BULGARIA PUNISHED - TIME TO MOVE ON.

A handful of mindless idiots, out of a crowd of tens of thousands, made offensive remarks and gestures during a football match. Under any normal circumstances this would be seen as what it was - the stupid action of a tiny group.

But No.

Because this was "racist" activity, it's been at the top of the news and now that the Bulgarian footballing authorities have been given a punishment that is deemed to be too light, it's back in the news as a major item. For goodness sake, what is this lunacy ?

The world has many people and not all of those people are intelligent, reasonable or even vey nice. Some are downright nasty, others are simply too stupid and moronic to be taken seriously, but in a world in which "equality" and "racism" are key buzz words, and some "take offence" at every opportunity, things that used to be shrugged off are now placed centre stage.

Seeing a tiny section of the crowd at  the England - Bulgaria match behaving moronically wasn't the most pleasant spectacle but they appeared to all be expelled from the stadium fairly quickly and with little fuss. The fuss all came from the England bench and players "taking offence", even though one, Tyrone Mings, even indicated later that he was not particularly disturbed by the moronic behaviour. Subsequently the European football authorities have decided that Bulgaria must be punished, although I have to ask "why ?" What could they have done differently in order to prevent the incident ?

Worse, the "anti-racist" brigade are now up in arms claiming that the punishment handed down is inadequate, a joke. What is wrong with these people ?

Being nasty, cruel or rude about others is not new and it won't go away. People are people and will continue to behave with a variety of views and attitudes until they are all turned into some sort of clones, turned out sausage-like from their schools and colleges of indoctrination. Venues such as football stadiums quite simply can't control the behaviour of everyone in their often vast crowds; all they can do is see it and act there and then, as the Bulgarian authorities did.

Additionally, why do we give the morons the oxygen of publicity on which they thrive ? By all means catch them and punish them for any real offences they've committed, but do not publicise their activities on every front page and every television and radio news broadcast; do not spend inordinate time debating the rights and wrongs of their actions or those of the authorities that are claimed to have failed to control them. If their activities were largely ignored by the media, they'd soon become bored and move on to some other puerile nonsense.

That said, aren't there also far more important things for us all to worry about ? Climate change, the continuing extinction of species, the clearance of rain forests; this is what we should worry about, not the moronic behaviour of tiny groups of louts. For God's sake, get real.

LORRY DEAD KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Perhaps I'm just a miserable uncaring old sod, but I'm fed up with all the grotesquely sentimentalised way that our news is presented.

The discovery of a lorry load of dead illegal immigrants has been presented as if the dead were the unwilling, or unknowing, victims of some nasty, money grabbing organisation; in truth, they were simply people attempting to enter our country illegally. Whether they had paid to be smuggled in or were being 'trafficked' for the purposes of so-called modern slavery, they and their families expected to profit from the arrangement.  

That the adventure ended with their deaths is their own fault. If they had genuine and substantial reasons for coming to our country, there are established procedures to follow but they chose not to follow these, suggesting that their reasons were not strong enough. If they were refugees from dangerous or oppressive situations, their first port of call should have been the nearest place of safety or relief, which is never the United Kingdom. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they were knowingly breaking the law by attempting to enter our country illegally.

I have degree of sympathy for the families of those who have died, but no more than I have for the families of the thousands who depart this earth every day. For those who died in the lorry at Purfleet, I have no sympathy whatsoever; they knew what they were doing and knew the risks they were running.

Call me heartless, uncaring, unfeeling, callous or inhuman but it's time that we stopped the insanely over-emotional response to such events and started prioritising what is in the best interests of our own country, it's people and heritage. That means much stronger control of our borders and much harsher treatment for both smugglers and smuggled. 

Let's get on with it.

BRILLIANT ENGLAND TAME ALL BLACKS !!

Who'd have thought it ?

