CORBYN'S "NEW CENTRE GROUND" SPELLS RUIN.

Jeremy Corbyn, ultra-left wing leader of the Labour party, has been busy telling us that his mob is now "staking out the new centre ground in British politics". What a load of old nonsense.

Corbyn is an unreconstructed left wing extremist, the type of socialist who isn't far removed from being an out-and-out Communist. Given half a chance, he'd introduce punitive taxes on anyone who has anything and squander the takings on a raft of ruinous and madcap schemes. His new 'centre ground' is, in reality, way to the left of anything ever experienced in this country and would result in a return to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s. It is nowhere near the centre of anything.

As if to prove this point, there is to be a strike on British railways on new Year's Day, designed specifically to disrupt the lives of ordinary people at a time when they are meant to be ringing in a Happy New Year. Back in the bad old days, strikes were commonplace, the trades' unions had enormous power and what they mostly did with that power was destroy various parts of the British economy. Decades later, we have still not fully recovered from the damage done, some industries having been so badly hurt that they have disappeared altogether.

Corbynism would see a return to those days of union power. He would gladly see the unions holding company managements to ransom. He would see mass strikes and eventual mass unemployment as major industries gave up the unequal fight and moved abroad. The pound would sink and inflation rocket; the economy would collapse.

This would be the reality of Corbyn's "new centre ground". How can anyone be taken in by him ?

BREXIT : SNP DENIES DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

When the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, it was to escape the tyranny, bureaucracy and financial incompetence of a bunch of largely unelected and unaccountable officials. Yes, there is a European Parliament, but it is little more than a toothless talking shop that provides unmerited enrichment to its members while being about as representative of its electors as Kim Jong-un is of his. It was clear at the time of the vote that leaving the EU would also mean leaving its assorted anti-competitive and protectionist trading arrangements.

Despite the vote, various parties have continued to try to find ways of obstructing the declared wish of the people and today's news carries yet another story of such anti-democratic activities. It is reported that the Scottish National Party has urged the UK's Labour Party and others opposed to 'Brexit' to gang together in an attempt to keep the UK inside of the EU's 'single market' and 'customs' union'. The SNP's leader at Westminster is reported as saying that "It is time for MPs of all parties to put politics aside", presumably meaning that they should all follow his lead.

However, this statement also suggests something else. It calls on those who remain opposed to  'Brexit'  to defy the expressed will of the people, a highly political and anti-democratic act; the notion that uniting against 'Brexit' is somehow apolitical is ludicrous and has nothing to do with "putting politics aside". Indeed, if the SNP and other parties really want to put politics aside, they should all recognize that the duty of all of our elected representatives is to support the government in its negotiations with the European  Union, rather than doing whatever they can to frustrate matters and weaken the government's hand.

What is needed is a truly united front from all parties. That way, the European Union would know that it has no alternative other than to come to a quick and sensible agreement with the UK and we would be spared months of ridiculous posturing from all sides.

WHAT A SOFT LOT WE ARE TODAY.

Watching the Christmas episode of 'Call the Midwife', I'm reminded of the extent to which our society has run away from anything difficult in recent years.

The programme was set in the winter of 1962-3, one of the coldest and hardest experienced in the UK in the last 100 years at least. Snow and freezing conditions set in on Boxing Day and lasted throughout January; as a schoolboy at the time, I remember seeing snow piled high at the sides of the roads as I made my way to school and, in a way, that is the point.

A couple of weeks ago, a couple of inches of snow led to mass closures of schools across the country; in my area, almost every school was closed for 2 or 3 days due to a smidgeon of snow and a bit of ice. Health and safety was, of course, the stated driving force but a desire to avoid difficulty was the real issue.

Back in 1962-3, there was no such 'shut down'. Of course, there was huge disruption but people got on with life as best they could. Schools didn't shut up shop and I have no memories of any time off; in fact, people carried on finding their way to work, school or wherever else they needed to go; there was no alternative. There may have been feet of snow outside and ice on the windows inside (central heating barely existed), but we soldiered on without complaint and simply dealt with the problems that arose.

What a pity that 50 years of 'progress' has produced a population, and a society, so soft that it does nothing of the sort, and that can't cope with a few inches of snow and a couple of days of cold weather without running for cover.

LAURA PLUMMER : GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Laura Plummer, the English woman who was caught taking nearly 300 tablets of tramadol into Egypt, has been sentenced to 3 years in prison. Inevitably, various parties, particularly members of her family, are not happy about this and are claiming that she has been wrongly convicted. It's been said that Ms Plummer was acting out of the best of motives, that she didn't know that tramadol was illegal in Egypt, etc., etc.

