no one able to forge a realistic consensus over the vexed subject of Brexit, her party appears completely incapable of agreeing on any way forward. Even yesterday, a meeting of Conservative back-bench MPs failed to agree on what to do next and, in the absence of any coherent challenge to her, Mrs May remains stubbornly and doggedly determined to stay in post for as long as she deems necessary.

Astonishingly, at this time of national crisis and humiliation, both Mrs May and the Marxist, pro-IRA leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, have decided to forego attendance at today's Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons and have, instead, decided to travel to Northern Ireland to attend the funeral of a largely unknown journalist who was shot there last week. Why such an occasion should be considered more important than dealing with matters of state, when neither May nor Corbyn would habitually attend funerals of other victims of terrorism, is a question for which there can be only one real answer - they both want to keep out of the way and avoid answering awkward questions. That said, it seems that Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach will also be attending so perhaps it creates an opportunity for May and Corbyn to attempt some diplomatic skulduggery.

Our political masters seem to have lost all touch with the people whom they are supposed to represent and to whom they are supposed to be accountable. They are squabbling amongst themselves like small children arguing over who will get the biggest Easter egg. In the end, as with the children, they will find all of the eggs taken away from them and themselves sent to bed early. For our politicians this translates into apathy and disaffection at the polling booths in next week's local council elections and, if they happen, total annihilation at the European elections scheduled for 23rd May.

What an appalling mess our leaders have created. 

DAVID BECKHAM - BILLIONAIRE ?!

I've recently read that David Beckham is now a billionaire. How on earth has that happened ?

Beckham was a decent footballer but nowhere near the best, although anyone reading the British sporting press could be forgiven for believing that he was, in fact, the greatest sportsman, let alone footballer, who ever lived. As a footballer, he was paid silly amounts of money, probably in the tens of thousands of pounds a week increasing to hundreds of thousands when he moved to America. However, even allowing for these insane amounts of money, the sums don't add up.

£50,000 a week for 20 years amounts to £50,000,000. Even £150,000 a week only adds up to £150,000,000. So where does the rest come from ?

Beckham has become a commodity, sold by clever people for whatever they can get. Advertising, promotions, sponsorships, you name it, a man who could barely write his name 25 years ago is now among the super-rich, not because he's brought anything of worth to the world but purely because he's got an image which others can sell.

Obviously Beckham won't be complaining but the rest of us surely should be, for it's us, or at least those who fall the advertising, who have paid for his enrichment. What fools we, or they, are.

LOCAL ELECTION MAYHEM BECKONS.

The forthcoming local elections are likely to be disastrous for the main political parties with views about Brexit overshadowing all else. I certainly will not be voting for any of the principals and, if there isn't an option, I'll be spoiling my ballot as a protest against the whole damn lot of them. Some might argue that local elections are about local issues and that Brexit shouldn't come into it but, frankly, local parties mostly do what they're told by their national leaders so the difference is minimal.

In my own area, the fight has always been between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with Labour being a distant third in the polls. The local council is currently under the control of the Conservatives who have, historically, done a reasonable job. The Liberals, desperate for power, do what Liberals do everywhere - they plough their own furrow, spreading lies and disinformation about whoever is in office. They send out a newsletter which is so full of misleading stories as to be actionable; they pander to every special interest group with 'promises' about what they'll do when elected, even when these 'promises' have no chance of being put into practice and even when the local council has absolutely no ability to implement them. Basically, they say whatever they think will get them elected, regardless of any other considerations.

Now, given that many people probably won't bother voting this time, being utterly disillusioned with the failure of the national parties to resolve Brexit and the fact that my borough was a strong 'Leave' voting area, what is likely to be the outcome of the council elections ? I can see Conservative voters staying at home because of the shocking performance of Theresa May and her government, and Labour voters staying at home because of the failures of the national Labour Party leadership, not only over Brexit but also over their dramatic move to the extreme left of British politics and their perceived failure to combat anti-Semitism. No 'Leave' supporters will vote for the Liberals but their dedicated supporters will turn out, buoyed up by the promises of the wonders to come. 

The outcome will be a huge win for the Liberals and 4 years of a Liberal-run council, after which their lies and duplicity will be so obvious that the Conservatives will come back, as long as Brexit is finished with by then. What we really need is a proper alternative to these shysters.

