MURDER IS RARE : MURDER OF WOMEN EVEN RARER

While the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard was an appalling crime, we have yet to find out any of the underlying details. Was she targeted or just unlucky ? Did she have any previous connection with her murderer ? Was the man accused actually the murderer ? What was the motive ?

Given the huge volume of unknowns, the reaction of some members of the public, almost entirely of the 'female activist' variety, has been utterly unbelievable, even idiotic. Indeed, the way in which some people have reacted to every high profile such incident in recent times has become morbid and ridiculous in the extreme. Flowers left in huge rotting piles for local authorities to eventually clear away, candle lit vigils, protest marches and other displays of supposed public grief, often no more than opportunities for those with specific political aims to gain publicity for their causes.

Murder is rare. In the year to March 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) there were 695 homicides in England and Wales, a figure which includes the 39 illegal would-be immigrants who were found in a lorry at Grays in Essex. The numbers can be broken down to 506 murders of men, an increase from 422 in 2019, and 188 of women, a reduction from 225 in the previous year. The total can be expressed as being under 12 murders per million of population, hardly an epidemic and surely not worthy of the ludicrous reaction and, of course, men are 3 times more likely to be murdered than women.

Although most of the victims of homicide were white, there were 105 murders amongst the black population, a rate of just under 50 per million of population, and 120 in other minority ethnic groups. Overall, 142 of the victims were in the 16-24 age group and 275 were killed by a sharp instrument such as a knife.

Women are considerably more likely to be the victims of domestic violence, with nearly half of all adult female victims being killed in such occurrences, the number being 81 in the year to March 2020. However, this was the lowest number recorded since the relevant data was  first collected in 1977 and does not support the outlandish claims of feminist campaigners such as the Labour Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips, whose implications regarding the murders of women at the hands of men simply do not stand scrutiny; indeed, they are little short of outright lies.

While interviewing Phillips on his Sunday morning programme, Andrew Marr allowed her to make claims unchallenged and simply accepted her overall premise. Even when the National Statistician appeared, Marr's questioning continued along the same lines and there was no attempt to bring any balance to the situation. We were told that there is huge under-reporting of crimes against women but there was no consideration as to whether the same applied to men. Indeed, does anyone in authority actually care about  unwelcome homosexual approaches, female bosses targeting male employees, punch-ups between men or even situations in which men are the humiliated victims of domestic abuse ? The answer seems to be no. In order to become a cause célèbre, victims need to be female or black.

The abduction and murder of Sarah Everard is a very rare event and yet we have the media conniving in the creation of a culture of fear amongst women. Women have been accosted on the streets by broadcasters determined to find anyone who claims to be frightened for their life in the light of the murder and yet seem to have made no effort to be balanced in their reporting. When we know more, it is quite likely that we will discover that Sarah Everard was not the victim of a random attack and that these now terrified women actually have nothing to be terrified about.

If anyone should be worried, it's the men, mostly white men, who are 3 times more likely to be the victims of murder and are much more likely to be murdered by friends, acquaintances or absolute strangers outside of the home. In reality, women are much more safe when outside than are their male counterparts, who are 4 times more likely to be killed while going about their daily, or nightly, business.

Despite the media headlines and claims of crazed feminists, men are not evil any more than are women. There are good and bad in both sexes and both have their share of very nasty people. Perhaps there are more really bad men than women, which is no doubt a consequence of genetic differences, but the modern drive to manufacture an entirely imagined environment in which women are victims and men the evil perpetrators of all manner of shocking crimes against them is simply wrong. We are assailed by wholly unsubstantiated claims that are simply accepted by media and politicians alike, with little apparent scrutiny but lots of subsequent intrusive and frequently insane legislation. 

If men don't wake up and start fighting back, very soon, they will soon find themselves having to prove their innocence, rather than their female accusers needing to prove their guilt. 

MORGAN SIGNALS THE END OF FREE SPEECH.

Piers Morgan's outburst on television yesterday morning was undoubtedly wrong, but surely not because of its content but simply because it was inappropriate for a television presenter to express his personal views in such a manner. 

When Naga Munchetty made her personal views about US President Donal Trump known in similarly inappropriate fashion, she was initially told off by her bosses who then caved in after being criticised by other coloured 'celebrities' and cleared Munchetty of any wrong-doing. 

Piers Morgan has been forced to resign following his remarks and has been the subject of huge criticism from the coloured hordes - his effective sacking will not be reversed. Where is the equality in this ?