England's rugby union team went into the current World Cup tournament as one of the top teams but New Zealand were thought by most to be all but unbeatable. Winners of the last 2 tournaments, the all-powerful All Blacks have dominated rugby union for decades and, despite the, very, occasional defeat, have been the "team to beat" for as long as I can remember. Today, they were not only beaten, they were outplayed in a manner I've never previously seen.

A World Cup semi-final is a game that no one wants to lose, least of all a team that hadn't lost a match at the World Cup since 2007. New Zealand came into the game today as favourites and yet it was England who took control from the very start and never let up. They played like a team possessed, never allowing the champions time or space; they dominated their opponents in every aspect of the game, every corner of the field. Quite simply, they were brilliant.

If England can repeat such a performance in next Saturday's final, they will almost certainly be lifting the trophy at its end. Whether they play Wales or South Africa, whose semi-final takes place tomorrow, it will make no difference. The England that turned up today were at a level no England team has previously reached; repeat that performance and they will be unbeatable. The only question is whether they can do it again. 

Around 11 o'clock next Saturday morning, we'll know the answer.

EXTINCTION REBELLION - YOBS, HOOLIGANS & SOCIALIST AGITATORS.

The so-called Extinction Rebellion has continued to disrupt the lives of law abiding citizens by blocking roads and interfering with London's transport systems. They claim that this is all in pursuit of the great cause of preventing climate change from destroying our planet but is it ?

Who are the people behind Extinction Rebellion now, it seems, given a new and somewhat exalted status by the BBC whose reporter yesterday took to referring to them as "E.R.", an appellation previously reserved for the Queen; apparently, it should be "X.R." anyway. It is apparent that those who have been causing turmoil in London are largely the usual crowd of agitators who turn out to protest against anything that they consider to be vaguely 'right wing', 'corporate' or 'capitalist', or in favour of the latest left wing faddish cause célèbre. 

Many politicians have fêted the silly child from Sweden so as to be seen to be, in the latest fashion, "woke", whatever that means. In truth, Greta Thunberg has simply been an unknowing tool in the hands of those who want only to destroy western society and replace it with some supposed socialist utopia of their own design. Climate change, and other threats, may well be real, but the people making the most noise about such things have only this one aim in mind and they'll use anything, any argument, to achieve it.

Peaceful and lawful protest is one thing, but blocking streets, disrupting travel and rendering the lives of those who are simply going about their daily business difficult or impossible, is quite another and should not be tolerated. Our police spend much time on pursuing those who may, or may not, have committed "hate crimes", crimes more in the mind than anywhere else, but seem to be somewhat reluctant to tackle real crimes that affect large numbers of people. Obstruction is a crime and I'm fairly sure that there are laws that cover disrupting transport networks too, and yet the police have largely stood by and watched. Yes a good few protestors have been arrested but how many of these will be charged and how many others should have been arrested ? 

The moral of the story seems to be that those protesting against nasty capitalist or corporate ventures are to be tolerated, while those who want to protect their own culture by opposing the ever increasing influx of immigrants, the promotion of multiculturalism, laws and activities that discriminate against white, Anglo-Saxon men or who simply dislike the left wing bias of the media and others in positions of power, are vilified and even criminalized.

Our society is fragmenting and crumbling and no one seems to care or even notice. God help the coming generations.  

IS THIS BREXIT OR JUST ANOTHER FALSE DAWN ?

So we have a Brexit deal - again.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised he would get a new deal with the European Union and would get rid of the hated 'Irish Backstop'; he seems to have achieved both ambitions. However, following the assorted shenanigans of the House of Commons, he now has to get this deal approved by Members of Parliament, which seems problematic at best.

Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party has now moved to a 100% 'remain' position and will not support the new deal, pretty much whatever it actually includes, although a few Labour MPs may still support it. The Scottish Nationalists have always opposed Brexit anyway and will also vote against any deal, as will the Liberal un-Democrats. Prime Minister Johnson has previously expelled some 21 of his own MPs from the Conservative Party following their opposition in previous votes and there are an assortment of others who have left one party or another during the last year or so. As something of a body-blow to the government, the Democratic Unionists of Northern Ireland have also said that they will not support the deal, having previously indicated that they would support a deal.

