ROTHERHAM ABUSE SIGNALS YET MORE FAILURE.

Year after year, we hear stories of the abuse of children, whether it be within families or on a more widespread and organised basis. Every year we are also told, by those in authority, that they didn't know, they did what they could, they will learn lessons, it won't happen again and so on. Every year, it happens again.

Today we've heard of the organised and long term abuse of children in the town of Rotherham. It seems that some 1,400 children are known to have been abused over the period from 1997 to 2013; once again, we've heard the same old platitudes from the 'experts' and others in authority. The local Police and Crime Commissioner, who was the local councillor with specific responsibility for children's services between 2005 and 2010, has refused calls for him to resign from his current post, saying that, in effect, he has no responsibility and that fault lies only with others who failed to tell him what was happening.

In the wake of the revelations about Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and others, this is yet another tale of the failures of social services, the police and local councils to deal with the most shocking of offences. In this case, it seems that the police ignored complaints from victims while council officials covered things up, more fearful for their jobs than for the abused. It also seems that much of the abuse was carried out by organised gangs of men of Pakistani origin and that a fear of being labelled as 'racist' was a prime concern for those in authority who did nothing.

It is surely a dreadful indictment of our country that we have sunk to such a level. No one dares move for fear of being accused of being 'racist', 'sexist', homophobic, etc., etc. We have become so determined to prize the mythical 'equality' above all that we shy away from treating everyone the same; in fact, we go out of our way to make special exceptions for those of supposed 'minority' or 'disadvantaged' groups and allow them to, literally, get away with murder.

I don't like what is happening to my country and I especially don't like the vast influx of foreigners who don't share my language or culture, but I am not a racist. I also don't much like the actions of the more extrovert members of the homosexual 'community', but that does not make me homophobic. Reporting criminal acts by foreigners, homosexuals or women doesn't make me guilty of an '-ism' or a phobia either, and yet senior figures in Rotherham and elsewhere have been so afraid that they did nothing in the face of the blatant and rampant abuse of children.

When will this sorry little country of ours come to its senses ?

MEN'S MAGS, CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL.

Not very long ago, the do-gooders who rule our society succeeded in having 'men's magazines' removed from display in most newsagents. It was claimed that such magazines were demeaning to women and damaging to children, while pandering to the baser instincts of men. Whether or not such claims were justified does not matter, those who seek to control our lives won the day.

The next target of these control freaks was cigarettes. After much huffing and puffing, they succeeded in having cigarettes banned from pubs and clubs, public venues, offices, and so on, regardless of whether the people frequenting such places cared one way or the other. They managed to have lurid and ghoulish images daubed on cigarette packets and eventually had them locked away behind shutters in our shops. The only thing they haven't achieved is an out and out ban on the sale of tobacco products which would, of course, have far too great an effect on the government's income to ever be allowed, however much damage they cause.

I fully expected the attack on smoking to be followed by a similar attack on alcohol and, lo and behold, today it's started. A group of MPs has issued a report demanding that the government takes action on alcohol misuse. It wants warnings on bottles and a reduction in the limit for drivers, among its 10 so-called 'recommendations'. There is no room for personal freedom and responsibility in such demands, it is all about 'society's needs' and these people have set themselves up as the ones who know exactly what it is that society needs.

How long will it be before bottles of alcohol are required to have plain packaging or, worse still, the same type of imagery as is required for cigarettes ? How long before alcoholic offerings have to be hidden from view ? How long before we have new rules regarding age limits for the consumption of alcohol or where it can be consumed ? And what will be the next target of our controlling, do-gooding masters ?

If we are to be free, we must reject this nonsense and demand that our politicians get back to governing the country, and not our lives. If we do not, we may as well forget about democracy and personal freedom and just accept the dictatorship which those in power would rather enjoy.

KADCYLA : TOO COSTLY BY HALF.

Some people seem to think that the NHS is nothing but a bottomless pit which has to spend whatever is asked on whatever they want.

The drug 'giant' Roche' has recently developed a new product which they've named 'Kadcyla'. It is claimed that this drug can extend the lives of some breast cancer sufferers by an average of just under 6 months at a cost of £90,000 per patient; unsurprisingly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has refused to recommend that the NHS makes this drug available except in specific instances. Equally unsurprisingly, the breast cancer lobby is not happy.