EQUALITY - 18 MONTHS PRISON FOR A MAN, 3 MONTHS SUSPENDED FOR A WOMAN !

We are regularly told that women must be treated the same as men in every aspect of life; equality is the watchword and, consequently, there are frequent complaints that there are too few female chief executives, Members of Parliament or whatever. A week or so ago, we had an example of the utter hypocrisy of this type of nonsense.

A woman appeared in court before a female judge, Sarah Buckingham, on charges relating to drinking and driving. The accused had a history of drink-drive offences and, on this latest occasion, had caused a serious accident in which her car are careened down an embankment and caught fire, after colliding with 2 others. In court, she admitted that she had consumed a bottle of wine and been unfit to drive. What did the eminent judge do ?

Well, Her Honour Judge Buckingham told the offender that if she were a man, she would be sent to prison for 18 months but, as she was a woman, this wasn't appropriate. Instead, the judge gave her a 3 months suspended sentence, noting that she was clearly an alcoholic and needed time to get her life in order. 

How is this justice ? The woman had committed a serious offence which required a prison sentence and yet the judge made it clear that, in her court, men and women would be treated differently. An offence committed by a man would seen as being far more heinous than one committed by a woman. Where is the equality in this ?

It is quite obvious that women are not the same as men and that they have, in general, different attitudes, approaches and desires to men, but when it comes to treatment under the law what grounds can there be for treating a woman differently from a man ? If there should be equal numbers of women MPs, chief executives, police officers, doctors, lawyers and so on, then women should also be subject to equal treatment under the law; this offender should have received exactly the same sentence as the judge said she would have handed down to a man - 18 months in prison.

By not applying equal treatment, Judge Buckingham has made a mockery of the law, done a serious disservice to the drive for equality and, one can only hope, destroyed her own prospects of serving on the bench for much longer.

LONDON NEEDS WATER CANNON.

What a shame that the water cannon purchased by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London have been sold.

Whatever the reasons, thousands of people blocking the streets of our capital city, disrupting train services and vandalising buildings is unacceptable. Forget the nonsense about the protesters being non-violent, they are causing criminal obstruction and need to be removed by any means available. Forget also the ridiculous modern notions that force the police to treat these nuisances with kid gloves for fear of injuring them.

The answer to this type of civil unrest is water cannon and that's what should be deployed. Sadly, our liberal, left-leaning political elite are far too namby-pamby to take such action. More fool them, and more disruption for the law abiding members of our society who simply want to go about their lawful daily business..

There will be a backlash and the pendulum will swing back. Our leaders have become far too tolerant of genuine anti-social behaviour and far too enthusiastic about monitoring and controlling relatively minor aspects of our lives. If I drop a piece of litter in the street, I risk being fined, but I can obstruct a major London highway with little fear of any penalty being imposed. This needs to change and some semblance of common sense needs to be reintroduced.

We need a strong, right wing government dedicated to disposing of petty rules and regulations and upholding laws that really matter. It will come, the only question is "WHEN ?"

FOLAU, VUNIPOLA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

The furore surrounding remarks made by the Australian Rugby player, Israel Folau, and given some support by England's Billy Vunipola, suggests that tolerance is now in pretty short supply.

Folau and Vunipola are people who have strong religious faith; both have strong beliefs derived from their faith, though neither promotes hatred or violence against anyone. What they have done is to state their beliefs that certain actions are inconsistent with their faith and that perpetrators of an assortment of things they believe to be offences will ultimately suffer in what might be termed 'the afterlife'. As a consequence of stating his beliefs, Folau has been kicked out of the Australian national squad and Vunipola is to face some sort of RFU investigation. 

The 'crime' committed by these 2 men is that they do not agree with the current and 'acceptable' view of the world as imposed on society by those in authority in response to noisy pressure groups. Their treatment effectively means that the expression of religious views is now disallowed, unless those views are of the 'turn the other cheek' variety and are in accordance with current liberal thinking. To all intents and purposes, it is censorship of individuals' right to have and to express views which are counter to what is deemed to be 'acceptable' by those who have power over us.