Parliament will sit on Saturday, a very rare occurrence, and Prime Minister Johnson will be hoping that he can persuade enough of his fellow parliamentarians to vote with him although his chances of success appear to be slim. If Parliament votes against the deal, the Prime Minister will have to obey the law passed a couple of weeks ago and ask the EU for more time although he's repeatedly said that the UK will leave the European Union on 31st October come what may. 

What is going to happen ? European Union representatives have been clear that they want this deal to be approved but less than clear about what they would do if it is not. While they may allow a further extension beyond the end of October, that is far from certain and any further delay would almost certainly be dependent on the UK holding a second referendum or a general election as soon as possible, neither of which is likely to provide any real resolution to the deep rooted problems of the UK's democratic process.

No one wants to see this issue drag on any longer, but the opposing factions seem to be utterly intransigent. The loss of its parliamentary majority has rendered the UK government impotent in the face of the vested interests of opposition parties. Labour want power but are terrified of a general election while Jeremy Corbyn is their leader; they are also terrified that  Boris Johnson would be unbeatable anyway if he finally gets a deal approved by parliament, and so they oppose everything while proposing nothing. The Scottish Nationalists link everything to another referendum on their own pet project, independence for Scotland, and the Liberal un-Democrats can see a chance of getting a share of power by being seen as the "Party of Remain". The Democratic Unionists see everything through the prism of their own insular and sectarian interests and will not vote for anything which they think will weaken their current hold over Northern Ireland.

Prime Minister Johnson has a problem, in fact he has several. Will he achieve a feat that would even have challenged the great Harry Houdini ? Come Saturday afternoon, we'll know, one way or the other.

KIPCHOGE'S MANUFACTURED MARATHON 'RECORD'.

Eliud Kipchoge has he marathon distance in under 2 hours, the first time this has been achieved. However, to say that he has run "a marathon" in this time is rather misleading.

This event was not a race and was highly organised. Kipchoge had pacemakers running in relays, the course had been specially prepared and was unusually flat, and there was constant timing information being supplied to those involved through a system of lights, both on the road and on a vehicle preceding the runners. Kipchoge was also assisted by the pacemakers forming an aerodynamically shaped barrier in front of him to provide both protection from any wind and also an aerodynamically beneficial tunnel for him to run into. For me, this whole event was not dissimilar to seeing a cricketer hit a rapid century from a succession of deliberate full tosses; it is not the real sport.

The achievement is undoubtedly significant and will go down in history as such; Kipchoge's place in that history is secured. However, we are still waiting for the first marathon race to be run in under 2 hours and we may have to wait some time for that to happen. 

RUGBY WORLD CUP IN TYPHOON TURMOIL.

For 4 years, the elite of world rugby union have been gearing up for the 2019 World Cup in Japan. The organisers have had those years, and more, to make appropriate and adequate arrangements for the competition and to ensure that all relevant contingency plans were in place. Now it transpires that those in charge couldn't organise the proverbial "piss up in a brewery".

World Rugby, the governing body of Rugby Union, knowingly organised a world cup in a country where, and at a time when, typhoons are a regular intruder into everyday life. They claimed to have contingency plans in place for the possibility of disruption to the tournament by such visitors but now it is clear that they did not. In response to the arrival of a powerful typhoon over the coming weekend is simply to cancel the affected games; some contingency.

This action itself disrupts players and teams, spectators and television viewers, as well as making the whole tournament something of a laughing stock. Some of the participating countries have seen their chances adversely affected, in the first instance, Italy are to be denied their opportunity, admittedly not a great one, of advancing to the quarter finals at the expense of New Zealand. France will be denied the chance of beating England and finishing top of Group C and facing Australia rather than Wales in the knock out stage.

