TELEVISION EVEN WORSE THAN USUAL

Am I alone in believing that television offerings over the Christmas period have been even worse than usual ?

The usual repeats of classical favourites from Morecambe and Wise to Ben Hur may appeal to those few who have never before seen them but to anyone old enough to have seen the originals, now several dozen times, they are no longer the attraction they once were. Indeed, that such programmes continue to be re-broadcast year after year surely only serves to demonstrate how poor more modern programming has become.

This year, the Queen's Christmas Message has been the most watched programme in the UK with a little over 8 million reported viewers; long gone are the days when Her Majesty commanded at least twice that number of adherents, while Morecambe and Wise came close to 3 times as many. While it has to be admitted that times have changed along with viewing habits, does no one at the now hundreds of television channels not realise that their diet of cheap thrills, 'reality shows' and repeats appeals to a smaller audience every year ? Do none of them consider that there might be an alternative ?

Much of modern television seems to be aimed at children - is this an attempt to use the old Jesuit approach of "give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - while modern comedy is almost entirely aimed at an audience of children and others of a puerile mind set, with an emphasis on crudity and bodily functions. Modern drama is aimed at those who favour crudity, nudity, overt displays of sexual activity and foul language in preference to solid storylines, real acting and proper scripts. Modern documentaries are top heavy with the most recent left wing fad, be it issues of supposed equality, discrimination, racial injustice. gender, or God knows what else. Is it any surprise that the majority of the population have turned away from mainstream television ?

I find myself hunting through hundreds of channels in search of something to watch and almost inevitably end up watching something I recorded previously, often weeks, months or even years ago. As someone who has paid his television licence dutifully and without fail for many decades, I find it galling that my likes are now superceded by vast quantities of animated tripe served up to satisfy hordes of children whose parents should be taking the trouble to entertain them rather than dumping them in front of a television and telling them to watch and shut up.

This year's offerings seem to have been even more limited. Yes, we've had the usual 'great' films - Ben Hur, Spartacus, It's a Wonderful Life (all of which I love but have seen many times), etc., but what else has there been? The simple answer is "Very little". With so many of us effectively housebound and isolated, could those to whom we pay licence fees and subscriptions not have come up with something better, at least for this most difficult of years ? Could Sky and the like not have foregone some small part of their massive profits to provide something more attractive and greater appeal ? Could not the BBC have done something to advance the cause of real television rather than broadcasting nothing but their usual offering of repeats of Morecambe and Wise, the same old films, assorted cookery programmes and the drivel that is claimed to be 'reality' ? Have I watched the BBC over the last 2 days ? I think not, at all, which is a shocking indictment when I would once have watched nothing else.

Some modern 'progressives' love to refer to things and services as being 'broken'; they will tell us minions that the immigration system, Home Office, benefits system or whatever else is broken or 'not fit for purpose'; how about adding that the BBC and overall broadcasting services in this country are on that list and even lead it ?

LEWIS HAMILTON - GREAT CHAMPION OR JUST A CAR DRIVER ?

 To be clear.

When Lewis Hamilton first appeared on the scene, I was a great supporter. He was a breath of fresh air and a tremendous talent, promising to be an attraction for years to come. Sadly, his subsequent behaviour has turned me away from him.

Yes, he has now won multiple world championships but then he has been driving what has undoubtedly been the best car of the last 6 or 7 years; the way in which George Russell, a reserve driver who has never before even led a race, so easily led and kept his lead until misfortune overtook him in Bahrain, came so close to winning suggests that Hamilton's achievements may be at least as due to car as to man. 

Today, Hamilton was a distant third in Abu Dhabi, the last race of a disjointed 2020 season in which he has again been crowned champion, as has his team. However, rather than be magnanimous in defeat, Hamilton has preferred to dwell upon his lack of full fitness, due to his experience with the COVID-19 virus, than acknowledge that he was well and truly beaten. Would Fangio or Moss, Senna or Prost, ever have blamed defeat on illness ? Instead, Hamilton parades his success and wealth in an almost offensive manor, while feigning humility; neither Michael Schumacher nor Sebastian Vettel, his most recent and closest rivals for accolades, has behaved in such a way.

Wouldn't it be great to see a race with Hamilton in a Williams and Russell in a Mercedes. then we would see whether Hamilton really is the superstar that he believes himself to be, or whether he's just a good driver in an exceptional car. One wonders what a Fangio, Moss, Clark or Senna would have done in this generation and where Hamilton would have fitted in. I suspect he would have been well down the grid from the true dare-devils of the track. 

Nonetheless, 'Arise Sir Lewis' is inevitable, as is a further devaluing of the honours' system.

DOES BORIS HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY "NO DEAL" ?

The evidence suggests that the UK and EU will eventually cobble together some sort of 'deal', with both sides claiming 'victory'. The truth will be that whatever is agreed will be to the satisfaction of neither party and will be so full of holes as to be open to infinite future challenges.

When Boris Johnson first set a 'final deadline' it seemed an unlikely target. The 'absolutely final deadline' of today (Sunday 13th December) was clearly nothing but yet another political gambit that both sides have now ignored.

It is equally clear that unless the UK agrees, in some way or other, to abiding by EU regulations and accepting that EU trawlers will continue to have unfettered access to British waters, there will be no deal. Given that these are 2 red lines on which the EU will not give way, the outcome seems clear.

Despite all of the rhetoric, the Johnson government will most probably find a fudge that is an effective surrender. Oh yes, it will be dressed up in such a way as to be presented as a victory but it will, in truth, be an agreement which gives everlasting power to the EU and reduces the UK to the level of a client state. Forget the claimed notions of sovereignty, we will be in hock to the EU, really meaning Germany and France, forever.

Of course, Boris may surprise us all and finally tell the EU that it is 'No Deal', but does anyone really believe that is going to happen ? My vote in future elections hangs in the balance - will Boris prove that he has the balls to earn it or will he cave in, just as so many of the liberal elite have done so often in the past ?

How many millions will be having similar thoughts ? How many millions might be looking for a new standard bearer in January ? Oh, unless of course the 'negotiations' are somehow carried on for a further indeterminate period, which is the obvious third option, God help us. The EU would like nothing more than to drag this issue out for another 3 or 4 years in the hope that either the British will become so fed up that they give up, or that a new government in 2024 calls a halt to the whole Brexit idea.

Anyone who thought that the 2016 referendum was the end of this saga was sadly mistaken. This is a true 'make or break' moment for those who truly believe in the democratic process. To make it personal, my last 2 cars have been German and I've recently been under pressure from a dealer to buy another; quite simply, unless there is a realistic deal that truly recognizes UK sovereignty, my next car will not be German, French, Italian or even Swedish. It will be Japanese, Korean, Malaysian or even American. That will be a good £30k plus that will not go to an EU nation or its UK outlets. Yes, that means that UK employees could miss out but then perhaps they should be considering for whom they work. 

Boris, show some true mettle, otherwise you and your party are history.

TIME FOR TRUMP TO GO GRACEFULLY

 What does Donald Trump think he's achieving ?

4 years ago he effectively bought the Presidency of the United States, something that, in itself, is nothing unusual. Rich families, think the Kennedy and Bush clans for starters, have habitually attempted to buy power in that, and most other supposed democracies, but Trump is one of the few to have achieved his goal while not being a member of the political elite. In fact, Trump wasn't even a politician of any sort and yet he still convinced the Republican party to back him and enough states to vote for him.

However, in 2020, it seems that his charisma, money, or whatever else earned support in 2016, has deserted him and he's now joined the ranks of the 'one-term Presidents', except he doesn't see it that way. In Trump's mind, he actually won the Presidential election but has been denied his just victory by various nefarious manoeuvres on the part of his opponent, Joe Biden. He has challenged the results in several states but despite finding that even Republican legislators will not support his claims, he has continued to refuse to accept the overall result. The consequence is that the usual smooth handover of authority from one administration to the next is being imperilled. 

It's been suggested that Donald Trump or one of his children may run for the Presidency at the next opportunity in 2024. Surely they must realise that the present situation makes any such ambitions untenable. No democracy is perfect and voting systems can be subject to abuse but President Trump's continued refusal to accept the result of an election in one of the world's premier democracies is akin to that of some dictator in a third world nation. His behaviour has done nothing but bring him into ridicule and to make any further political ambitions either he or his family members may have subject to the closest scrutiny.