The difference between these two events seems to be that Munchetty was criticising a white man for his supposed racist attitudes while Morgan was taking issue with the wholly unsubstantiated claims that a coloured woman was making against the Royal Family.

Morgan clearly has no time for Meghan Markle, aka the Duchess of Sussex, who appears to be a woman on a mission, that mission being to enrich herself in any way that she can. Unsubstantiated claims of racism, damaged mental health, lack of support and so on, as well as a wholly untrue claim about her son being refused a title, have been lapped up by some as if they were the Word of God, accepted as true without a second thought. Those with a more forensic brain have been more circumspect.

Markle dragged her unsuspecting husband off to California as part of a planned manoeuvre. Having claimed that the media in the UK was being intrusive , unfair, racist - you name it - and claiming that she needed to get out of the spotlight, what has she done as soon as she's free to do it ? Arranged to go on television with America's biggest chat show host and 'bared all'. No doubt choreographed and scripted, this 'interview' was nothing but a sham from start to finish. There was no 'interview', it was simply an opportunity to allow Markle to come across as a victim, a poor little hard-done-by coloured girl who'd been badly treated by her nasty white in-laws.

There is no doubt that we live in shocking times. Anyone who claims to have been subjected to an assortment of supposedly discriminatory actions appears to demand instant belief and attention, unless they are white, male and heterosexual. Those who are coloured, female or anything but heterosexual are free to make claims and demand that those who have offended them are punished, most often for wholly imagined 'crimes'. 

Before her television appearance, I had no interest whatsoever in Markle or her silly husband - neither is of any importance in the real world and we in Britain are well rid of them. However, since that incredible outpouring of pure bile I can only say that I now utterly despise this self-serving, hypocritical, disingenuous and contemptible bitch. Her claims make no sense and even her own actions refute some of them.

Piers Morgan was exercising his right to free speech which surely he was entitled to do. Or perhaps not, after all, he is a white, heterosexual male and he was criticising a poor, hard-done-by coloured woman. How frightening for the rest of the normal, white, male population. and for all those who now find themselves considering every word they may utter for fear of causing 'offence', be it racist, sexist, homophobic or any other of the myriad of possibilities.

Free speech is dead.

MEGHAN MARKLE - POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL.

Now that the great exposé is over, the media is having a great time analysing it and telling us how devastating and 'explosive' it was and how the Palace will have to respond to the supposed revelations.

But wait.

How much of the 'revelations' are truly anything but unsubstantiated claims from someone who wants attention ? Knowing that the Queen and other senior members of the Royal family, of which Harry is now a divorced member, will never respond in any depth and will certainly not enter into anything which may end up in court, the former Meghan Markle was free to say anything she liked, driven on by Oprah Winfrey feigning incredulity at every turn, in order to feed the insatiable demand of American audiences for scandalous and inflammatory stories involving claimed oppression and victimisation.

Markle did not name any names, perhaps because she really had no evidence, she simply made allegations. She acted her part, largely for the American audience strangely enthralled by this bit part actress, to perfection - the sad expression, slight break in the voice, hint of a tear - while poor Harry found himself having to play a supporting role as the mentally scarred husband. 

Markle is claimed to be a very intelligent woman who has a smart business brain. Are we now to believe that she really did not know what joining the Royal family entailed ? Did she not understand the role she would be expected to fulfill ? Or did she never have any intention of being a working member of the Royal family, instead using her Royal connection as a means to an end, a means to enrich herself through her far more malleable connections in the world of Californian celebrity ? The alacrity with which she vanished from these shores, initially with some nonsense about settling in Canada (Never Going To Happen !) before trotting back home to Hollywood, surely speaks volumes.

This whole sorry saga is nothing but a publicity stunt, one that will no doubt cause huge uproar and provide a huge boost to Markle's popularity, at least in those parts of society that like this sort of manufactured bilge. In the rest of the world, that part which has little time for salivating over the lives of  American celebrities, there will be little appetite for such tripe. Of course, there will be more shows, more publicity (for a couple who reportedly left the UK to avoid the media !) and oodles of cash, but there will be no invitations to attend Royal functions and no Royal patronage. If it was up to me, I'd even revoke her title of Duchess, to which she has shown nothing but utter contempt.

One wonders what will happen at future Royal events such as funerals, weddings, even coronations. Will Harry attend on his own, or will Markle come too, the unwanted guest whose very presence is a painful embarrassment ? What about their children ? Or would such occasions actually be opportunities to make even more of a meal about poor little Meghan and her claimed harsh treatment at the hands of the nasty Royal family ?