Worst of all, although a final decision is yet to be made, Scotland may well find themselves exiting the competition due to their match with the hosts, Japan, also being called off. Group A is the closest Group and any combination of 2 from 3 - Scotland, Ireland and Japan - could progress, but not if Scotland are denied the chance to play. In that event, Japan will reach the quarter finals along with Ireland and Scotland will simply be left to stew.

In what other arena would such a situation arise ? Surely it would not have been beyond the wit of the mega-minds of World Rugby to have come up with a suitable plan, other than cancelling games ? They knew typhoons were a possibility and yet they did nothing; their answer is the simplest possible - cancellation.

If I were in charge of rugby union in France and Italy, I'd already be consulting my legal team. If I was running Scottish rugby, I'd already be asking serious questions of mine, too, as a contingency against my team suffering at the hands of the bunch of incompetents at the top of World Rugby. Get it ? Contingency !

THANK GOD SHE'S GONE.

Professor Dame Sally Davies, DBE FRS & Chief Medical Officer of the United Kingdom - sounds highly impressive doesn't it ?

In truth the almost septuagenarian Sally Davies is a meddling, control freak, a woman whose aim in life is, apparently, to save the ignorant masses from themselves. No doubt her background, had an influence - her father was a priest and theologian and she was privileged enough to be sent to a private school after she failed the 11-plus exam. Although she qualified as a doctor, she appears to have disliked mixing with patients, leaving the profession for a period before coming back to spend most of her time in laboratories. Admittedly, she seems to have become an expert in her field, but it was a limited one and largely kept her away from the real lives of real people. Unlike most of her predecessors, Doctor Davies has no background in public health medicine although this has not deterred her from pontificating on every aspect of public life.

During her time as CMO, she has campaigned against the consumption of alcohol, sugar, calorie-rich foods and anything else that she deemed to be injurious to the health of the nation. Now she wants to ban what she considers 'snacks', saying that eating or drinking on our public transport should be banned. Is this crazed medic for real ?

Do some people have poor diets ? Yes. Do I dislike seeing people wandering our streets while eating or drinking in the most disgusting manner, seeing others on our buses or trains doing likewise ? Yes. But I also believe in personal responsibility and action, which Doctor Davies clearly does not. Rather than working to educate and encourage, she prefers to use the blunt weapons of taxation and the law, taxing some foods out of the reach of most of us and banning whatever she can't easily tax. Then she wants to place a limit on the calories we can be allowed to consume when we visit restaurants. Can such measures ever be right ?

Doctor Davies' latest, and thankfully final, tirade, against 'snacking' on public transport is utter lunacy. Eating and drinking on buses and trains may be unsavoury and unsightly, it may even be unhealthy, but how on earth would a ban be enforced ? Would we have to recruit yet more wardens and other publicly funded snoopers to monitor our behaviour, empowered to issue fines whenever we contravene yet more newly created laws ? What would count as a 'snack' ? Individual sweets ? Chocolate Bars ? A handful of peanuts, perhaps ? Or would it have to be something more substantial such as a sandwich or steak dinner ? Would supposedly healthy 'snacks', such as oat bars, be exempted ? 

How would those on long distance journeys be treated ? Would they have to starve for the 5 or 6 hour journey from London to Edinburgh ? What about those who habitually forego breakfast at home, preferring to buy something for the journey ? Would the ban also encompass time spent waiting at stations or sitting on delayed and motionless trains ? And what about those who MUST eat regularly, diabetics in particular ? Would they have to be registered as exempt travellers ?

Doctor Davies may have a fancy title and a string of letters after her name but, in reality, she's a proponent of an extreme 'Nanny State', one in which personal responsibility has no part and in which every aspect of the everyday lives of its citizens is monitored and approved, or disapproved of, by the all-knowing and all-seeing State.

Thank God her time is up and she's gone from a job for which she was remarkably poorly suited.