This has not been a close fought election, Joe Biden has won decisively. It's not a 'hanging chads' moment, it's a clear cut result. If Donald Trump is to salvage any semblance of respect from what has become a debacle, he needs to acknowledge this result very quickly; otherwise he will go down in history as the least democratic of all Presidents as well as being remembered much more for the manner of his exit than his entrance and achievements. 

WE NEED MORE LIKE PRITI PATEL !

 Home Secretary Priti Patel is at the centre of a political row about bullying. It's claimed that she bullied various individuals in various departments of government in which she's worked in recent years and the Labour Party sees this as an opportunity to berate the Prime Minister. However .....

Exactly what is 'bullying' ? A few years ago, bullying was principally seen as being a physical offence, that is, bullies physically assaulted their victims. Today, that definition has been gradually extended so that now bullying encompasses all manner of highly subjective activity, much of it 'in the eye of the beholder'. Basically, bullying occurs whenever the supposed victim says it does, in similar manner to the ludicrous 'hate crimes' with which we have now been lumbered.

It seems that Ms Patel may be the type of manager who expects her staff to do what she tells them and expects results; when things don't go according to plan, she may have, on occasion, become angry and shouted or otherwise expressed her displeasure. When I was somewhat younger, this would have been perfectly usual and the failing staff member would have been contrite and done their best to put things right; the matter would have ended there. 

Today, the recipients of such behaviour seem to collapse in tears, shaking with fear and claiming that they've been 'bullied'; accepting responsibility for their failings never seems to occur to them. These poor delicate little flowers have to be cosseted for fear that they may be unable to cope with the nasty world of reality.

Frankly, most such claims are nothing but bullshit, though the environment in which we all now live is one that supports the supposed victim over and above all others; in essence, we live in a culture in which victimhood dominates while responsibility is ignored.

If Ms Patel did, indeed, shout at a few overblown and self important civil servants, so what ? I say "Good on her !" Surely it's about time that these time-serving mandarins accepted that they are 'servants', not masters, pulled their socks up and did what they're told, rather than finding every possible means, in the style of Sir Humphrey, to frustrate their Minister's policies.

BIDEN VICTORY OPENS WAY FOR REPUBLICANS IN 2024.

Well, the American population has voted but the question now is "What have they really voted for ?" Indeed, have they voted FOR anything at all or has this been more about voting against the outsider, Donald Trump ?

Despite the almost universal vilification, lampooning and virtual demonization of Donald Trump, many millions more cast their votes in his favour than did so 4 years ago. However, many more also cast their votes for his opponent, Joe Biden, than voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and it seems that it will be Biden who is sworn in as President in January. 

It may be relevant that, although Trump was elected as the official candidate of the Republican Party and stood again in that capacity, the Party has been remarkably quiet throughout the campaign - basically, it doesn't like Trump who is not, and has never been, a member of the political elite. It may even be that the 'Grand Old Party' will be quite happy to see the back of a man whom they despise and perfectly willing to accept 4 years of a Democrat in the White House as the price they have to pay. After all, things will be very different come 2024.

Biden will be 78 in a few days time and surely will be a one-term President; no one can believe that he will consider remaining in office until the age of 86, or that voters would want him to. Consequently, the Democrats have almost certainly already selected their candidate for next time around - Biden's Vice-President Kamala Harris. 

Harris's political experience is limited to say the least; she has been District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General for California, neither post being truly representative, and has been a junior member of the Senate for only 4 years. Her selection as Biden's running mate also seems to owe more to her sex and ethnicity than political background. As the candidate in 2024, Harris is likely to be another highly divisive figure, with many Americans strongly opposed to her left of centre approach. 

In truth, the Republican Party must surely be preparing itself already to regain power with what it will see as a 'true' Republican in 2024. It knows its probable opponent and has 4 years to find and promote suitable high profile and high calibre candidates for the primaries of that year well in advance of any voting. 

 If it fails to discover a winner it will have only itself to blame.

UNINSPRIING LEADERSHIP IS ALARMING.

 Has there ever been a less inspiring bunch of MPs in our parliament ?

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a 'larger than life' personality and clearly has a degree of charisma, there are increasing question marks over his leadership of the country at this most difficult of times. A successor to Winston Churchill he most certainly is not. However, in a parliament full of mostly grey non-entities, he still stands out.

Indeed, I find myself having trouble trying to name many of our other representatives on either side of the house. Apart from the few who've been seen on our screens in recent news conferences, who on earth is in the Cabinet ? Rishi Sunak has undoubtedly none himself no harm and has stood out as a confident chancellor of the exchequer, even if his actual competence has yet to be proven; Matt Hancock, Robert Jenrick and Oliver Dowden have appeared on occasion and none has exactly set the world alight with their charisma; in fact they could all 'bore for Britain' given the chance. I've just recalled that Dominic Raab is Foreign Secretary but who are the 15 or so who make up the most powerful body in the country ?

Worse is the situation on the other side of the parliamentary divide. Keir Starmer as leader of the Opposition is as grey as grey can be, a man utterly lacking any charisma or inspiration. As a lawyer, he seems to believe that presenting every argument as a court room speech, resulting in the dullest of dull deliveries. It's notable that even the new incarnation of "Spitting Image" has found him so dull as to be almost impossible to lampoon.

Astonishingly, Starmer's front bench colleagues are even more dull than he is, and are mostly anonymous. Who can name the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary or home secretary ? The only opposition figure I've seen much of in recent times is the egregious John Ashworth, shadow secretary of state for health, whose capacity for saying nothing of note at great length is amazing.

In these most difficult of times, only one politician seems to have enhanced their status and that is Nicola Sturgeon, who doesn't even have a seat at Westminster. However, as leader of the Scottish Nationalists, and someone whose political views I am wholly opposed to, she has been a stand-out performer. She has kept her people informed, has not been afraid to be be controversial when needed and, above all, has given a clear impression of being in control. In comparison, neither Johnson nor Starmer has seemed to be doing anything but thrashing around in the dark or looking for political advantage.

Of course, we are in unprecedented times and government has different factors to consider when making decisions. To some extent, Nicola Sturgeon has an easier task in that she does not have total economic control over her region and so can concentrate more on the health issues, while looking to Westminster for financial support. Keir Starmer also has an easier task in that it is always far easier to criticise than it is to lead; while attempting to locate holes in the government's strategy or even suggesting alternatives, he knows that his words will never be tested in reality. Boris Johnson, as the man in the hot seat, not only has to weigh the options but also has to make decisions that have real effect.

What is most worrying is that there seem to be so few people of note or standing involved in any of the decision making and it all seems very haphazard. One can only hope that out of this quagmire will eventually emerge a solution that works, has the support of all parties and does not attract the usual volley of pointless and mindless political rhetoric.

COVID UPSURGE IS DOWN TO THE UNCARING YOUNG.

While the precise numbers may be debatable, it is clear that the COVID-19 epidemic is spreading rapidly again. Diagnosed infections are at the highest level recorded and deaths are creeping up although improved understanding of the condition and its treatment is likely to prevent the latter from reaching the numbers recorded earlier.

Despite the obvious need for serious action and even a return to near lockdown in some areas, an assortment of political figures in the worst affected places seem intent on criticising the government and demanding that they be given the power to decide what is done in their own areas, claiming that they have better knowledge of the epidemic than those at the centre. That this is nonsense seems obvious, but clearly not to those looking to make political capital out of a national crisis. They demand that yet more money is magicked-up by the government to support anyone and everyone, while saying little if anything about the personal responsibility of all those concerned.

The virus is spreading most rapidly in the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire regions of England and it is very clear that the spread is heavily concentrated amongst the 16-29 age group who are then spreading it further to older and more vulnerable people. Whenever it has been suggested that the failure to control and even eliminate the virus is not the fault of the government but of "the people", there have been howls of rage from some quarters but it is now abundantly obvious that some elements of "the people" are, indeed. responsible. 