Ms Plummer is reported to have had an Egyptian boyfriend for whom she acquired the drugs; she is also said to have loved Egypt as a country and to have visited there frequently. How then was she so ignorant of the local laws ? How could she even legally acquire as many as 300 tramadol tablets in the UK when no reputable doctor would prescribe so many to anyone in one go, let alone for someone entirely unknown to them ?

Ms Plummer has claimed that the drugs were given to her by a friend; if so, she must have known that these were of dubious origin. She then knowingly transported these to Egypt, paying no heed to the laws of that country, and is now paying the price. Forget the noise being stirred up by her family, she is guilty and, if this was a case of an Egyptian bringing similarly illegal drugs into the UK, there would be not the slightest sympathy shown for her.

Whether this was drug smuggling or simple stupidity makes no difference. Ms Plummer failed to abide by the laws of the country she was entering and that's all there is to it.

TAX, TAX AND MORE TAX; WHY DON'T WE COMPLAIN ?

Is it any wonder that people try to avoid paying more tax than they must ?

We pay income tax at rates of up to 45%, and national insurance of up to 12%. We're then charged every time we spend any of what's left - 20% VAT on much of what we buy, 12% tax on insurance premiums, tax when we fly (air passenger duty), capital gains tax when we sell assets, inheritance tax when we die and stamp duty on a variety of things including buying a house. Then there's taxes, usually disingenuously called 'duties', on tobacco products, gambling, fuel, beer, wines and spirits, and which often have VAT charged on them too. There's the car tax that we pay on new vehicles which, itself, is subject to VAT - one third of the price of a new car is tax. With fuel duty and VAT, two thirds of the price of the fuel we put into our cars is tax. Let's not forget the 'road fund licence' that has nothing to do with roads or funds but is just yet another tax.

There is also the council tax and many others, some of which affect businesses initially but all of which are ultimately passed onto consumers through higher prices - corporation tax, landfill tax, customs duties, business rates, the climate change levy, petroleum revenue tax and heaven knows what else.

We are taxed to the hilt so that governments can continue to spend on ever-increasing regulation, pet projects and their own extravagancies. They throw our money around with gay abandon while failing to properly maintain our roads, railways and other infrastructure; our health service, frequently lauded as the best in the world, is a shambles with patients waiting months for appointments and then months more for the results of scans and other tests. Every aspect of our public services is a mess, chronically underfunded or beset with rules, regulations and political correctness to such an extent that they can barely function.

Why on earth do we put up with it ? I pay more than enough tax, one way or another, and I resent having perfectly legal avoidance conflated with illegal evasion. How dare our government try to make us feel guilty for avoiding paying any more than we must.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WORLD OF MY YOUTH ?

Watching an old episode of 'Midsomer Murders', I've had thoughts about the extent to which our society has become increasingly obsessed with political correctness, equality, management speak and a whole load of other modern bollocks.

In Sweden, they've recently decided to abolish the use of masculine terms when referring to God; heaven, appropriately, knows how they'll now deal with 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'. In France, they're grappling with introducing female terms for a raft of jobs which have traditionally been referred to using the male pronoun only. In this country, we are assailed with the nonsense of 'chairperson', marriage between homosexuals, and so many anti-social rules and regulations that the world is very different from the one I knew 40 years ago. Socialising at work, which I used to do almost every day, is now frowned upon, as the slightest whiff of alcohol on the breath is greeted with horror, offers of referral to counsellors or, even, dismissal. In my day, it was a mark of camaraderie and led to much greater cohesion and productivity than is ever achieved now.

While all of this is lauded as 'progress' to me it appears as regression, suppression and downright lunacy. Every left wing proposition, if voiced loudly enough, is pandered to, and 'sod the consequences'. Everyone and everything has to be controlled and made to conform to the latest idiotic notion peddled by whatever crazy fringe idea is the current 'flavour of the month'. We are controlled by the latest 'Twitter Storm', initiated by who-knows-whom and based on who-knows-what evidence.

Not very long ago, there was variety and spice in life, now we are all 'encouraged' to follow a path of common mediocrity on which we are all the same, of equal ability and of equal value; the notion that some may actually be 'better' than, or simply different from, others is a modern heresy, worthy of the greatest condemnation. At the same time, we elevate certain 'celebrities', most of whom have the talent of a mouldy piece of cheese, to a status of which the rest of us can only dream. Sports 'stars', pop singers, 'models' and various others are paid vast sums for enjoying themselves at our expense. How stupid are we ?