Neither Folau nor Vunipola has suggested that those they see as behaving unacceptably should be mistreated in this life, what they have done is to state a view about their fate in 'the next life'. Why is this unacceptable ? It is my belief that there is no 'next life', but if someone wants to tell me I'll be sent to hell for having such a belief, so what ? If Folau and Vunipola believe what they have read in the Christian Bible and that, after death, homosexuals will find themselves in Hell, who cares ? Having such a belief harms no one, nor does expressing it. If anything, it makes them look foolish.

There was a time when people were allowed to express all manner of views, right or wrong, good or bad, but no more. The tolerance that once existed has been superceded by the imposition of standardised views to which we must all accede or face the consequences. This is indoctrination; it is dictatorship of our thoughts and beliefs and it's shocking. 

However, Joseph Goebbels would be proud of it.

BREXIT HUMILIATION GOES ON, AND ON, AND ON ............. .

How on earth is Theresa May still Prime Minister ? How can anyone have any confidence in her ?

Yet again, she's travelled to Brussels and prostrated herself before the great leaders of the European Union including, of course, the leaders of those mighty international powers Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia etc. She went begging for a further extension to the UK's deadline for leaving their august organisation and came away with a botch - an extension to 31st October unless she gets an agreement in Parliament before then. What happens if there is still no agreement by the new deadline, God knows.

For a once great nation, the UK is being humiliated almost daily. Rather than leading her government and country, Theresa May has been led by the nose by members of her cabinet who are vehemently opposed to Brexit and has found herself a supplicant at the high table of European machinations. From the very outset of her premiership, she has been weak and vacillating while claiming to be "strong and stable". By calling an election when she didn't need to, she weakened her government's position dramatically; by failing to enact Article 50 for some 9 months after the referendum, she began the process of procrastination designed to weaken the resolve of Brexiteers. By failing to negotiate effectively with the EU she ended up accepting a withdrawal agreement that is fundamentally flawed. By failing to be the "strong and stable" leader which she claimed to be, she allowed her government to fracture in all directions to a point at which she now has no control over any of its members. By allowing the fracturing of her government she tacitly allowed the fracturing of her party and handed control of Brexit over to the strongly anti-Brexit House of Commons. Finally, and worst of all, these assorted failings led to her failure to achieve the government's primary objective of leaving the European Union on 29th March 2019.

March 29th became 12th April, then 22nd May and now it is 31st October. The referendum was held on 23rd June 2016 and the people voted to leave the EU; nearly 3½ years later we are highly likely to still be in this damnable institution or, at least, so closely tied to it as to make no difference. Mrs May has shown herself utterly incapable of leading this country or the process of Brexit; surely she must see that and now resign, or is she really so thick skinned and obstinate that she believes she alone follows the path of righteousness ? 

She has deserted her party and the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU and has, instead, entered into discussions with the ultra left wing Labour Party, itself led by Marxist / Leninist lunatics who are still fighting the battles of the 1920s and 1930s. Corbyn, McDonnell and the rest have only one aim and that is to gain power. They care not a jot about the European Union, only about their own ambitions and they will do anything to achieve them. In attempting to have serious negotiations with Corbyn et al, Mrs May and her mismatched band of goons are on a fool's errand; Corbyn's only interest is to destabilise and frustrate in the hope of bringing about a general election which he hopes he might win. 

What those in Brussels and throughout Europe really think about all this can only be imagined. Whether they hope that Brexit will eventually be cancelled or just want the whole bloody thing over and done with as soon as possible, surely they all must wonder how a once mighty nation that ruled a third of the world has sunk so low as to be begging for time to allow its parliamentarians to make a decision, a decision that has already been made and communicated quite adequately by its people.

I've never thought it before but, today, I'm ashamed and embarrassed to be British.

WHAT CHANCE DO OUR CHILDREN HAVE ?

Dual standards and illogicality seem to be the name of the game when it comes to family life.

On the one hand, 'experts', government officials and assorted busybodies tell us that many children need support because they come from dysfunctional family backgrounds. We are told that without this support, which apparently the parents are unable to supply, the children will be disadvantaged and experience poor life outcomes or, worse, descend into criminality. We can see the evidence of the veracity of this view in our schools and on our streets every day.