Seeing television pictures of crowds gathering in town centres, completely ignoring the guidance about wearing masks, social distancing and the numbers who can gather together demonstrates just how selfish and uncaring some of the people are. Hearing of large outbreaks at several universities is a further indicator of the careless attitude of many younger people who no doubt are relying on the known fact that they are unlikely to be badly affected by the virus even if they do catch it. These utterly anti-social and irresponsible individuals need to be named and shamed without fear or favour. Whatever the shortcomings of government policy, it is these stupid and selfish young people who are putting the health of the rest of us in danger, and who are responsible for the social and economic fall out of the epidemic.

Overcoming this epidemic relies on all of the people abiding by the guidance and rules set out by the government. It is time for the young to realise this and to begin to act like the supposedly grown-up, intelligent adults that they claim to be.

COVID-19 NUMBERS ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE.

Does anyone really know the extent of the COVID-19 epidemic in this country ?

Yesterday, it was announced that due to "technical issues", a significant number of positive tests had not been included in recently published figures. Inevitably, some have blamed this omission on the government, but surely the blame lies with those directly responsible for compiling the numbers. A simple review of the figures released on a daily basis confirms this.

Day to day, the numbers change. not by much but by enough to make one wonder what is going on. I don't mean the total numbers, but going back to the early days of the epidemic, the numbers of cases and deaths recorded on a daily basis change almost every day; not for every day though some days seem to change more often than others. This latest announcement of thousands of cases being 'missed' over recent days simply convinces me that the bodies responsible, mostly Public Health England, are utterly incompetent. I have lost count of the number of times they have told us that the numbers have been adjusted due to some error or other and one can only wonder how reliable any of the figures really are.

Thankfully I have not contracted the virus and have even had a negative test a couple of weeks ago, so I know the epidemic has not reached me yet. That said, the uncertainty surrounding the published numbers leaves me wholly unsure that I'm not the only uninfected person left in the country.

Public Health England is a useless organisation and it can only be a good thing that it's to be abolished. The worry is that it'll simply be replaced by yet another pointless and useless QUANGO, run by a gaggle of faceless bureaucrats, many of them the same as are in post now. Surely it is now time for a genuine re-organisation of the NHS and associated bodies that will allow for the creation of something that is properly competent, is responsive to patients, is not driven by diktat from 'on high' and not drowned in demands for statistics demonstrating how wonderful it is.

The truth is that it's not bad for those who get into the system but it's bloody awful for those on the waiting list. It almost never admits its mistakes, frequently lies in its published statistics and is horrendously bureaucratic in outlook. Envy of the world ? Don't make me laugh !

ps As an afterthought, it occurs to me that "technical issues" was a possible excuse suggested by Sir Humphrey Appleby when looking for a way to explain a government 'cock up' in an episode of the wonderful 'Yes, Minister' / 'Yes, Prime Minister' series. More than 30 years on - how little has changed.

TRUMP v BIDEN : A CHOICE MADE IN HELL.

Does anyone envy the choice facing American voters in just 31 days time ?

While it has often been the case that candidates for the most powerful position in the world have been less than inspiring, this time around they are positively awful. Donald Trump, the man in possession, is a bombastic and incredibly arrogant man in his mid 70s. His performance as President over the last 4 yeas has, to say the least, been problematic and he's probably been the most divisive President in modern times. Now, having poo-pooed the seriousness and danger of the COVID-19 virus epidemic and largely ignored the medical advice surrounding it, he's caught it and finds himself in hospital. As an elderly and overweight man, he is at considerable risk of suffering serious consequences and could even be unable to continue with his campaign for re-election.

On the other side of the ballot is Joseph Biden, a lifelong Democrat whose credentials may be even worse than those of Mr Trump. A long-time senator for the miniscule state of Delaware, Mr Biden is basically a non-entity. As such, he was chosen to be the vice-Presidential candidate alongside Barack Obama in 2008, being someone who would keep his head down, cause no waves and offer no challenge to his boss. All of this he seems to have achieved without difficulty and his reward, if that is what it is, is to be in line to become President next January. That a man of such little note and in his late 70s, and who will be 82 by the end of a first term should he be elected, is the best that his party can find to challenge the widely reviled Mr. Trump is rather frightening.

The choice before American electors is truly dreadful. Neither candidate can be called attractive, in a political sense, and many voters may be  inclined to vote against, rather than for, one of them; others may simply not bother to vote at all.  Victory for Mr Trump would mean 4 more years of chaotic and divisive leadership, while victory for Mr Biden would mean a return to the inertia of the Obama years, with the USA drifting aimlessly to nowhere in particular. Possibly worse would be the increased prospect of the very elderly Mr Biden becoming unable to complete his term and the baton being passed to his strongly left wing deputy, Kamala Harris. Regardless, it seems highly likely that Ms Harris would be the Democratic Party's candidate in 2024, by when Mr Biden will surely be considered too old to stand.

Perhaps the usual cries of "God Bless America" should be replaced with "God Help America", not to mention the rest of the world.

STARMER et al SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE, NOT CARPING.

 As the government grapples with one of the most challenging situations to hit the world, let alone, this country, in decades, its political opponents continue to carp, whinge and complain. Whatever the government does, it isn't enough, it's too late or it's just plain wrong.

Do the likes of Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, John Ashworth, Sadiq Khan and the rest not have anything in mind but gaining political advantage ? Would they really have done things so differently, or is it just about having the benefit of hindsight ? 

Despite the rising numbers of cases in the United Kingdom, we are still a long way behind the situation in France, for instance, where newly diagnosed cases are running at THREE times the level we are currently experiencing, and France has a similar size of population; the UK is also carrying out at least as many, if not more, tests than in most other countries. In truth, the approach adopted by our government is proving more successful than that in many other countries. Why do Starmer and his merry band not recognize this  and support the government ?

Of course, it's because that would not be to their benefit. Thankfully, despite the media being full of bad luck stories and tales of woe, most people seem to understand and back the government's strategy. If that leads to stricter rules and harsher penalties, they will understand and back that too. Most people see an advantage in getting this virus beaten and are far less concerned about who might win the next election.

JOHNSON'S STRATEGY MUST BE ALLOWED TO PLAY OUT.

Exactly why Prime Minister Johnson is trying to introduce legislation which his government admits might well lead to a contravention of international law is something I have no knowledge of. However, I have no doubt that it's some sort of ploy for use in the ongoing discussions with the European Union and is designed to give the United Kingdom an additional bargaining chip.

Inevitably, representatives of the EU have thrown up their hands in horror, accompanied by assorted voices from the list of usual suspects, meaning those who have always opposed all things BREXIT. Indeed, I suspect that the likelihood of the British government ever using whatever powers it is trying to bring into being is remote and that the huge political fuss that's been blown up is mostly a storm in a tea cup, not that anyone would believe this from the media's coverage of the matter.

Particularly shocking is that assorted former Prime Ministers appear to have given up on supporting their own country and have, instead, emerged from the woodwork to criticize their current successor. Of course, none of them like Boris Johnson who is a very different character to any of them - Major, Blair, Brown and May are all long standing members of the political establishment and not one of them will be remembered in 100 years time any more than are the likes of Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law today. Their legacies make sorry reading - Major entwined the UK in the Maastricht Treaty and all but destroyed the Conservative Party; Blair had a God complex and led the country into interminable wars in the Middle East while also creating, together with Brown, a nation in which all and sundry are dependent on state largesse; Brown was also part-responsible for the appalling financial crash of 2008 and as for May, she was a control-freak who was incompetent, a devastating combination. 

All 4 of these political 'giants' (in their own minds if no where else) are Europhiles and now all 4 want to argue for Europe against the UK. Interestingly, I have yet to hear that David Cameron has made any loud public pronouncements on the latest squabble, which might suggest that he is more aware of the underlying strategy, or perhaps I've just missed whatever he's said. 

Whatever is going on, it's clear that the EU is making things as difficult as possible in the discussions over a future trade deal with the United Kingdom and surely the role of all of our representatives, current and former, should be to support our government, not try to undermine it. That some egos are simply too big to follow this simple principle is disappointing, to say the least.

RUSSIA AND CHINA NOW RULE THE ROOST.

It seems that there is a belief, even a strong belief, that the Russian government has been involved in various incidents of international interference and terrorism. The evidence for at least some of these appears to be irrefutable and yet the rest of the world has proved completely toothless in its responses.