The awful truth is that most of the human population are, if not actually stupid, then at the very least, ill-educated. They are ill-educated and with a ridiculous emphasis on supposed 'social skills' and 'social issues', quite deliberately, so as to keep them under control, to act like sheep, or Pavlov's dogs, going where they're told and responding to whatever stimulus to which they've been found to be susceptible. The latest theories of supposed experts in management, economics, psychology, or other 'specialist' areas are embraced without question; there is a culture that accepts that anything which 'experts' say can be done, must be done, as long as it's 'socially acceptable', resulting in all manner of questionable decisions, particularly in the fields of  medicine, health and welfare and all things 'social'. Health and Safety has come to trump all common sense and many erstwhile popular activities have been effectively outlawed or seriously curtailed for no better reason than that some busybody thinks they should be.

I despair. People have come as far as they have by being free to explore and manage their own lives; some have proved better at this than others, which is a simple proof of Darwin's theory of evolution. However, what is now happening is a rejection of this theory in a way that will almost certainly result in the virtual extinction of the thinking part of the human race in favour of the vast ill-educated masses. This is all about the current elite looking to its own continued predominance regardless of the effects of the policies which it espouses. Effectively, that elite will promote any policy which it believes will maintain it in its position, regardless of the long term efficacy of that policy.

The world I knew as a child and young man is going to hell in a hand basket. Thank the Lord that I won't be around when the chickens finally come home to roost.

UK POVERTY & HOMELESSNESS IS A MYTH.

When I see the appalling conditions in which many people in the world have to live, I am disgusted by the regular complaints of supposed poverty and homelessness in the United Kingdom. With Christmas now only a couple of days away, the media is, as usual, filling space with reports of there being huge numbers of people living rough or just having a hard time, though they rarely tell us why these people are so afflicted. Why is this ?

For starters, there is little if any real poverty in this country. No one lives as they do in parts of Africa, where large numbers of people have neither food nor clean water, nor any way of accessing such essentials. Our 'homeless' have many organisations to turn to, as well as the government, and one has to wonder why they are where they are. Of  course, there are some genuine inadequates who are simply incapable of keeping a job or managing their lives. Some people have been discharged from long term mental health establishments with out receiving the support needed, but most are just indigent.

Immigrants who have travelled here without a job offer and find themselves without money can always go back to their own countries. Those with alcohol or drug addictions can always seek treatment; for those without jobs, there are always vacancies and 'beggars can't be choosers' when it comes to employment. I have no sympathy with the claimed plight of teenagers, reported to be 'sofa surfing'; where are their parents and other family members ?

In this country we seem to have forgotten that we are each responsible for managing our own lives. Sadly, the notion has taken hold that 'the State', or someone else, will forever look after us regardless of our own lack of effort. Drug addicts and alcoholics deny any personal responsibility for their problems and, instead, claim that their plight is the fault of the State, their parents, their lack of education or anything else they can think of. When they find themselves unemployable and on the streets, they whinge and whine until someone takes pity on them, but what do they do to help themselves ?

When I hear that there are 'tens of thousands' living on the streets of some of our major cities, as was claimed on the television today, I find it very hard to believe. Indeed, I don't believe it. Every time some television reporter interviews a supposedly homeless person, I ask myself why they are homeless, a question which is rarely, if ever, asked. The usual approach seems to be to find a few 'hard luck' stories and then to use these as the basis for wild claims of the extent of poverty and homelessness, none of which are ever properly substantiated.

When people talk of 'fake news', these are the kinds of stories I immediately think of.

GREEN, FALLON, PATEL : WHO'S NEXT ?

Damian Green, First Secretary of State, has lost his job, not because he molested anyone or downloaded pornographic images, but because he told a few fibs. Such is modern politics.

It seems that Mr Green did not quite tell the truth when asked what he knew about the discovery of pornographic, though entirely legal, images that were found on a computer in his offices in 2008. This untruthfulness breached what is known as the Ministerial Code and so he had to be sacked, and Teresa May's cabinet suffered another serious blow.

Mr Green is the third Cabinet Minister to be sacked, or asked to resign, in recent weeks, following Sir Michael Fallon and Priti Patel out of the door of Number 10. Both Messrs Green and Fallon were key allies of the Prime Minister, long established figures and very senior politicians; that they have both fallen by the wayside as a result of failures to behave as is expected of people in such high office must be a matter of some concern. In the case of Ms Patel, she simply went awry and seemed to get carried away with her own self-importance, also a matter of concern.