Breast cancer is always a very emotive subject and any refusal to treat patients with the latest wonder drug is always publicised as an assault upon 'women's rights' or some such nonsense. Regardless of the cost, lobby groups demand that everything possible has to be done to extend the lives of sufferers by a year, a few months, weeks or even days. They pay no attention to the myriad of other demands placed on the NHS and think only of what they want; they give no thought as to the source of the NHS's funds but simply demand that whatever they want must be provided.

Such issues occur regularly but nearly always in relation to women's health; it is rare if not unheard of for anyone to make vociferous demands in respect of men. Why is this ? Why is it that women's health is treated as being such a 'high-profile' matter while men's is largely ignored, other than for an occasional mention of prostate cancer, a killer for which I've yet to hear of any ludicrously expensive drugs being developed ?

To demand that the NHS should spend close to £100,000 per patient in order to provide less than 6 months of life, the quality of which may be debatable, is madness. The people who are making such demands need to wake up to the realities of the world and understand that just wanting something doesn't mean they can have it. Or are they really so infantile in their outlook that they can't even see this simple piece of common sense ?

LINEKER'S APPEAL MISSES THE TARGET.

As with most things these days, governments seem to have no idea as to what should be prioritised and what put on the 'back-burner'.

Over the last couple of weeks, the BBC and, no doubt, other media outlets, have been attempting to pick the pockets of viewers, listeners and readers with appeals aimed at helping the poor children of Brazil. The latest appeal that I've heard had former footballer Gary Lineker begging for money on Radio 4, using his most earnest tones of voice. While many may be conned into sending money to the 'ABC Trust' appeal, I find it unbelievably offensive.

'Action for Brazil's Children' has been around since 1998 and apparently tries to help the hordes of children who spend their lives as homeless drug addicts and thieves on the streets of Brazil's cities, while being run from offices in Bury St Edmund's, Suffolk. The organisation operates as a UK charity, therefore benefiting from a range of tax benefits, and has several high profile, and wealthy, patrons; it's founder is American born Jimena Paratcha who appears to have found a vocation to help children throughout Latin America, though she is now living in Sussex and concentrating on Brazilian children.

While this appeal is making the most of Brazil's recent place in our headlines, everyone seems to be ignoring the simple fact that the Brazilian government has spent many, many millions on creating the infrastructure needed for the staging of the FIFA World Cup and will spend a vast amount more, at least a few billions, on its preparations for the 2016 Olympic Games. Given that Brazil has a manifestly corrupt society and huge numbers of poor and homeless children, wouldn't all of this money be better spent on dealing with the corruption and providing homes, schools and education for them rather than on grandiose schemes which are principally about the glorification of the nation's political leaders ?

The 'ABC Trust' seems to have laudable aims but, as with all charities, one tends to wonder how much of the money raised goes on administration, how much falls victim to corruption and how much eventually finds its way to the cause for which it was raised. Equally, one wonders why the Brazilian government prefers to spend the equivalent of billions of dollars on sporting events than on solving its societal problems and helping its many people who live in abject poverty.

The simple question that I ask myself is "Is it my responsibility to help ?" The simple answer, in this case, is an emphatic "No". While the Brazilian government does nothing to end the corruption in its society and  wastes billions on frippery, I won't give a penny and neither should anyone else.

ROLF HARRIS GUILTY; WHO'S NEXT ?

Following on from Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford, we now have Rolf Harris convicted of an assortment of sexual offences against young people. Additionally, there have been others who've been acquitted for lack of adequate evidence, the on-going saga of 'Gary Glitter' and the allegations against former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. Who will be next ?

There can be no doubt that some people in positions of power and influence have abused those positions in particularly nasty ways. That those brought to account in recent times have all been connected with very public and high profile jobs and yet were able to carry on their activities unchallenged for many years is a shocking indictment of the way in which our society has operated. People knew or, at the very least, suspected that things were 'not quite right' but did nothing. These people should also be in the dock, answering for their lack of action.