A number of years ago, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with a deadly radioactive substance, polonium, and subsequently died a very painful death in hospital in London. More recently, 2 Russian defectors, Sergei and Julia Skripal, were poisoned with a nerve agent, novichok, in Salisbury and, although they recovered, a British woman died. Now Alexei Navalny, a political opponent of the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, has been poisoned with a similar agent and is fighting for his life in a hospital in Germany.

Alongside these appalling events, the Russian state and its operatives have also been strongly suspected of having attempted to subvert important elections in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as most probably in other countries too. 

The actions of the civilised world in response to these events have been such as expelling Russian diplomats, expelling Russia itself from pointless international gatherings and various measures targeted at specific Russians with dubious backgrounds. The problem is that none of this is of any concern to the Russian leadership, in particular to Putin who is undoubtedly the natural successor to one of the most evil men in recent history, Russia's former leader, Joseph Stalin.

While Russia goes about its subversive and murderous activities anywhere and everywhere, the Chinese government seems to be attempting to mimic the behaviour of NAZI Germany in ridding itself of a vast number of people whom it considers undesirable. The Uyghurs are an ethnic group, native to parts of China and who seem to have offended the government in Beijing. Consequently, many of them have been rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps in a remote area of China where they are being 're-educated'; reports suggest that they are actually being subjected to appalling treatment and systematically exterminated, if in less dramatic manner than that adopted by the NAZI regime. Various world leading politicians, and others, have made noises but nothing of note seems to have been done in opposition to this activity which some claim is akin to genocide.

It must also not be forgotten that the Chinese state exercises the tightest possible control over its people, often through technological means, and that its technology industry, in common with all Chinese industry, is also state controlled. Having become a major producer of many computer components and with effective marketing of its own products, companies such as Huawei now have access to, and potential control of, large parts of western infrastructure, as well as many millions of personal computers, tables, 'phones and so on. How have we been so stupid as to hand over such power with so little thought ?

As with the case in Russia, China currently has its most powerful leader for many years, General Secretary Xi Jinping, wielding greater authority than any Chinese leader since the dark days of Mao Zedong and his 'cultural revolution' that saw millions murdered. Also as with Russia, the civilised world has been largely toothless in its response to the atrocities in China, and is additionally in utter confusion about how to counter the technological control potentially available to this massive and anti-democratic state.

In reality, international diplomacy is all about fancy gatherings with important sounding names in exotic places; little of note is ever really discussed and, if anything contentious is raised, those whose behaviour is being questioned simply veto any actions against them. Thus the major powers, or those backed by any of them, are impervious to meaningful sanctions. The United Nations and its myriad of satellites absorbs vast quantities of money while delivering nothing of any real value - all decisions are reduced to the lowest common denominator, thus acceptable to all but achieving nothing of any note. Then they all sit down to an expensive dinner, paid for by us, and chat about the weather., their families, favourite sports or anything else that is utterly irrelevant.

Will the people of the world never realise that political organisations such as the UN, UNESCO, WHO, FAO, IAEA, IMF, World Bank,  (and the rest), NATO, the EU and so many more are designed to served those who profit from them who, themselves, are time-serving politicians, often ones who have come to the end of the road in their own countries. They have no desire to rock the boat as the first to be tossed over the side will be themselves. Consequently, the murderous activities of Putin, Xi Jinping and their counterparts in other places continue unabated and unpunished except for the rarest of cases where it's decided to bring some small fry to justice for overwhelmingly political reasons.

Politicians huff and puff and ask for our votes every few years, usually after they've thrown us a few crumbs of encouragement, but little ever changes. Then they elect, or appoint, their pals to high offices in international organisations to ensure that nothing changes there either. Life goes on, with the elite running things, enjoying the high life and getting rich, while the rest of us are expected to do as we're told and accept whatever comes along. Heaven forbid that anyone should ever risk upsetting the delicate balance of power that keeps the house of cards from crashing down. 

RULE BRITANNIA !!

Boris Johnson is absolutely right when he says that the British should stop being embarrassed about our past. The truth is that we should actually embrace it and laud it, for if it was not for the British much of the world would still be largely uninhabited jungle and the majority of its people would still be heathens, savages, headhunters and cannibals.

Perhaps that's a bit extreme, but then the constant stream of anti-British vitriol which has been spewing from the media and assorted left wing sources in recent times demands a response. Did the British take Christianity and education to much of the world ? Certainly. Was it the British, admittedly along with others, who 'discovered' the Americas, Africa and Australasia and introduced the inhabitants of these lands to new ways that have led to vastly improved lives ? Of course. 

I do not say that this has been achieved without some negatives along the way. There was the slave trade, near annihilation of indigenous peoples, brutality, war and much more, but this is all part of the same historical story. Without the negatives there would have been no positives. Should modern sensitivities now preclude celebration of our nation's past, as those who have tried to remove much loved items from the "Last Night of The Proms" would wish ? 

History cannot and must not be rewritten; that way is the way of the dictatorships of countries such as the Soviet Union and China, not to mention NAZI Germany. Tearing down statues and changing the names of buildings and streets because some 'take offence', is itself, offensive. Cecil Rhodes may not have been a very nice man, to some modern eyes, but his vast wealth has been used to achieve great good. Do those who want his statue removed from Oriel College in Oxford also propose returning the legacy that he left ?

Our nation's history is a chequered one, with both highs and lows, good and bad, but it is our history and, warts and all, it should be celebrated as such. There may be lessons to learn and explanations to be offered but to attempt to ban elements of it or to limit discussion to one narrow point of view cannot be allowed. Yes, we must admit that it was not all perfect, far from it in fact, but neither was it all bad. 

Remember the bad and learn from it, but celebrate the good, loudly and from the roof tops. Britain is a "Land of Hope and Glory", Jerusalem has been built in "England's Green and Pleasant Land" and Britons certainly "Never, Never, Never Shall Be Slaves" !

HARPER'S LAW MAKES NO SENSE AND WOULD BE UNJUST.

Let's imagine a situation.

I, a pensioner, pop into my local bank. I discover that another customer has had a heart attack and is being treated by a paramedic, having first been attended to by a nurse who'd been using the cash machine. A police officer, having seen the paramedic enter, had also come in to find out what was going on.

Moments later, 3 nasty oiks turn up, brandishing knives and guns and demand that the various cashiers hand over all the money in their tills. Of course, the police officer interferes with their plans and he is assisted by the paramedic, nurse and myself, who join together in confronting the would-be robbers. One of us is killed as a result.

According to the suggested "Harper's Law" if it's the police officer, nurse or paramedic who dies, the miscreant would receive a more harsh sentence than if it was me. That is not justice and demonstrates a fatal flaw in the notion that certain professions should have greater protection under the law than the rest of society.

The correct way to deal with criminals is to give them penalties and sentences that offer genuine punishment and deterrence. The current practice of releasing offenders part-way through prison sentences makes headline stories of seemingly harsh penalties - 30 years, life etc., - misleading and often meaningless. Placing supposed rehabilitation above retribution may make sense in some cases but it does not in more serious ones. The nonsense of 'victim impact statements' is nothing but a sop to the 'woke' generation and those who love their 'day in court'. None of it is necessary and none of it should be part of our legal process.

Assault is assault, murder is murder. The sentences handed down to offenders should be appropriate to the offence, regardless of the societal standing of the victim. A vicious assault on an elderly person during a robbery is surely no different to an assault on a police officer in the performance of their duties - or should we also have a "Pensioners' Law", providing for harsher sentences for those found guilty of crimes against the elderly ?

It is nonsensical to try to segment society for the purposes of determining criminal severity and sentencing. Once it starts, where does it end ?

JIMMY ANDERSON : VERY GOOD BUT NO G.O.A.T.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Anderson has been a great performer for England's cricket team over the last 15 or more years, but the claims that he is the "greatest of all time" is the usual nonsense spouted by those who are blinded by a need to laud the achievements of current players over those of former years. Sadly, the assorted pundits on the Sky cricket channel, only one of whom was born before 1968, are so blinded.

Anderson is close to becoming the first fast bowler to take 600 wickets in test matches, a notable achievement, but what is ignored is that he has also played many more matches than any other bowler of his type. In fact, his nearest rival in this respect is his usual bowling partner, Stuart Broad, who is some dozen or more matches behind, while no one else is within 25 matches; the great Australian fast bowler, Glen McGrath, played more than 30 matches fewer but managed to be within 35 or Anderson's total of wickets, suggesting that there is more to being the greatest of all time than simply the number of wickets taken.