Politicians are representatives of the people or, at least, that is the theory. Sadly, it seems that too often they are people who will do anything to climb the greasy pole and will then lie, cheat, cajole and threaten to stay there. They see themselves as being above the law and codes of conduct don't really apply to them unless, that is, they get caught. Too many see political office as nothing more nor less than a doorway to honours, further opportunities and fortune.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Green's actions, or those of Mr Fallon or Ms Patel, that three senior ministers should be caught out in such a short time makes one wonder what else there is that we don't know about the activities of those in high office, now and in the past. I shudder at the thought.

MORE BLACK JUDGES, DEMANDS LAMMY.

David Lammy, Labour Member of Parliament for Tottenham, is unhappy that the current list of judges doesn't adequately reflect the social mix of our society. In particular, Mr Lammy wants there to be more black and ethnic minority judges, at least partly because there is a higher proportion of people from those backgrounds who end up being caught carrying out criminal activities. Effectively, he wants there to be quotas, which he dresses up as targets, but they are quotas, nonetheless. One wonders where such an approach might lead.

I don't know any numbers but I suspect that there is a substantially higher proportion of people from what might be considered the 'lower' social classes involved in criminal activities than from the 'middle' and 'upper' classes'. I'd also suspect that there are more criminals amongst those who were educated at comprehensive schools or who hail from one-parent families than from those who attended grammar or public schools or who come from more traditional family backgrounds. Might there be more criminals born in cities than in rural areas, or fewer criminals amongst those who attended university than amongst those who did not ?

While Mr Lammy's wish to have more judges from black and ethnic minority backgrounds might sound reasonable, it's logical extension would be to attempt to appoint judges on the basis of their ethnic and social backgrounds rather than on the basis of their ability to be judges. We could end up with judges being appointed because they are from poor and illiterate backgrounds, in order to reflect the lives of those brought up before them; what nonsense.

In any sane society, judges should only be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and ability to do the job; the only way for there to be more black and ethnic minority judges on the bench is for them to get there on ability. Of course, there should be a fair appointment process which ensures that no one is excluded purely due to their background, but that is a slightly different matter.

Mr Lammy might also consider the extent to which he and his fellow Members of Parliament accurately reflect the social mix of our population. He who lives in a glass house .......................  .

BBC SPORTS' PERSONALITY : WHAT A FARCE.

What a mess the BBC's 'Sports' personality of the Year' programme seems to have been.

I haven't watched this once unmissable offering for a few years, principally because it seems to have become a 'glammed-up' show rather than any sort of serious review of the year's sporting activities, but this year's effort appears to have come close to hitting rock bottom.

A politically correct short list for the nominations, a huge drop in voting numbers, clear influence from certain voting blocs and farcical technical problems. The odds-on favourite to win, Anthony Joshua, didn't even make the top three and the actual winner, Mo Farah, considered his chances so slight that he didn't bother to attend the event other than via a dodgy video-link.

A few years ago, this was a genuine chance to see the nation's sporting superstars but now it is no more than the BBC parading its collection of former competitors (as hosts) and making a noise about the few sports that it still covers. When the short list of nominations for the main prize include representatives from taekwondo, speed skating, women's cricket and superbike racing, of whom most of the viewing audience have never heard, there is clearly something wrong. At 540,000, the number of votes cast was almost a quarter of a million less than for last year and was merely one third of the 1.5 million that were cast 5 years ago; while viewers still seem to be watching, they obviously aren't much enamoured by what's on offer.

Was Mo Farah really the right choice given his opposition ? Surely Anthony Joshua, Lewis Hamilton or Adam Peaty had superior claims and Chris Froome certainly would have had but for the recently raised questions about his use of anti-asthma drugs. Even Harry Kane, whose exploits have seen him emerge as England's best striker since Alan Shearer, had at least as good a claim as Farah and yet he polled only a miserable 18,000 votes.

Runner up Jonathan Rea, a performer unknown outside of the world of superbike racing, was buoyed up by organised voting amongst devotees of that sport and one suspects that something similar happened in respect of Jonnie Peacock, whose achievements will also have passed by the majority of the population. Given that the BBC brands its award as 'Sport' Personality', one has to wonder how people who are virtually unknown can possibly emerge as serious contenders. It is, of course, all down to the Beebs fanatical pursuit of equality and diversity, rather than to any desire to identify a genuine and nationally known sporting personality.

Having been in the schedules since 1954, for many years being essential viewing for all sports' enthusiasts, this 'show' has surely now run its course. Cancel it and bury it, before this farce becomes nothing other than a national embarrassment.

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF ULSTER ?