What a mess; what a sad, sad mess. This is bound to end badly and far worse for Harry than for anyone else. 

BMA AND RCN GREED IS SHOCKING.

The appalling greed and selfishness of some is almost unbelievable.

At a time when hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs, many thousands more may yet do so and more than 120,000 have lost their lives, health service unions have decided to whinge about their pay. Notwithstanding that there will be no pay rise this year for the police, fire service, local council workers and many others, the representatives of some of the highest paid in our society are demanding yet more. 

The doctors' union, the British Medical Association, none of whose members can be considered poor while many are simply very wealthy, wants more. The Royal College of Nursing, another trade union despite its fancy name, wants more and yet its members already have average pay in the region of £34,000, well in excess of the national average for all employees. If anyone has a genuine gripe it may be the members of Unison, the union which represents the lower paid echelons of NHS staff, though even here can they really demand money with menaces in the face of the death and mayhem wrought by the COVID-19 epidemic ?

Doctors, nurses and the rest have chosen their careers for an assortment of reasons, pay no doubt being one of them though very unlikely to have been the driving force. That workers in these professions have been put under pressure by recent events is undeniable, but so has the rest of society. When those who work in the health care sector sign on, do they expect to have it easy ? Do they expect it to be a simple 9 to 5 job with no problems ? If they do, they are deluded.

People who need hospital care are sick or injured; some will be very sick or very badly injured, some will need very intensive care and many will die. While COVID-19 has brought about a high level of illness in a short period of time, hospitals have actually had many fewer other patients to deal with due to the various protective measures put in place. Overall, the volume of patients being cared for, and the pressure on staff, has surely been no greater, and maybe even less, than is usual.

Doctors nurses and the other health sector workers chose their careers and are rewarded for their work, some very greatly so.  They are not some special breed, indeed most are average contributors while some are very good and an equal number are pretty poor. It is time that the national obsession with the NHS was ended and for people to realise that those who work in it are simply doing jobs that they chose to do for whatever reasons they may have had at the time of joining. They are not Gods, they are workers like the rest of us. 

It is also time for the unions that represent these workers to wind their necks in at a time of national crisis, not to be threatening strike action over unsustainable demands for yet more money from an already grossly over-stretched public purse. After all, who will ultimately be picking up the bill but the rest of us who have no pay rise, no job and yet are faced with higher and higher taxes at every turn.

HER MAJESTY v HARRY : HM WINS BY A KNOCKOUT !

Can there ever be a more clear demonstration of the difference between the approaches of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her errant grandson, Prince Harry ?

While the almost 95-year old Queen took to the airwaves yesterday to offer encouragement to those who are nervous about accepting a vaccination against the COVID-19 virus, Prince Harry has been seen giving an interview to some US chat show host while riding around Los Angeles on an open topped bus. The entire purpose of the interview seems to have been to offer a defence of his decision to exile himself from both the United Kingdom and his former Royal responsibilities.

The Queen referred to the spirit of co-operation that remains an essential part of the attitude of those who experienced the nightmare reality of World War 2; Harry talked about the media hounding him and the effect this supposedly had on his 'mental health'. In other words, while Her Majesty talked of the wider world, Harry talked about himself and bemoaned his own fate.  

Anyone who truly believes that being a subject of intrusive press stories can be compared with the horrors of brutal warfare needs to think again. Being subjected to nightly bombing, doodlebugs and V2 rocket attacks, as were the populations of London and numerous other British cities must have been utterly terrifying; somehow, those who avoided being blown apart, including the Queen herself, survived without needing to claim that they needed 'mental health support'. Basically, they got on with things, helped their neighbours or were helped by them, played their parts and rebuilt their lives. Yes, Harry has experienced warfare with the British army but his experiences were of his own choosing and not those endured by the helpless civilian victims of enemy bombing.

If Harry didn't like what was being written or said about him, he and his wife could have closed their assorted social media accounts and toughened up. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me", should have been their motto. Instead, they chose to run off to his wife's former celebrity life in a misguided belief that this would safeguard them and they could then carry on much as before but also make oodles of cash on the side. How wrong they were; the money will flow in and they'll be US style celebrities but the kudos of being major players within the Royal Family has gone.

For Harry now to keep in the media spotlight, he will have to continue to appear on American chat shows and in other US media, something which will bring its own risks of insults, abuse and approbation. Instead of appearing in full regalia in controlled events, he will have to rely on the generosity of hosts of all sorts. As for his wife, she is now in her element, an  "A-list" US celebrity but for how long ? Once the furore over their recent changes of position dies down, what will the future hold for Harry, whose previous status far exceeded that of any grade of mere 'celebrity' ? Once the shine goes and interest wanes, what next ?

