Tuesday 5 July 2022


Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear.

Boris Johnson's enemies have been gunning for him at every opportunity almost ever since he became leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. Many supposed infractions have been laid at the door of Mr Johnson quite wrongly although he clearly bears responsibility for some. However, the latest revelations, concerning the former Deputy Chief Whip, surely are the final nail in his coffin.

For months, assorted members of the Government have been sent out to defend a range of claimed offences, usually of a minor nature although sometimes suggesting a degree of duplicity or impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister. The latest scandal revolves not around whether Christopher Pincher behaved badly, which he clearly did, but around what Mr Johnson previously knew about the errant MP, and the extent to which he ignored prior knowledge and even lied about what he knew.

Frankly, the evidence seems clear. Mr Johnson has known for several years that Mr Pincher was a problematic Member of Parliament but still appointed him to a government position. The immediate response from Mr Johnson's office when asked about Mr Pincher's previous history was to deny that he knew anything; within hours, that position has been turned on its head and it's now been shown that there was detailed prior knowledge. Voices from various government sources have done their best to explian all this away, but it is surely nothing but a vain attempt to paper over canyon sized cracks in the Prime Minister's remaining credibility.

As always, it's not the offence which causes problems it's the lies and cover ups. It's often been said that everyone knew of Mr Johnson's difficulties with openness, truth and honesty before he was elected but such an argument can only be trotted out so many times. This occasion is one time too many.

For me, Boris Johnson's time is now up. He has to go as soon as possible, for the good of the Government, Party and Country. 

Sunday 3 July 2022


Once again, the media is full of allegations of sleaze and misconduct amongst Conservative Members of Parliament. Once again, Keir Starmer and his cronies use the situation to call for the resignation of the Prime Minister, Government and anyone else they don't like.

But let's be clear. A number of Conservative MPs have been caught out doing things they shouldn't have, but over the years, members of the other parties have been caught being just as corrupt, immoral, and downright nasty. 

Labour's Barry Gardiner was very recently found to have accepted money from, and to have employed, a Chinese spy. Over the last 10 years, SEVEN Labour MPs have received prison sentences for an assortment of criminal offences - David Chayter, Eric Illsley, Denis MacShane, Fiona Onasanya, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and Claudia Webbe. We can add to this the imprisonment of Chris Huhne, plus some pretty appalling allegations against Huhne's erstwhile colleague Cyril Smith and the very public disgracing of Paddy Ashdown, plus the recent jailing of Natalie McGarry, and there's nothing for either the Liberal Democrats or Scottish Nationalists to be 'holier than thou' about either. 

Members of Parliament behaving badly is nothing new, what is new is the reaction of the increasingly 'outraged' media. Crimes ranging from embezzlement to falsification of expenses claims, perverting the course of justice to sexual misconduct and much more, have been proven against numerous MPs from all parties, not just the Conservatives. Frankly, our representatives in Parliament are every bit as likely to fall foul of the law as are the rest of us, quite possibly more so as they probably have more opportunity and are less likely to believe they will be caught.

Corrupt politicians are nothing new, indeed being at least hypocritical liars is a prerequisite for the job.. They have always existed and always will. They come from all walks of life and all parties. The electorate needs to accept this and move on, as does the media, while sanctimonious public figures such as Starmer should really keep their mouths shut for fear of what is lurking in the darker recesses of their own cupboards.

Sunday 26 June 2022


Is abortion truly a 'human right' ?

The recent ruling of the US Supreme Court overruling the 1963 'Roe v Wade' judgement has been met with horror and not a little aggression by the so-called 'pro-choice' lobby. At the same time, the 'pro-life' lobby are ecstatic. Why is this ?

It seems to me that the 'pro-choice' side see abortion as being little more than an alternative to contraception in many cases, a way for those too careless or stupid to avoid conception in the first place to deal with the rsult of their actions. In some states it seems that this can apply even up to the days before a child would otherwis be delievered, something which seems little short of judicial murder. Of course, there are cases in which a pregnancy may result from criminal circumstances - incest, rape, or whatever, and also those in which it is clear that the foetus may be severely compromised - and such have to be protected against, but how many abortions relate to such instances out of the many thousands carried out every year ?