On the other hand we hear today that the government plans to make divorce easier, actually meaning that marriage will become no more significant than a pair of throwaway flip-flops. The very glue which acts to provide stability in the lives of many, probably most, children will become as dispensable as a cotton bud.

We already have the utter nonsense of marriage between 2 men or 2 women and we have 'families' in which children have 2 fathers or 2 mothers; we have children brought into existence by the intervention of assorted scientists which simply could not exist otherwise. We have a culture in which more and more is considered disposable, from clothing to relationships, and now marriage is to join the rancid pile of detritus.

What chance do our children have ? Brought up in environments - single parent, homosexual, lesbian, transgender and without discipline - which are hardly conducive to engendering a balanced or even sane view of the world, and in which "buy it, wear it, chuck it" is the mantra, they will now be encouraged to look on 'normal' marriage in the same way. Can the idiots who propose such changes to established practice not see the illogicality and perversity of this ?

The problem is that those in power are driven not by any sense of morality, decency or honesty, but only be a desire to pander to so-called 'progressive' pressure groups and interests. They see these as being the source of power and continued dominance which, barring a revolution, they are. In the same way that those in parliament have ignored the Will of the people over Brexit and, instead, gradually forced us down a path chosen by the liberal elite, so they are now planning to hammer yet another nail into the coffin of family life.

The one hope is that, as with all social and cultural mood swings, the day will dawn when the pendulum begins to move back to the centre and, eventually, across to the other side. Gone will be the liberality of today, replaced by a sterner, harsher and more disciplinarian society which the government of that day will be able to control in minute degree due to our current stupidity in allowing the development of all encompassing photographic and computer surveillance. 

Tomorrow's World will be very different but will it actually be better or just another concoction created by the elite and controlled by them too ?

MONTY DON - GARDENING.SUPERSTAR !

Watching an episode of 'Gardeners' World' always brings back memories of those great presenters of the past, but also of those whom I couldn't stand.

For me, Percy Thrower was the doyen of gardeners everywhere and was the one against whom all others must be measured. Arthur Billitt, who took over from Percy in 1976, after Percy had upset his masters at the BBC by taking part in what was seen as inappropriate promotion of gardening products, was another who inspired confidence but Percy's undoubted natural successor was the wonderful Geoff Hamilton. Hamilton had such a warm and easy-going approach that he made gardening seem like the perfect answer to a stressful life and he, like Thrower, was an inspiration. His sudden death in 1996 at the age of only 59 was both a tragedy and a great shock.

After Hamilton came a variety of presenters who simply didn't hit the mark. Peter Seabrook had been around during Hamilton's time but really left me cold, while the truly oily Alan Titchmarsh made, and still makes, my flesh crawl. Others who've popped in and out over the years, such as Carol Klein, Pippa Greenwood and Bob Flowerdew have had the enthusiasm and personality to demand attention but the man who now stands at least on a par with those greats, Thrower and Hamilton, is Monty Don.

In 2 spells presenting the programme, first from 2003 to 2008 and then from 2011 until now, Don has become the true face and voice of gardening. Despite well publicised health problems over the years, he presents with such a genuine joie de vivre that it's impossible not to be captivated. He makes gardening look simple and must encourage many to leap out of their chairs and get stuck in; after all, the results of a few hours of digging, planting and hoeing can be so rewarding, as he demonstrates quite wonderfully. Accompanied by Nigel, and now Nell too, his golden retrievers, he talks to his audience simply, without condescension and with huge knowledge and authority. 

While much, indeed most, of the BBC's modern output is not even fit for the bargain basement, 'Gardeners' World' and Monty Don are at the very pinnacle of broadcasting. Long may they continue to be so.

TIME TO DUMP POLITICISED AND TRASHY BBC.

If anyone doubts where the BBC's political emphasis lies, they need only listen to, and read, one of today's news stories.

A few days ago, the legal minimum wage went up by almost 5%, with the BBC doing little more than mentioning it. Today, being the start of the new financial year, other changes to employment finances have been made, including increases in the personal allowance for tax purposes and increases in the pension contributions to be made by both employees and employers. Guess which of these the BBC headlined.