 

HARRY'S KID FOR PRESIDENT !!

 Wow ! I'm so not excited.

Apparently Prince Harry - remember him, the ginger one ? - and his American wife are expecting another child. Whoopee ! I can hardly wait.

Yet more column inches in the American, not to say British, press, yet more chances to sell the story to whatever magazines, websites and whatever else there is these days and make oodles of cash. Pity the poor little creature that eventually pops out and has to live their life with some God-awful name dreamt up to satisfy the media and cash, hungry retinue that now surrounds the former Royals.

Truly, Harry must be the least intelligent member of the Royal family in not just living memory but almost for centuries, leaving aside any who may have been genuinely disadvantaged. He has surrendered his entire former life - military titles, patronages, regular tea with HM etc. - to live as no more than the adjunct of a publicity seeking former B-list actress whose one true desire in life is to be an A-List" celebrity". 

Of course, the now effectively exiled couple will make oodles of money by hawking themselves around the United States, a nation which remains fascinated by celebrity of any sort and Royalty in particular. Any child born to the couple in the United States would be eligible to take political office and, eventually, put themselves forward as a candidate for the Presidency. There can be little doubt that any such candidacy would be on the Democratic ticket but what would the electorate make of a candidate who threatened to turn the clock back nearly 300 years ? Would Algernon Adolphus or Persephone Anastasia Cambridge, 7-greats-grandchild of the last King of America, hit the right mark ? I doubt it, but then has such doubt ever stopped anyone running for that job ? What's in a name anyway ?

So watch out kid, some abomination awaits you ! Ariana Britney Kylie Elton, or Elon Tesla Bubblewrap Moonshot Cambridge, must be possibilities. But then American Presidents have not been known for their adherence to normal naming conventions - Joseph Biden's middle name is not exactly usual at "Robinette", poor Gerald Ford was a 'Rudolph', Warren Harding suffered 'Gamaliel' and there was of course, Ulysses Simpson Grant, who may well have felt as did the recipient of the Johnny Cash song "Boy named Sue", that he had something to prove.

Anything that appeals to the masses of the day, God help you. But you will be able to claim descent from the King who gave your country its independence, albeit only after a bitter war, in the first place, and you will have the essential Irish ancestry so beloved of US Presidents through your great granny's family. What price President Elon Cambridge in 2064 ? Or President Ariana Cambridge in 2068 ?

But then wait.

Perhaps Harry isn't as naive as I think he is. Perhaps this is all part of a carefully orchestrated plot to regain the lost American colonies and capture the throne for Harry's descendants. Harry's son, or daughter, becomes US President and promotes the idea of "strengthening" the "special bond" between the USA and UK. That then develops into a movement to abolish the Presidency and accept the UK's titular Monarch as head of state; the USA gets an all powerful House of Representatives, that is moderated only by a watered-down Senate (a copy of the House of Commons / House of Lords arrangement), instead of an annoying and vacillating President. Better, or worse, still, perhaps the British might be inveigled into accepting President Cambridge as their new King or Queen, ousting Harry's brother and his line.

It starts to look possible, even attractive, from an American viewpoint. No more Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, no more Richard Nixon; at the very least, someone at the top with real experience - let's not forget that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been around longer than any British Prime Minister, any US President and, frankly, most of the rest of us are likely to be. She has 70 years of experience at the highest level of government, she has met every American President since Herbert Hoover (1929 - 1933) except for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, that's 13 and counting; her knowledge of world affairs over the last 80 years is unparalleled. Even once her time is up, the monarchy will continue to have a similar rein over modern affairs and will provide a steadying influence as a counter to the more extreme proclivities of "here today, gone tomorrow" politicians.

Stranger things have happened.

MENTAL ILLNESS IS A MYTH

In the past, when things got tough, people buckled down and got on with it. 

Many men died well before their allotted "three score years and ten", leaving widows with young families; many women died in or soon after childbirth, leaving husbands with gaggles of children to care for. Many children died in infancy or early childhood from diseases that are now almost unknown or, at least, are easily curable. 

Populations suffered through famines and plagues and wars raged around them; poverty, genuine poverty rather than the invented poverty of today, was rife; people lived in constant fear of offending some overlord. During all this horror, people continued to get on with their lives without the help of armies of psychiatrists and psychologists, without the input of hordes of counsellors, social workers and other, often self-appointed, mental health 'experts'. the world continued to turn and dramatic advances were made - the Renaissance, the opening up of the continents, the Industrial Revolution, discoveries in science and medicine, even the beginning of the Space Age - all of this happened while people managed without the assistance of the mental health brigades. 