IRELAND STILL THE STICKING POINT.

With Brexit negotiations increasingly rancorous and divisive, it seems clear that the one and only real issue is that of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, an issue which is being used by the Republic's government as a lever to try to force reunification of their divided island.

As a proportion of the EU's trade, what crosses the border in Ireland is minute, likewise for the UK's trade. Neither the UK nor the EU wants to introduce a massive border infrastructure and the UK has proposed various measures to ensure that border checks are minimal. However, neither the government in Dublin nor the bureaucrats of Brussels have shown any willingness to discuss such proposals, persisting in their demands that the "Irish Backstop" is the only way forward, something they know would severely weaken the connection between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and which they know is unacceptable to the government of the UK.

Ireland has been a problem for centuries, ever since King Henry VIII effectively annexed it. Religious differences have exacerbated the historic mistreatment of many of its citizens and the eventual separation of the predominantly Catholic south from the predominantly Protestant north did little but bring a temporary halt to the troubles of the early 20th century. The resurgence of violence in the 1960s was nothing but a resurfacing of centuries old hatreds and, again, the solution of the "Good Friday Agreement" did nothing but bring about a temporary cessation of hostilities. The Republic and the still extant and active IRA continue to aim for reunification while the Protestants of the North still hate such a prospect. The two sides are irreconcilable.

There seems to be little chance of the Republic's government agreeing to anything that would weaken their position and no UK government could agree to anything that effectively breaks up its country. Unless the Irish and the EU are prepared to agree to a compromise which safeguards the total integrity of the United Kingdom, surely no Brexit deal is currently possible and the options for a future resolution are limited.

A further delay to the date of Brexit, beyond 31st October, will serve little purpose given the attitudes of the Irish Republic and the EU and a second Brexit referendum would be a betrayal of the democratic process in the UK. The remaining options are "No Deal", to which the current UK parliament appears implacably opposed, a general election, which the Labour Party refuses to countenance, or the formulation of a laughably entitled "government of national unity", created solely for the purpose of preventing Brexit altogether.

Or can Prime Minister Johnson come up with something else ?

BORIS CLEARS OUT TORY DROSS.

Heidi Allen, Sam Gymah, Sarah Wollaston and Philip Lee, these former luminaries of the Conservative Party have now all joined the Liberal Democrats. Does this not tell us something about them ?

How can anyone change direction quite so dramatically ? Forget the Liberals own publicity which places them in the centre, in truth they are where the Labour Party stood under Tony Blair and are neither liberal nor democratic. The Liberals have moved to occupy the ground now vacated by the Labour Party's dramatic shift to the far left, a position it last occupied under the fanatical Michael Foot in the early 1980s.

Allen, Gymah, Wollaston and Lee can never have been Conservatives in the first place. They may claim that they can't support Brexit or that the Conservatives have moved too far to the right for their liking, but the Liberals haven't suddenly become an alternative right wing party, they have remained left of centre. The modern day 'Gang of Four' clearly now espouse left wing views and policies - either they are hypocrites of the first water, or they never were Conservatives. Perhaps they are both.

None of these four has had the decency to offer their constituents  the opportunity to decide whether they now want to be represented by a Liberal Democrat or would prefer to have the Conservative representation they voted for at the last general election. More hypocrisy. Add in Rory Stewart, a man obsessed with himself, and the appalling Anna Soubry, and it seems that Boris Johnson's actions are actually clearing out some of the left wing elements and other dross from his party.

Good on him !

BREXIT OPPORTUNITIES STILL IGNORED.

The BBC remains relentlessly pro-Europe, left wing and anti-Conservative, as it's assorted news stories and reports of today confirm.

It's been headlining stories based on information supposedly received from unnamed government sources and analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a body whose predictions have become as unreliable as those of the Bank of England, International Monetary Fund and any other organisation with an overblown view of its own brilliance. 