Bowlers abilities can be measured in various ways - wickets taken, runs conceded, 'strike rate', meaning the regularity of their wicket taking, but all may be dependent on the number of balls bowled. McGrath, for instance, took a wicket every 52 balls, Anderson's average in this respect is every 56 balls. McGrath conceded 0.42 runs per ball, while Anderson'c record is 0.48, and McGrath's average runs per wicket was 21.64 while Anderson's is 26.83. On a combination of these measures, McGrath beats Anderson, as do numerous others, including former English fast bowlers Trueman, Bedser, Statham, Willis and Snow; even these illustrious predecessors are well adrift of the best performers, the West Indian trio of Marshall, Garner and Ambrose.

Anderson is good, even very good, and his longevity is a credit to both him and those who have looked after him over the years, but to claim that he is the "greatest of all time" is just idiotic. Times change, conditions change and there actually was cricket before Sky became involved. Trueman, for instance, not only took his 307 test match wickets more efficiently than Anderson, he also played regular county cricket and amassed a career record of over 2,300 wickets; Anderson plays little other than test matches and one day games, and has around 1,350 wickets to his name in all formats, even though he has played for a similar number of years.

Media pundits really do need to be more careful in their proclamations of brilliance and their use of superlatives. Routinely describing events as being incredible, fantastic, phenomenal, and the rest, simply demonstrates a lack of language skills; constant references to players as being 'great' similarly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for, or knowledge of, the history of the game. 

CHANNEL DEATH IS DOWN TO THE FRENCH, NOT THE UK.

I am sick to death of hearing about the hordes of migrants attempting to gain entry into the UK from assorted places in France. The latest news, a hard luck story about a teenager whose body has been found on a French beach, has been reported by the media as if our government has almost total responsibility for both the death and the boy's supposed plight, without any reference to the responsibilities of the French, the boy's own country and all of the places through which he must have passed on his way to the English Channel. 

Am I being hard hearted and uncaring ? No way ! On his journey across Europe, this boy had opportunities galore to ask for asylum in umpteen countries, and yet he failed to do so. Once in France, he became their responsibility but that country basically ignored him and left him to continue his attempt to get to the UK, wholly illegally. Under international law, the boy had no right to request asylum anywhere other than in the first 'safe' country to which his flight took him; having arrived in France, it was the responsibility of the French government to look after him, accommodate him and provide him with sanctuary. But of course, they did not, seeing a far better option of letting him try to reach the UK, where he would be a drain on our resources rather than theirs.

That the boy has died is sad, even tragic for his family, but it is nothing whatsoever to do with this country or its government. He had no right to come here and the responsibility for his death lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the French. Why oh why does our media insist on using such stories as nothing but a cudgel with which to beat OUR government ? The answer to that question is, of course, obvious.

Our leftie-liberal media hates the "evil Tories" and will do anything, use anything to try to denigrate them. Surely it is time that our government fought back and made clear that all migrants intercepted trying to cross the channel will be returned to France, irrespective of age, sex, colour, nationality or any other damned characteristic that might be used to justify their attempt to enter the UK. 

Britain is far more crowded than France and is, to all intents and purposes, full. The NO ENTRY signs should be put up and rigorously policed.

A-LEVEL RESULTS HIGHLIGHT GOVERNMENTAL SHAMBLES.

The COVID-19 epidemic has revealed much about our country, its government and its people, little of it good.

While there have been stories about phenomenal fund raising and the dedication of health car workers, the real stories involve the utter shambles at the heart of the nation's administration and the appalling "couldn't care less" attitude of far too many of our people, especially some of the younger ones.  While the government has issued guidance which has often been less than crystal clear, many younger people have carried on as if the epidemic simply did not exist, gathering in huge parties, on the beach and, more recently, in public houses and showing utter contempt for the rules and the rest of us.

Things were not helped by Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself catching the virus and spending time on the seriously ill list, but that is now history. What is now most worrying is that there appears to be little central control of the government's approach to managing the epidemic; diktats are issued at little or no notice and withdrawn in the same manner. The latest unbelievable mess over 'A-Level' results must surely mark a new low in this catastrophic saga, and yet ............. .

Over the last few months, our National Health Service, heralded by every government since 1948 as the "envy of the world", has been virtually closed for all but COVID victims and the most seriously ill; it has been shown to be very good at dealing with one problem at a time, but has failed spectacularly in its principal job of providing healthcare to all whenever needed. Its sister organisation, the named Public Health England, has proved itself to be utterly incompetent on almost every level, from sourcing protective equipment to producing statistics. Indeed, the numbers that have been spewed out by PHE and the Office for National Statistics, yet another pompously named and utterly incompetent body, have been withdrawn, revised, rebased and reissued with such obtuse associated guidance and little or no audit trail as to make them almost meaningless. 

Now we have the farce of the 'A-Level' results. State school pupils in their hundreds of thousands have seen their predicted results downgraded, often quite dramatically, while public (=private) school pupils have seen the predictions of their grades virtually untouched. The government has, with crass stupidity, announced that the process for the determination of grades was robust and correct, followed by rapid backtracking from the Department of Education and the officiating body, yet another QUANGO which glories in the name of the 'Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation', or OFQUAL for short. This last named joke of an organisation has, for years, presided over steadily rising pass rates and awards of the highest grades, with no apparent regard for the ultimate unsustainability of its position, but has now come horribly unstuck when confronted by a genuine need for its services. 

Pupils have had their grades determined not on the basis of their own performance but by reference to the past performance of their schools and groups of fellow pupils. Thus, pupils from a top-performing school may well have seen their predicted results stand while those from schools with a history of poor performance will most probably have seen their predicted results downgraded, regardless of the actual merits of individual cases. For OFQUAL to say that those who are unhappy can appeal is nothing but a 'cop-out' while their issuing of various guidance which has been withdrawn for further consideration within a matter of hours would be laughable if it wasn't so shocking.

This 'moderation' process has been a disaster and will undoubtedly lead to the sacking of the Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, and quite possibly of its own heads, chairman Roger Taylor, and Chief Regulator Sally Collier, neither of whom will ever have been heard of before. If it was up to me, I'd abolish OFQUAL and the Department for Education altogether, issue some basic guidance on educational standards and leave it to the universities to sort things out by reference to international standards.

If COVID-19 has taught us anything beyond its immediate effects, its that our government and its hundreds of QUANGOS are inept and incompetent. The NHS is nowhere near being the "envy of the world", PHE is a joke, our education system is a mess and the ONS is a farce. Sadly, we also now know that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is no Churchill, in fact, I'm not even sure he's up to the job at all. What we need is a revolution in the way that our country is run. We have taken one tentative step away from centrally managed services by leaving the European Union, now we need to dismantle the elephantine and labyrinthine echelons of our own central government, letting some light and new thinking into the unbelievably musty corridors of Whitehall.

COVID-19 has given us the opportunity to do this and it's up to the current mob in government to grasp the nettle with both hands and give it one hell of a shaking.

COVID-19 : DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ?

 As the COVID-19 saga continues, I am increasingly concerned that no one really knows the extent of the epidemic nor its true severity. The statistics published by Public Health England and the Office for National Statistics have been used to justify assorted government actions but have also been subject to numerous revisions and re-presentations. 

The figures originally published for the number of people tested were found to be of dubious quality and were temporarily suspended; now they have vanished altogether. The PHE figures for the number of proven cases have been revised several times and bear no relation to the number of estimated cases published by the ONS. Nowhere is there any reference to the number of reported cases being at least partially dependent upon the actual number of people tested. The number of deaths as reported by PHE have been found to be entirely unreliable, with all deaths of people who had tested positive at any time being included, regardless of how long before death the test had been conducted and what the actual cause of death had been; in fact, anyone who'd had a positive test but been killed by a runaway bus would have been included as a COVID-19 related death.

Most recently, the 'Coronavirus Dashboard', via which the ONS has been publishing national summaries, has been revamped in such a way that there is no way of reconciling parts of it with its earlier incarnation. The previously available daily analysis by local authority areas has been removed and replaced by what is claimed to be a more detailed analysis; in fact, this 'Middle Layer Super Output Area' (MSOA) analysis makes comparison with the earlier publications impossible as all daily instances of less than 2 cases being reported in each area are excluded - is this not utterly ludicrous ? Additionally, it also means that the MSOA figures cannot be reconciled with the higher level local authority (LTUA & UTLA) level figures.