One suspects that more culprits will emerge as time goes by and the media will indulge in more hand wringing. That it is the media which was probably most culpable in failing to identify the activities of these perverted individuals over a period of many years seems to be ignored; indeed, the perpetrators so far brought to book appear to have been almost exclusively employed in aspects of the media. The facts suggest that the media is a major part of the problem, populated as it is by people with large egos, great influence and plenty of opportunity. 

Who will save us and our children from the all-encompassing and disgusting attentions of the media and its revolting inhabitants ? 

UKIP HAVE THE REST RUNNING SCARED.

The recent election results now have everyone looking around for reasons why no one should vote for UKIP ever again, why their success is transitory, and why they will be unable to make any progress at next year's General Election. The very fact of the efforts in this direction shows just how scared the other parties are.

UKIP did not win the Newark by-election but then, realistically, they never could. What they did was to get 26% of the vote and reduce the Conservative majority by some 10,000; that's no small beer. The Labour vote declined and the Liberals were all but wiped out, having their worst by-election result since WW2. Of course, by-elections are not General Elections, but the message is clear; the people have had enough of the same old party political and largely meaningless rhetoric.

The truly frightening thing is that the political hierarchy simply has not understood the message. Across Europe, the people have expressed dissatisfaction and yet the politicians have largely continued to ignore them and carried on down the same old path, towards an 'ever closer union'. The leading candidate for the top job in the EU is a man whose best days are well behind him and is a committed federalist, Jean Claude Juncker; no one seems to be listening.

David Cameron continues to spout the twaddle about renegotiation and his supporters talk about the certainty of success; others, including the US President, tell us that leaving the EU would be at least problematic but might well spell disaster. Gloom and Doom is the message should we dare to leave this beleaguered organisation.

Numbers are thrown around. Lost jobs in their millions, lost trade in the billions; none of it substantiated and none of it real. The truth is that the EU is a vast and unnecessary bureaucracy and leaving it would be a huge relief for our country. Yes, there would be some issues to resolve but mostly it would be a far bigger problem for the rest of Europe than for the UK. We remain one of the biggest economies in the world and a major financial centre; leaving the EU would do little to change either of these while relieving us of a vast array of intrusive and controlling legislation.

Who needs straight cucumbers, open borders or economic and foreign policies determined by countries with which we have nothing in common ? It's simple - we don't. Let's get out while we still can, notwithstanding the interference of a socialist US President who has no interest but that of his own country in mind.

NIGEL FARAGE : MAN OF THE PEOPLE

You always know when politicians feel threatened because that's the only time they show any real passion about anything.

In the last few weeks, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, plus an assortment of their lieutenants, have come out swinging at their nemesis, Nigel Farage. The UKIP leader really has got under their skins and has finally been seen as a genuine threat to the cosy world which the three big parties have had to themselves for many years. In recent weeks, every slight failing of UKIP, Farage or any of their members has been pounced upon in order to show what a nasty lot they really are; every opportunity has been taken to denigrate them in every possible way. In fact, it's been quite interesting to see how the campaigns of the 'Big 3' have been focussed much more on decrying UKIP than in putting forward much in the way of meaningful and coherent policies of their own.

Thus far, Farage and his party have emerged relatively unscathed from the attacks against them, probably because the general public are only too well aware that much of the anti-UKIP rhetoric is simple 'politicking'. Last Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' carried a report which, perhaps, summed up the real problem for the main parties and perhaps explains why they are so terrified of UKIP. According to it, Gillian Duffy, the woman branded a bigot by Gordon Brown, has said that Labour needs a straight-talking leader who is comfortable drinking a pint to reconnect with working class voters. She apparently went on to add that Ed Miliband is a 'privileged' career politician who lacks the authenticity of Nigel Farage.

Mrs Duffy is not the type of voter anyone would expect to come out with a good word about Mr Farage, but she did, and with a swipe at Miliband along the way. It's also undoubtedly true that her words are equally applicable to Cameron and Clegg, both of whom are from privileged backgrounds and neither of whom has ever had a real job in their lives; neither has any real connection to the people  they expect to vote for them. The one man who seems 'real' in the political dogfight of the day is Nigel Farage.

 

Frankly, Mrs Duffy has hit the nail on the head.