According to the latest reports, discussions with the European Union are on the point of collapse and the government is putting in place contingency plans to disrupt the EU's future business. Reported  'leaks' from the EU side are entirely negative about the Prime Minister's latest proposals and a "government official" has "told the BBC" that the EU had not shown any desire to move towards acceptance of Mr Johnson's plans. It seems that "No Deal" is now the only likely outcome, at least according to these unidentified sources. However, given that the BBC is unashamedly pro-EU, might this not just be part of their contribution to Project Fear, insisting that all is doom and gloom ?

Allied to these stories, reports and leaks, the IFS has come up with a new set of predictions which claim that "No Deal" will lead to government borrowing reaching levels not seen in more than 50 years, and this on even the most optimistic "No Deal" scenario. Again, negativity piled on top of negativity, with little coverage given to the potential opportunities that will open up once the UK is free of the EU strait-jacket.

Instead of supporting OUR Prime Minister and OUR government in its negotiations, the BBC, much of the rest of the media, organisations such as the IFS and Bank of England, and many other high profile, but entirely self-interested and unrepresentative bodies, continue to focus on supposed dangers of Brexit, rather than promoting the very obvious opportunities. Why is this ?

Surely it is because these organisations benefit from the cosy and protectionist world of the European Union, a world run by the liberal left and one in which hard choices rarely, if ever, have to be made. The BBC's turmoil over the recent investigation into remarks made by the usually excellent Naga Munchetty demonstrates just how difficult this particular media outlet finds it to be open and honest, with its wishy-washy Director General being very easily swayed by a left wing assault on the judgement of his own complaints procedures. The BBC, and the rest, love the protective blanket provided by the EU's labyrinthine organisation and socialist doctrines; they'd much rather blame others for whatever goes wrong than accept responsibility themselves and so we have stagnation with no one making any meaningful decisions about anything, unless its the lowest common denominator that all can agree on.

If there is one ultimate benefit to be gained from leaving the EU it is gaining the right to make our own decisions, unencumbered by the need to obtain the agreement of 27 other nations, every one of which has its own vested interests. Why can't the BBC, BoE, IFS and the rest see this ?

RORY STEWART RESIGNS - WILL ANYONE NOTICE ?

So a man who 3 months ago was trying to become leader of his party and Prime Minister has now decided he doesn't actually want to be a member of the party at all. Is this not a classic case of someone taking his bat and ball home in a fit of pique because he lost ?

Rory Stewart has announced that he's resigned from the Conservative Party and will not contest his current parliamentary seat at the next general election; as a fanatical Europhile, Stewart simply cannot bear to be a member of a party which doesn't agree with his views. No doubt there are tears being shed in socialist liberal land at the loss of a fellow traveller from parliament, but few in the homes of true Conservatives. 

Stewart is one of those politicians who claim to be 'centrist' but are really mildly socialist. That Stewart was ever a member of the Conservative Party shows just how far from true conservative values it has drifted over the years, as it has tried to compete with Labour and the Liberal Democrats on social issues rather than espousing conservative policies. It has fallen over itself to be 'touchy-feely', embracing all manner of socialist policies and being ever more enthusiastic about controlling every aspect of our daily lives. It has, in fact, brought us to a point at which there is little to choose between the surveillance suffered in the United Kingdom and that imposed in Russia or the Republic of China.

Stewart supports this type of approach, true Conservatives do not. True Conservatives support freedom of expression, free choice, and free speech, not censorship, state control and the introduction of imaginary crimes such as laws against "hate speech". Conservatives support private enterprise and low taxation, personal responsibility and accountability, not state control, high taxes and playing the 'blame game'. 

Rory Stewart's natural home is with the undemocratic Liberal Democrats. No doubt that's where he'll end up. Good riddance.

HYPOCRISY AND FANATICISM - THE REALMS OF REMAINERS.

Today's news contains some stories that truly belong to the 'silly season'.