On the 'pro-life' side, the supposed rights of the foetus are promoted over and above all other considerations; is this reasonable ? In my view, it is not. A foetus is not viable until it has developed to at least 21 weeks, according to the latest medical science. That said, it may be that scientists in the future may develop artificial wombs - might it then be possible to find a way to protect and grow a foetus from a much earlier stage ? If such happens, at what age would a viable life be determined to truly begin ? In my view, this is akin 'to dancing on the head of a pin'.

We are in danger of venturing into the realm of the 'because I can, I must' science'. Such science often denies nature and even reality. If a child was to be grown in an artificial womb, what relationship would it have to its mother, or father ? Would it actually be truly human, or simply the product of a laboratory experiment ? I know that such questions are well beyond the current debate but this may well be where that debate will lead.

Quite simplistically, to use abortion as little more than a means of abortion is unacceptable; If a woman is too stupid, careless or plain lazy to use the assorted methods of contraception available before engaging in sexual activity, more fool her. That said, in past generations the father would have been tracked down and made to bear his share of the responsibility; today we have far better methods to identify such individuals - why do we not use them and ensure that they, not the woman or the state, share the costs and responsibilities of what was a joint action ?

To my simple mind, our world has become far too worried about calling a spade a spade and laying responsibilty where it belongs. Our masters seem to be more worried about causing offence to vociferous minorities than in doing what is right and supporting the largely silent, usually massive, majority. maen and women are responsible for their actions and have to accept responsibilty for them. If their actions result in a pregnancy, they must accept that too and not expect to be bailed out with some sort of all-inclusive, back-up insurance policy. Men can use condoms, women should insist on them, or use the Pill, diaphragm or coil; or perhaps they should all just be more self controlled and less libididinous.

Many years ago, a girl friend of mine became pregant because of our, or my stupidity. She didn't want the baby and had an abortion for which I paid. It was wrong. More recently, a young friend was stupid and became pregnant after a brief affair - she also had an abortion, again it was wrong. Both abortions were about convenience rather than anything else. Both were wrong and were a way of avoiding responsibilty for irresponsible acts. 

Abortion isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but the freedom to access it on demand, in an age when there are so many ways to avoid pregnany in the first place, is.


A couple of months ago I suggested, quite strongly, that appointing Ben Stokes as the captain of the England cricket team, in succession to Joe Root, would be a big mistake. I suggested that what was needed was an outsider rather than another 'one of the boys' - it may well be that I was wrong.

The recent performances of the England team have been little short of revelatory as they've adopted a far more aggressive, and successful, approach than has been seen for many a long year. Of course, the new coac, Brendon McCullum, must have played a big part in this change of attitude but just watching Stokes on the field shows that he's also been a major influence. While Root always seemed to be in pain and rarely appeared to be in real control, rarely engaged with his players on the pitch, Stokes is all action. he moves around with speed and determination, he is clearly in control and gives the appearance of a man who is very happy in his role.

So far, Ben Stokes has very much looked the part. All he has to do now is to continue in the same vein for another 3 or 4 years and make sure that his team performs in similar fashion against stronger sides than the New Zealanders who, in all honesty, have frequently looked bereft of ideas and little match for this rejuvenated England team. If he can do that, then I'll happily accept that I was wrong and he really is the right man for the job.

Wednesday 25 May 2022


The United States of America must surely be the most dysfunctional and sick society the human race has ever seen. Yet again, there's been a massacre at a school, this time of primary school children in Texas, but it could just as easily have been at any school anywhere in the country.

But it's not only the shooting itself which marks the USA out as such an appalling place. This is a nation in which many still seem to believe they're living in the old "Wild West", and see carrying guns around as being a normal and acceptable thing to do. Where else in the world do the population habitually, and legally, walk around their streets with lethal weapons ? The arguments put forward about "Rights" and that its is people and not guns which kill, are specious and nonsensical. In order to bring the country into the real world of the 21st century, rather than having it languish in an imagined world in which Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid continue to hold sway, the ubiquity of guns has to end. Fat chance of that happening any time soon, though, so the killings will continue and the armed police will continue to shoot first and ask questions later, just in case.