It seems clear that those who are producing and presenting these assorted statistics have no idea what they are doing and certainly must be utterly oblivious as to what is needed and how they may be used. The shocking result is that the numbers are largely meaningless, often being confusing, misleading and even contradictory. I won't even get to the mystical 'R' number, which seems to be a work of utter fiction, designed principally to provide support for at least some of the government's actions.

These highly suspect statistics have been used to justify an almost complete shutdown of normal life and now to justify the wearing of masks in shops, cinemas, museums and assorted other places by a frightened population. At the same time, we now are encouraged to visit pubs and restaurants willy-nilly and without any face coverings, even though such visits are far more likely to bring us into closer and longer contact with others than the occasional trips to the supermarket. If this isn't confused and contradictory, I don't know what is.

Never has the phrase 'lies, damned lies and statistics' been of more relevance and never have statistics been used in such haphazard and illogical manner. The truth is that no one, including all the experts who regularly offer advice to the government and anyone else who'll listen, has a clue what is really going on or what is the best course of action. It's all very much a case of "suck it and see", followed by a large dose of "grin and bear it".

HOLIDAY MAKERS TRAVEL AT THEIR PERIL !

Oh My GOD !

How utterly unfair !

The goons who decided that the COVID-19 epidemic was no reason not to carry on with their usual holiday in Spain have come unstuck and they now find that they will have to spend 14 days in self-isolation on their return to these shores. 

Despite knowing that official guidance was, to say the very least, fluid, these prats were determined to enjoy their time in the sun but are now regretting it; typically, they are also looking for someone to blame for their predicament. Obviously, it's the Government, whose advice has changed, in their view, without warning.

Excuse me, but one thing that has been clear all along the COVID-trail has been that Government advice was subject to change at short notice. Indeed, it's highly notable that the latest advice and change of regulations affecting overseas travellers has emanated from the Department of Transport whose head, Grant Shapps, has been caught out, having journeyed to Spain with his family on Saturday morning.

While those who chose to act as normal regardless of the current epidemic will undoubtedly whinge, whine and blame everyone but themselves for the mess they now find themselves in, the simple truth is that they have behaved like self-serving morons. Presumably they have believed that the epidemic could not possibly interrupt the normal flow of their lives, which seems to include regular sojourns in Spain alongside hordes of similarly stupid English tourists.

My heart bleeds for them - not, not NOT !!

HAMILTON SHOULD STICK TO DRIVING.

Mario Andretti needs to "educate himself" and Sir Jackie Stewart is simply dismissed as "... another one. Just disappointing".

It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing Lewis Hamilton is to be insulted and sent packing. Hamilton may be a great racing driver, he may even be the best ever, but he's also an arrogant prick. He clearly believes that his sporting prowess and great wealth make his views more important and more valid than those of older and quite probably wiser heads.

Shame on him. Hamilton should stick to what he knows about and leave political protests and symbolic gestures to others. If he does not, he risks making himself unpopular at least and unemployable at worst. No one likes a mouthy 'celebrity', least of all the advertisers who who are well aware of the need to protect the good name of their products.

TIME TO END RITUALISTIC POSTURING.

After several weeks of seeing assorted kneeling and exhibiting a 'Black Power Salute', I think we've got the message. Far from accommodating Lewis Hamilton's call for more action after what he's termed an embarrassing ceremony before the start of the Hungarian Grand Prix yesterday, it is surely time to call a halt to the recently adopted ritual.

Of course 'Black Lives Matter' but so do white ones and yellow ones, brown ones and any other colour anyone cares to mention. The way in which a man was treated in the USA was disgusting and other reports of people being treated in similar manner are equally so, but these remain very isolated incidents and have probably been vastly outnumbered by the morally unjustifiable actions of police towards people of all colours, in many countries and for many, many years. The moral panic now being visited on our nation is nothing but a measure of how far from reality we have drifted in recent times.

Sportsmen are being pressured to comply with the 'new', and apparently only, acceptable form of demonstration, with Hamilton having previously complained that not all of his fellow drivers would do so. I say "more power to their collective elbows"; why on earth should they be forced to comply with some specific, if dubious, form of representation ?

As with all such protest movements, the original objective has already been lost. Assorted 'rent-a-mobs' have taken to the streets, statues have been torn down or defaced, places have had their names changed and a memorial to a dog has had its name removed. Some companies have decided that they must, again, set targets for ethnic minority representation on their boards or within their senior management, seemingly irrespective of the suitability of candidates. Police forces are, again, reviewing their procedures to ensure fairness in their dealings with all their 'customers'.

None of this has anything to do with the murder of George Floyd in the USA. It is an opportunity seized upon by Marxists, anarchists and others who despise our society, its culture and its history, and wish it nothing but harm. Some have fallen victim to the seemingly laudable aims of the protesters, while others have been pressured into complying with the voices of the 'woke'. That this is not quite the  principled movement it is presented as being is surely proved by the manner in which those who defy the 'woke' have been hounded and pressured. What footballer would conceivably be brave enough to take his own stand when confronted by the pressure of his coloured colleagues (or should that mimic the latest idiot phrase and be 'colleagues of colour') ?  Thankfully, at least a few of the Formula One drivers have been strong enough to defy the mob, although not without garnering some severe criticism for their failure to toe the line.

Rather than continuing to divide our society up into smaller and smaller special interest groups on the basis of colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexuality and the rest, we should be bringing our people together as Britons and citizens of the United Kingdom, people who have equal opportunity in life but who also must play their part in the wider everyday cultural activities of the nation. We must all ensure that we abide by the law and those who do not should be punished; if that means that some groups suffer more arrests and punishments than others, it's for those groups to look at themselves, not for the rest of us to be made to feel guilty for pursuing them. 

It is time to end the nonsense, time to stop removing words form our language because they might offend someone and time to stop making excuses. The police must use profiling as a means of identifying likely criminals and to suggest that 'racial profiling' is some form of NAZI activity is simply wrong. However, it's also wrong for the police to rely too greatly on such methodologies. At the end of the day, we need good, old fashioned common sense and decency far more than 'woke' protest movements.

FACE MASK POLICY IS INCOHERENT.

So there we have it.

The Government has announced that as from 24th July it will be mandatory for the vast majority of us, to wear face masks, or something similar, in all shops. This despite the fact that such face coverings are not required in public houses, cafés restaurants and various other places. That this is illogical seems so obvious as to render the situation absurd.

While pubs, cafés and restaurants will usually have numerous customers, even if they are 'socially distances' to some extent, very many shops have more staff than customers for most of the time; in many 'social distancing' is almost irrelevant as individual customers may well have an entire shop to themselves. It is also the case that when shopping, people move around and rarely spend much time close to anyone else, while in pubs, cafés and restaurants they will sit, often for long periods of time, in close proximity to others. While eating and drinking, people tend to enter into conversations with others, they may laugh and joke, all of which may cause their exhaled breath to travel greater distances than the exhaled breath of largely quiet and passive shoppers. The risk of spreading contagion in shops must surely be far lower and yet it is here that masks will be compulsory.

This policy makes no sense.

Clearly, the government is thrashing around looking for things to do that will seem to indicate that it is in control; that it is not is blatantly obvious. The number of cases being identified daily has hardly changed over the last 10 or 12 days and may even be rising; might this be a consequence of the easing of restrictions on pubs and eating places ? Might the newly discovered need to insist on face coverings in shops not be a reaction to this and an attempt to counter the effect of the earlier policy initiative ?  I believe that is all it is.

As for the claim that face masks will give people the confidence to venture out to the shops, this is poppycock. Face masks, no matter how well fitting, are uncomfortable and socially restricting. Hot exhaled breath behind the mask can be unpleasant and for the wearers of glasses can be distinctly annoying and even dangerous as their lenses mist up and make vision all but impossible at times. Far from encouraging people to visit their local shops, I can well see many deciding that masks are a step too far and remaining at home, as will I except for essential trips only.