While the increase in the minimum wage and increases in personal allowance are hugely beneficial to employees, the good old lefties of the Beeb have highlighted increases in pension contributions which, of course, reduce take home pay; that they also help to ensure a financially secure old age has been completely ignored. In fact, the text headline simply says " Ten million face higher pension payments", and the associated detail is almost entirely about what employees are 'losing', rather than there being any indication of the ultimate benefit.

This is a typical left wing stance, the type of position adopted by trades' unions when attempting to set out the 'shocking plight' of their members. Clearly the BBC is not an impartial reporter of such matters, as it is meant to be, but is reporting in a politicised manner. It is no longer fit for purpose nor fit to be funded by the tax which is laughably called a 'licence fee', In direct contrast, Sky News emphasises the increases in minimum wage and tax allowances, before talking about the increase in pension contributions while also mentioning the eventual benefit from those increased payments.

Given that its general output, barring a very few decent programmes, has been 'dumbed down' to the same trashy level as the plethora of commercial channels that clog our airwaves with drivel, repeats and repeats of drivel, what possible justification can there be for keeping the BBC going ?

R.I.P. BREXIT.

So, after all of the promises, commitments and guarantees, our incompetent Prime Minister, aided by the incompetents of the European Research Group and those in Parliament who are determined to prevent the UK from ever leaving the European Union, has finally caved in. The chances of Brexit happening have been reduced to almost nothing.

The commitment of David Cameron to abide by the result of the 2016 referendum. The manifesto commitments made by both the Conservative and Labour parties at the time of the 2017 general election. The repeated promises and guarantees given by Theresa May, and the repeated statements made by other parliamentarians telling us all that they would honour the referendum result and their manifesto promises. All lies, not worth the breath expended in making them.

Prime Minister May told us all, in no uncertain terms, that she would pursue a deal with eth EU but that if nothing acceptable was achieved, we would leave without a deal. A lie. She said that we would leave on 29th March, come hell or high water; another lie. She said we would not take part in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, almost certainly yet another lie.

She now pursues a path which will almost certainly see the UK tied into a customs' union with the EU which will prevent any meaningful Brexit. Much of the House of Commons, which is fundamentally opposed to Brexit and to keeping its word to the people, has connived in this total betrayal of democracy.

Who will ever trust the word of any politician again ? Who will bother voting ever again, for what is the point ? Whatever the people vote for, those representatives foisted upon us by the political elite will do whatever they want, and sod the people. As someone who has voted in most elections, local and parliamentary, since 1971 as well as the referendums of 1975 and 2016, I will not vote again unless it be for a party dedicated to freeing us from the European yoke and that will never be any of the current major players. 

Disillusioned ? You bet I am.

TIME TO LET HILLSBOROUGH GO.

The lunacy of bringing a person to trial 30 years after an event seems to have been exposed today, although the prospect of a retrial remains.

David Duckenfield has been hounded by families of those who died at Hillsborough Stadium since the tragedy which occurred in April 1989. As the senior police officer in charge of events on that day, he has been charged with manslaughter by negligence, a charge which, of itself, demands a subjective view of what negligence means. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the jury in the case, after deliberating for nearly 30 hours, could not agree on a verdict, even after the judge said that he'd accept a verdict on which only 10 of the 12 jurors agreed; clearly, the jury was very divided.

Over a period of 30 years, memories fade and can become distorted; perceptions change and even views of what might be acceptable change. How was 'negligence' as a concept viewed in 1989 as compared with today ? Indeed, how can there be a fair trial in such circumstances ?

Apparently the prosecution is keen to stage a retrial although this rather smacks of simply having another go to see if the 'right' verdict can be obtained. If the evidence didn't convince one jury, why should it convince another ? Surely enough is enough. The modern mania for looking for someone to blame for every 'tragedy' has led to Duckenfield being subjected to the most insane persecution for decades. Why will no one simply accept that, on that day in 1989, things went wrong, but it was a terrible accident, not a result of criminal action ? Perhaps Duckenfield and others made the wrong decisions but did they have any intention of causing people to die ? Of course they didn't. Faced with a crowd of thousands of people acting individually and collectively but with their own volition, could anyone truly be accused of being negligent in failing to control them ? Not in a month of Sundays.

Thirty years after the event, shocking though it was, it's time to draw a line and bring an end to this fanatical and ludicrous search for someone to blame.