At the same time, this nation is the most self-obsessed and vain on our planet while also sporting a vast number of grotesquely obese individuals. Financial inequality is huge, with the rich and famous living lives which are incomprehensible to most; worse is that the rich and famous are often even more self-obsessed and self-serving than the wider population - think only of Depp & Heard or the Duke & Duchess of Montecito and the message is loud and clear. American culture, if 'culture' is what it can be called has infected the rest of the world to such an extent that we are now all caught up in the abomination of 'fast food', ultra-glamourized, ultra-violent, crude and frequently highly offensive film and television while the people who star in, and make vast fortunes from, such rubbish can often be found lecturing the world on the evils of whatever is the latest fad, be it climate change, feeding Africa's starving millions, movements such as 'Black Lives Matter', or anything else. 

In the United Kingdom we have recently been doing much navel gazing about our past and have been beating ourselves about the ears for our supposed shocking Imperial history. Is this not ridiculous, when our country actually spread civilisation around the world and brought an end to slavery almost 200 years ago, while the USA continued to treat its coloured population as little more than slaves into the 1950s and still sees them as second class citizens across much of its extent today. This also comes on the back of the virtual genocide of the indigenous population - the "Red Indians" - which is rarely mentioned.

The USA talks of itself as being the world's leader when it comes to democracy and human rights. In reality it is the home of self-obsession, brutality and violence, crudity, obesity and hypocrisy. In a country which parades its Christian beliefs for all to see, its adherence to true Biblical tenets is almost non-existent. Its jingoism is manifest at every turn and its inability to find a real leader who isn't either a septuagenarian or member of a powerful politcial or financial dynasty is a shocking indictment of its people, a people who are horribly divided by class, colour, celebrity, religion and wealth. 

What a country. How proud its population must be.

Tuesday 17 May 2022


Who on Earth are Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy ?

If they hadn't married two high profile footballers, neither would ever have been heard of. As it is, they're just two horribly spoiled, stupidly rich, talentless morons. 

The only people who give a damn about what one of them said or did to the other are similarly idiotic, pathetic people who live their lives through the celebrity of others. 

So why is the media so obsessed with the so-called "Wagatha Christie" case ? Why are news bulletins and newspapers, which ought to be concentrating on actual news, spending so much time and effort reporting on this tripe ? If the cretins who populate the likes of 'Facebook', 'Twitter', 'Instagram' and the rest of the brain dead world of 'social media' want to waste their lives lapping up every last drop of bile being poured out by the two pathetic women, let them, but don't inflict the utter rubbish on me.

The sooner these ridiculous creatures return to their world of idle luxury, surrounded by their like-minded 'friends' and shut away from the real world, the better. 

Sunday 15 May 2022


Lewis Hamilton must be one of the most self obessessed, egotistical people on this planet. 

Having had by far the best car, he's won numerous Grand Prix races and world championships; many see this as being proof that he's the best driver there's ever been. However, he's now coming a fairly poor second to his 'rookie' team mate, George Russell, and he doesn't like it. In the past, he was beaten to a world title by his then team mate, Nico Rosberg, which he also didn't like and accused his team bosses at Mercedes of favouring their fellow German and giving him better treatment. Now, as he fails to beat Russell, he's blaming it on his team's failure to apply the right strategy.

This is a man who, in the past, has complained when his team have advised him of what strategy is best and also when they haven't, but only when things haven't worked out in his favour. He's whinged when they've left decisions up to him and when they haven't; he's ignored their advice and then whinged that they didn't tell him what he should do with sufficient certainty.

The truth is that Hamilton will blame anyone and everyone for his failures, except himself, of course. That he's now being beaten by a newcomer to the team and relative newcomer to the sport irks him; that it may demonstrate that he's not actually the greatest driver ever in Formula 1 racing irks him still more. This is a man who thrives on attention and adulation, who has made a point of being a celebrity and has disported himself accordingly. That all of this may be collapsing around him is unbearable.

Perhaps it's time for this arroagnt and annoying man to take a leaf out of the book of some of his predecessors, none of whom have felt it necessary to adopt a high profile celebrity lifestyle. No previous Formula 1 champion has adorned themself with jewelley or taken overtly political stances, as Hamilton has done. 

There's talk that he may be considering retiring from the sport. Let's hope it's not just talk and he's soon gone.