This really is too much. The government simply has lost the plot and has no idea how to develop a coherent set of policies to tackle the epidemic. That isn't to say that its detractors have any better ideas, which is perhaps an even more alarming thought. The problem is that no one really knows what to do, but the hordes of 'experts' all feel a need to pontificate and demonstrate their wisdom while our politicians feel a need to placate a worried populace.

It seems to me that our government has probably done all the right things but not necessarily in the right order or at the right time (to borrow from Eric Morecambe). 

COVID-19 IS NOW MAKE OR BREAK FOR BORIS.

The longer the panic over COVID-19 continues, the more I am becoming convinced that it's seriously overdone.

Yes, some people are at risk but, frankly, no more so than some being at risk in a bad influenza year. The difference is that, now, we are being subjected to restrictions which are beginning to border on the ridiculous, so much so that many people are now more frightened than they have ever been. Such fright is, quite simply, unjustified.

The latest frightener is that the government is about to tell us all that we must wear face masks in every shop, this despite there being no such restriction, for pretty obvious reasons in pubs, cafes, restaurants and many other places where communal activities remain allowed. What on Earth is Boris thinking of ? Has his own brush with the virus so addled his brain that he has lost all semblance of logic when it comes to tackling it ?

I am a strong supporter of Boris and his government but on this matter they are risking alienating a vast proportion of the electorate, including me. Again, the vast majority of the population are at very little risk from this virus and yet we are about to be subjected to almost draconian measures. People die from all manner of infections; ailments, accidents, poor life styles and simple bad luck all of the time; COVID-19 may be a new threat but it is not unique, nor is it peculiarly deadly. In fact, the overall mortality is not high at all.

It seems that I cannot even visit a local public house without having to be able to produce photographic evidence of my identity, which is unbelievable; this is the type of control exercised by the Communist Party of China and to which our own government claims it is utterly opposed. I have had no problem with the lockdown and have behaved sensibly and with appropriate community spirit when visiting local stores, no more than once a week, I might add, but the suggestion of even more stringent controls now that the virus is in retreat simply defies belief. 

When nasty bugs rear their ugly heads people die, that is life. The previous panics over SARS and MERS were shockingly overdone, and the way in which AIDS was presented was a disgrace; anyone who knew anything of the details of that particular epidemic also knew that besides homosexual men, intravenous drug users and men who habitually frequented prostitutes in certain foreign countries, very few were at any real risk. Nonetheless, it was presented as being a life threatening risk to almost the entire adult human population.

In truth, it was a case of politicians doing everything in their power to avoid placing the 'blame' on any group in particular; with COVID-19, it is now all about trying to avoid stating the obvious - those who are reasonably fit and healthy to start with have very little risk while the unhealthy, fat, diabetic and very old are at risk, as they are with almost every other disease. Yes, and various 'ethnic minorities', but I'm fairly sure that there's a 'quid pro quo' of which we never hear; there are upsides and downsides to every ethnicity and genetic inheritance. 

It's high time that Boris Johnson and his government started being far more realistic and constructive. Shops, pubs and hairdressers are allowed to open but with such insane restrictions that many will still not bother with them - I know I won't even though I love a trip to the pub and desperately need a haircut. Enforcing the wearing of masks, which is now suggested, will do nothing to encourage either me or many millions of others to bother to venture beyond our front doors. 

The chance of me catching this virus are remote. The risk if I do catch it, and I'm 67, far from obese and reasonably healthy, is still very small. The risk for the vast majority of the population is much less. I expect the Prime Minister, whom I voted for, to be above petty factionalism and to do the right things for the country, not look for the lowest common denominator in all things.

Either he does that or he and his party have lost my vote, probably forever, and I've never voted for any other party at a general election in my life, which is since 1970. If push comes to shove, I will.

COVID-19 : EXPERTS ARE EVERYWHERE ; BORIS NEED CONTROL.

I'm confused.

Admittedly the data being published by the government on the vexed subject of COVID-19 has been, to say the least, 'iffy'; in fact it's been downright rubbish as the most recent revision to the numbers has proven. Nonetheless, the claims of opponents of the government's position are no less open to what can only be termed ridiculed.

The rather haughtily named Independent SAGE' a group of scientists who believe they have greater wisdom than the equally eminent mob currently advising the government,  have claimed, via their chairman, David King, that the government's current strategy will lead to 27,000 excess deaths by April 2100 - sounds terrible, doesn't it ?

Hold on a moment. There are 500,000 - 600,000 deaths in the UK every year. This number fluctuates and may be better or worse; a bad epidemic of influenza might make it significantly worse and, for instance, some 78,000 deaths were attributed to the Hong Kong 'flu of 1978/79, way in excess of the usual number of expected deaths from 'flu at that time and, incidentally, of the number likely to die from COVID-19; I don't remember aby lockdowns or national emergencies back the,

Now if we consider the usual likely range of such statistics, that is 5% either side of the central point . 5% of 550,000 is, oh how odd,  27,500.  In other words, the claimed excess deaths from COVID -19 due to government action, or inaction, is within the normally expected of statistical variation. The claim is spurious and utterly unprovable, unless the epidemic really does take off and the numbers affected rise much more dramatically.

The biggest worry is that scientists who should know better, led by David King, appear to be trying to spread anti-government propaganda, dressed up as 'better science' than that being followed by their former paymasters. That this has a nasty smell to it is blatantly obvious.  Of course there are different views regarding the road that the government should follow but it is following the one that makes most sense given the demands of health and economy - it benefits no one to have a second bunch of academics claiming superior intelligence, or knowledge, or whatever, going off in a different direction and being given serious media exposure to boot.

COVID-19 is a serious problem, though much more so for some than for others, and the real issue is to how to kill it off.  Arguments about possible numbers of deaths over the next year are entirely academic. What is needed is an approach which recognises that there must be a limit to the health and safety mania that currently pervades our world and an acceptance that risk is a part of life. It seems that some are utterly unwilling to accept such an attitude and these are, presumably, the same people who litter our streets with every type of 'traffic calming' nonsense imaginable, to very little effect.

We need strong leadership, the type that has been lacking since Maggie Thatcher took the reins. Boris Johnson has the credentials but does he have the balls ? It would be very sad if the UK's only female Prime Minister proved to be more masculine than her supposedly far more virile successor. Boris has been far too anonymous so far and he needs to get himself more in the public eye. Of course, his advisors want to keep him away from anything vaguely bad news, but he must be seen to be in control much more than he has been. 

Get out there, be honest and be seen to be in charge, otherwise it will be Prime Minister Starmer in 2024.

ALL LIVES MATTER, NOT JUST BLACK ONES.

Surely no one can argue that a man held down with hugely excessive force and consequently dying is unacceptable. Whether the actions of a police officer in doing this amount to assault, manslaughter or murder is for the courts to decide, but clearly his actions, as well as those of his colleagues who stood by, are a shocking indictment of policing in the United States. That this was followed by film of an elderly man being pushed to the ground by other police, armed to the gills with every kind of para-military paraphernalia, simply adds to the appalling picture of policing in that country.

The first episode concerned a black man, George Floyd, the second a white man whose name has not been blazoned across the media, although both events demonstrated the same arrogant, violent and utterly overbearing attitude of American police. Their actions were directed not just at a black man but at an elderly white man who carried no threat but has found himself in hospital as a result. Perhaps most shockingly of all, most if not all the members of a police squad have now resigned "in solidarity" with their colleagues who have been charged with assault. It seems that they have their own views about what is and is not acceptable behaviour and that these views have nothing to do with upholding the law.

Following the death of George Floyd there have been protests and riots in the United States, which might have been expected, although no one seems to have protested very much about the treatment of the elderly white man. Yesterday there were also protests which turned into a riot in central London, ostensibly about the mistreatment of coloured people in this country but, from brief images on the television, attended by many of the same "rent-a-mob" yobs, including many white faces, who turn up for all such events. British police were attacked and a number ended up needing medical attention. 

What the media and assorted anti-racist organisations seem not to understand is that the behaviour of such crowds as was seen yesterday achieve the exact opposite of their professed aim. They don't seem to understand that the never-ending claims of discrimination create more and more ill-feeling, rather than bringing society together. The truth is that most people of most backgrounds have no problem relating to and accepting each other; problems only arise where particular groups go out of their way to separate themselves, forming violet violent anti-social gangs, or importing alien cultures into the traditional society of the United Kingdom. Of course there are some who will never accept a coloured face and others who will probably never see a white face as anything but that of an oppressor, under any circumstances, but they are a very small minority of our society and do not reflect the views of the population at large.