Firstly, news from Eire indicates that the Irish government is not at all happy about the prospect of Northern Ireland politicians having the final say in matters to do with the border question, post-Brexit. Hang on, when the final say rests with the EU and Eire, courtesy of the "Backstop" it's OK but they won't allow the reverse situation. Hypocritical or what !?

Then there's news from Scotland that a judge is to be asked to consider an entirely hypothetical issue regarding the potential imprisonment of the Prime Minister. It seems that fanatical Remainers now want a judgement regarding whether the PM could be forced to delay Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed and want to know what would happen if he did not. 

It stands to reason that a further delay to Brexit could be enforced if Parliament so determines by the enactment of appropriate legislation; otherwise it cannot. Can a court really say anything else ? As for the matter of consequences in the event of an exit from the EU without a deal, that is a hypothetical question incapable of answer until after such an event and, even then, only with full knowledge of all the prevailing circumstances. 

What sort of world is it when courts are asked to pass judgement on hypotheticals ? Why has this nonsense even been allowed to occupy court time ? It seems it's still desperation time for fanatical Remainers.

JOHNSON RESOLUTE DESPITE THE OPPOSITION.

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to exude positivity on all fronts, those opposed to Brexit seem to have allied themselves with anyone who has anything bad to say about him or his approach to "Life, the Universe and Everything".

Not long ago, the BBC assembled an appalling gaggle of establishment flunkies who were asked their opinions of Mr Johnson's actions and future. Unsurprisingly, they were hostile and proceeded to deride him, indicating that the sooner he was gone from office, the better. These people, among them a former Black Rod, derided Johnson as a 'populist' first and foremost and appeared to ignore the fact that ALL modern political leaders are exactly that, Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi foremost amongst them, though not forgetting that Jeremy Corbyn has a substantial 'populist' following and has made appearances at pop concerts and festivals. Exactly what is meant by 'populist' is also rather unclear, although it is clearly intended as a term of abuse towards right wing political figures.

Since then, while Mr Johnson has concentrated on politics and, in particular, getting Brexit implemented, the media seems to have been far more interested in digging up and publicising whatever dirt it can find to throw at him, however ancient and however debateable. Former Prime Minister David Cameron has aided this process through the publication of his memoirs in which he throws dollops of mud at Johnson, Gove and other Brexiteers, and there have also been allegations of sexual impropriety from women who suddenly seem to have remembered events from anything up to 20 years ago. The rule seems to be that anything goes when it comes to trying to prevent Brexit and destroy Boris Johnson.

At the same time, MPs appear unable to agree on what they should be doing. Reassembled now that the prorogation has been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court (God knows how they arrived at this judgement) some are wittering about votes of no confidence and forming a government of national unity with a remit of effectively preventing Brexit; how any such government could bear the soubriquet 'national unity' is a mystery, given that it's main function would be to ride roughshod over the expressed view of the 52% of the electorate who voted to leave the European Union. Fortunately, such a move seems unlikely to come to fruition as Jeremy Corbyn is both reluctant to risk a general election and determined to be the next Prime Minister, which none of the other opposition parties appear to accept as an option. And so we trundle on.

While the forces of 'Remain' continue to be destructive at home, the European Union appears to be content to throw cold water on almost every suggestion of a way forward that emanates from the UK government. The Irish leadership, principally represented by the lugubrious Simon Coveney, rejects every alternative to the dreaded "Backstop" out of hand and almost before the details are known, while the rest of the EU supremoes simply utter banalities. It is clear that, as far as the European Union and Irish government are concerned, there is no alternative to the "Backstop" and they are relying on this to ensure that Brexit is ultimately prevented, 'No Deal' having been effectively outlawed by the UK parliament. 

Where, and when will it all end ? Will the UK leave the EU on 31st October as Prime Minister Johnson continues to insist will happen, will there be yet another extension to the Article 50 arrangement, or will Brexit never happen at all ? All I know is that British democracy is all but dead and the European dictatorship remains determined to have its way.