Today, our society is top heavy with those who see every slight deviation from some invented 'norm' as being a sign of 'mental health problems'. The airwaves and media are full of people who never stop talking about the 'problems' faced by some group in society, be it school children, 'the young', 'first time mothers', 'single mothers', 'the bereaved, 'the elderly', 'the disabled', 'minorities' - you name it and there's someone offering to help them "deal with" their "mental health issues".

I have no doubt that some people do have genuine problems. Some people do have difficulty coping with everyday life but the vast majority, given respite from the constant avalanche of warnings, advice and offers of help about their "mental health problems", would find their own ways to survive as their parents, grandparents and hundreds of generations before them did. 

We are told that today's world is so fast, that life is so hard, that things are so different from the past that it's not surprising that so many can't cope; that our school children are under so much pressure that it's not surprising that they suffer breakdowns. That people are "so depressed" by lockdown and the resultant inability to see our friends. 

What utter poppycock.

All of this drivel is nothing but the invention of those who make their livings from 'helping' and 'supporting' those who are supposedly afflicted with the mostly mythical array of "mental health problems" that these same experts have also invented. We now live in a world in which virtually every single one of us could be 'diagnosed' with some sort of "mental health problem" if only we'd take the trouble to seek out help. It is a strange application of Parkinson's Law which itself states that work expands to fill the available time - now it's mental problems that expand exponentially to occupy the ever increasing hordes of mental health 'professionals'.

This is all very perverse. As our society has developed, we've created a world in which image is all important and one in which self aggrandisement assumes gigantic proportions. We are deluged with meaningless terms such as diversity and equality, true history is rejected in favour of some re-imagining of the past based on supposed modern values, and all of this in pursuit of ludicrous notions dreamt up by a band of self-serving 'experts' with axes to grind.

One of the principal consequences of this 'new world' has been the opportunity to invent new problems from which we can all suffer. Anyone who now feels a little left out or sad, anyone who is on the sharp end of some unpleasant words, indeed anyone who is slightly different, is encouraged to seek 'help'. This 'help' will inevitably involve 'counselling' and the reinforcement of whatever bad feelings the seeker had; soon, there will be a need for more 'expert help', followed by pills and potions. A self fulfilling diagnosis that serves the purposes of those providing the 'help' far more than it does those of the person seeking it.

There were bullies when I was at school and we survived because we didn't hear all of the rubbish spouted about bullying today. We got on with our lives, regardless of the bullies' activities. Of course, we didn't have the internet to worry about, instead we went out, to the local park with our real friends, rather than getting worked up by the unkind words of some virtual 'friends'. If anyone said mean things, we relied on the truth of the old, old adage "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words can never harm me".

Oh for a return to those days, when whingeing about what someone had said was met with derision. Today we have thought crimes, invented to 'safeguard' every minority under the sun as well as women, although there are no such laws to protect men. Crimes can be deemed to have been committed not in actuality but because the supposed victim feels aggrieved; can this really be just ? If a white man kicks a coloured man, the crime will be considered to be 'racially aggravated', regardless of the offender's actual motives; if the boot is on the other foot, race is rarely, if ever, considered to have been relevant. Why is this ?

Our world is a mess, largely of our own making, although that making has been accomplished by only a tiny minority while the rest of us have sat around and done little to influence things. Far too many of us have become comfortable and lazy, no longer even bothering to do our own shopping and relying, instead, on retailers to deliver everything from milk to medicines to our doors. We live on our computers, in whatever form they take, addicted to Facebook or TikTok, Instagram or WhatsApp, or whatever is the latest fad. Far too many of us open ourselves up to the 'online abuse' which seems to be the cause of so much of the imagined 'mental health problems' experienced by the younger generations. 

We have created our own 'Hell on Earth' and the psych-fraternity love it. Now we need to rein this back, stop dishing out the empathy, sympathy and pills and start being rather more honest. Facebook and its like are pure evil and serve no purpose other than the enrichment of their owners. Thought crimes have no place in our world. People are not all equal and men and women are different. Sex and gender are the same thing and are not interchangeable. It is perfectly reasonable to say that homosexuality is wrong, but utterly unreasonable to be vilified for saying it.

Sadly, I see little chance that enough people will see the light before it;s far too late; indeed, it may well be too late already.