George Floyd's death was shocking, as was the assault on a harmless elderly man. These events did not happen in this country and yet we have a full blown media response as if they had, as well as mobs on the streets attempting to use them for their own purposes. When drug gangs throughout the UK seem to be run by men of Afro-Caribbean origin and Pakistani or Bangladeshi gangs have abducted and terrorised white girls before forcing them into prostitution, why are there not mobs of white protesters on the streets ? 

It seems that discrimination and anti-racist propaganda only works in one direction. 

CUMMINGS AND GOINGS.

As the furore around Dominic Cummings continues apace, I wonder just how many of "the public" actually give a damn, despite the media claims that public opinion is in favour of him being sacked.

Cummings is a man who would be unknown to "the public" were it not for the media's obsession with him. He is a back-room boy who does not appear on public platforms and does not tell "the public" what we should or should not do; while he may well have influence behind the scenes, we have no direct knowledge of what that influence might be, beyond what the Cummings-hating media and left wing politicians, clergymen and others tell us. 

Yet again today the BBC has trotted out a string of Cummings hating opponents of Boris Johnson and his government to repeat the cry "Cummings must go !" over and over again. We are told that hordes of Conservative MPs are also baying for his blood, but no one reminds us that this is as much about a revolt by the anti-Boris lobby in the party as it is about Cummings. However, we are reminded that others who broke the rules were sacked, or resigned, citing the cases of Neil Ferguson and Catherine Calderwood, but without pointing out that these cases were rather different.

Ferguson invited a  woman with whom he was reportedly in a relationship to visit him at home, while Calderwood had twice taken her family to a holiday home, stayed away from home overnight and spent time on a local beach. In neither case was there any reason for the breach of the regulations other than straightforward lack of concern for the rules. Most importantly, both Ferguson and Calderwood had appeared on screen providing advice to the public about the measures needed to contain the coronavirus epidemic and the importance of maintaining the lockdown.

It is clear that Dominic Cummings isn't liked but the reaction to his misdemeanours is surely very excessive. That our media has now spent days talking about little else and that almost every question from its representatives at Sunday's Downing Street press conference centred on this nonsense, says much about its failure to report the news and manic desire to create it. What "the public" need is proper news and proper analysis, not stories whipped up in a media frenzy. 

It's time to move on.

CUMMINGS MANIA GRIPS THE NATION !

Oh My God !

With the country suffering the worst epidemic for 100 years, government borrowing and debt rising at a rate not seen since the Second World War and crucial decisions about Brexit coming up in the next few weeks, the newspapers and media has found a far worse story on which to concentrate.

Did Dominic Cummings break the rules of lockdown ?!

In fact, it's not just the newspapers that are now obsessing with this story, it's also the various radio and television media too, with the jolly old lefties at the BBC leading the way in trying to get their teeth into that horrid man and his friends in government. They've dredged up anyone they can find who will demand that "Cummings must go", even including some former policeman whose opinion was broadcast this morning, entirely unchallenged, on Radio 4. 

We've been treated to the journalist mainly responsible for the original story, Pippa Crerar of that well known Tory (ha, ha !) newspaper the Mirror, who - Shock, Horror ! - stood by her story and demanded "Cummings must go", again unchallenged on the Andrew Marr programme. Even Marr's quick flick through of the day's newspaper headlines contained inflections which clearly indicated his own views on the matter, while his sneery attitude towards the government's comments on 'campaigning newspapers' seemed to ignore that the fact that newspapers are meant to report the news, not make it. 

Did Cummings break the rules ? I don't know and, frankly, I don't really care. There are far more important things to worry about at the moment and for the media to be treating what is a very minor story as if it is an earth shattering scandal is ludicrous. This is a media which places more importance on its ability to claim the heads of  as many political figures as it can, than on actually reporting serious news. It's the same BBC that reacted so egregiously over allegations levelled against Cliff Richard and others, assuming that the allegations were true rather than simply the unsupported ravings of fanatics and lunatics. 

The furore about Dominic Cummings is a diversion from real news and should be resisted by the government. Whether it will be or not, will be an indicator of the true strength of Boris Johnson and his government.

FORGET MEDIA NEGATIVITY - COVID-19 IS BEING BEATEN.

It's been reported that an opinion poll has suggested that ore people are now dissatisfied with the government's handling of the coronavirus epidemic than are satisfied, the first time this has occurred. It's also reported that the dissatisfaction is most deeply rooted in those under the age of 50, while older people have no such concerns. 

The reporting of these findings was met with a degree of fanfare on Sky News yesterday but, in reality, is it such a surprise ? Firstly, at a time when the number of tests being carried out is rising substantially, the number of new cases and the number of deaths are falling significantly and there has been a degree of easing of the lockdown, the bulk of our media continues to try to find fault and bad news wherever it can. Fed a diet of stories about government failings, most of them irrelevant or mythical, is it any surprise that the most gullible in our society, the young, are lapping it up, while older, more seasoned and rational people treat such stories as nothing but the usual bleatings of journalists desperate to be noticed ?

Of course the government has made mistakes but why does the media refuse to recognize the progress it has also made ? The lockdown is working, despite, it seems, many younger people disliking and increasingly ignoring it; the media really ought to be criticising these ignorant fools and emphasising the need to continue to follow government guidelines, rather than looking for every opportunity to pick holes in the government's approach.

While the government seeks to deal with the epidemic in the best ways possible, the media and others looking for political advantage - Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan among many others - add nothing of value to the debate, making no constructive proposals and just nit-picking. They find it so much easier and more profitable to sit on the side lines and take pot-shots than to offer support or to report all the news, with equal emphasis and prominence. It's akin to the usual media habit of making the original story front page news and the retraction and apology three lines on page 18.

Forget the rubbish being headlined everywhere, I can see real light at the end of the tunnel. For what it's worth, I see real progress and very significant changes over the next 4 to 6 weeks, so much so that life may look very much better in July than it does today.

MEDIA, TRUTH AND POLITICS

Our wonderful media seems to have no interest in truth, only an interest in looking for ways it can criticise and undermine the government in the midst of the current coronavirus crisis. At the forefront of this assault are the BBC (what a surprise) and the other televisual broadcasters, although I've generally found Sky to be a little less biased than others. Indeed, Sky's political editor, Beth Rigby, has risen very much in my estimation by her very measured and reasoned commentary on events.

Rather than look for positives in the daily figures and from the daily news conferences, most have only looked for points to take issue with. Rather than be constructive, they've looked for news stories, which means finding everyone with a complaint and then making a stories out of thir situations. Positive stories are of no benefit unless they can be turned to reflect good on the NHS, ignoring that the NHS is an arm of government.

I truly believe, having spoken at length with a number of friends and family in differnt parts of the country, that the picture as painted by the media bares almost no relation to the reality of life as being experienced by the vast majority of the population. Most people, of all ages, are probably frustrated but accept the need for restrictions on their activities; while the media emphasises the moans of a few, the vast majority just get on with it. The media does us no favours by its continual sniping at authority, disguised as journalistic freedom and in all manner of other nonsensical ways.

It is highly selective and even destructive. The media should be objective, not subjectively biased against one political viewpoint, which it mostly is. The message being given to those who accept the vitriol that spews from the mostly left orientated press is entirely political in nature; it's anti-government. It is undemocratic and unhealthy to our nation. This is unacceptable.

What is needed is to put aside poitical dogma, interests, ambitions and all the rest. We are in the midst of a national crisis and, right or wrong, the government needs to be supported. The time for arguments about strategy, ppe and all the rest of the rubbish, are for later. We are where we are, and that is where we'd have been regardless of who had been in power over the last 80 years, let alone the last 6 months; politics has nothing to do with it. Maybe the current government has made mistakes, maybe not, but they are the ones who've been handed a once in a century problem to solve. What matters is the end result, not the bumps along the road. 

For me, which do I trust more, the apparently bumbling but transparent Boris, or the oily charm of Starmer ? One is real and one is a clone of all other recent political aspirants. I know which one I prefer to lead us in crisis, or at any other time, come to think of it.