Royal marriages are often accompanied by the bestowal of a ducal title and one assumes that the forthcoming nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will be no different. Indeed, unless Harry does receive a new title, Ms Markle could end up as plain old Mrs Wales. So what title might Harry get ?

It might be assumed that Harry will be created Duke of somewhere, but where ? His uncles, Andrew and Edward, were created Duke of York and Earl of Wessex (later to be Duke of Edinburgh) upon their marriages, and the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are in the hands of other Royal Family members. His brother is Duke of Cambridge, his father, Prince Charles, is Duke of Cornwall, his grandfather, Prince Philip, is Duke of Edinburgh and various other dukedoms are already taken up by non-Royals. What's left ?

It has been suggested that Harry might be created Duke of Sussex, a currently vacant title previously used by the Royal Family. There is also the Dukedom of Lancaster, a title that has been merged with the Crown for centuries but which carries with it access to the income of the Duchy of Lancaster, something which could be attractive; however, the Crown may also be reluctant to give up this source of funds. With his brother's title honouring Cambridge, might Harry find himself Duke of Oxford ?

When Prince Edward married Sophie Rees-Jones, he was rewarded with the title of Earl of Wessex, thus reviving an ancient English regional name and a title once held by the King Harold who got an arrow in his eye at Hastings in 1066. Might Harry receive something similar and, perhaps, be created Duke of Mercia, Northumbria or East Anglia ? Another thought is that the government might see some profit in granting Harry a title which emphasises the 'united' nature of the United Kingdom, hence, might he find himself Duke of a Scottish city or region, the Duke of Strathclyde, perhaps or, as a nod to his great grandmother, Duke of Glamis ?

A title which would really send a message would be to create Harry Duke of Ulster. There is already an Earl of Ulster, the son of the Duke of Gloucester, and the creation of such a dukedom would no doubt be welcomed by unionists in Northern Ireland, but disliked by those who wish to see the end of the division between north and south. However, it would make it extremely clear to all, including the government of the Irish Republic and the European Union, that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland now and for the foreseeable future. As Brexit negotiations grind inexorably on, it would be a bold and definite signal to those who wish to use the Irish border as a bargaining chip and the negotiations as a means of hastening Irish reunification, but do our masters have the nerve to do it ?

So what will it be ? Any of the above or something entirely different ? All will be revealed next May.

ORGAN DONATION : PRESUMED CONSENT IS WRONG !

I have mixed feelings about organ donation but of one think I am certain. Whether or not one's organs are offered for transplantation after death is a personal matter and nothing to do with the government.

It's reported today that the Department of Health is launching a consultation designed to measure opinion on a proposal to change the current system of opting in, to one of 'presumed consent', that is opting out. Such a change would mean that a person's organs - heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, eyes, pancreas, bowel and who knows what else - would automatically be considered available for transplantation unless that person had specifically and officially registered that they did NOT consent. To me, this is utterly wrong and should not happen.

By announcing the consultation, the government has effectively said that it intends to go ahead with such a scheme. They are well aware that many medical and research organisations will support the proposal and that very few members of the public will have the slightest idea about the fact of the consultation, let alone knowing how to go about lodging any objections. Essentially, government consultations do nothing more than pay lip service to the democratic process, the decision to proceed having already been made in closed door sessions with interested parties and pressure groups.

My body belongs to me and not to the state. When I die, what happens to it is up to me and my family or friends, not the government and certainly not to doctors greedy to carry out all manner of interventions for little other reason than that they can. I have never quite made up my mind regarding whether or not I would consent to my organs being used, but I have now. 'Presumed consent' has no place in a democracy; what will I be 'presumed' to have consented to next ? Once the government, any government, introduces the idea that it can do whatever the people have not specifically objected to, democracy is dead.

The day after the 'opt-out' register is opened, my name will be on it, not because I necessarily oppose the use of my organs but because I will not willingly surrender control of my life or body to any government.

BREXIT 'DEAL' NOTHING BUT BELGIAN FUDGE.

Is Teresa May a saint or sinner ? It's hard to tell from the assorted stories now emerging about the supposed 'deal' reached between the UK and EU last week.

In truth, it seems likely that the 'deal' was little more than a political fudge, capable of being interpreted according to the prejudices of the reader. Agreement over the Irish border question, a problem which would almost certainly be on a par with the 19th century's 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' in its incomprehensibility, is absolute according to Irish politicians but not according to the UK's Brexit minister, David Davis. The UK has agreed to cough up something like £37bn according to some but more or less according to others; the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in the EU have been protected or are still open to debate even though some nebulous nonsense has been agreed. As has been said by some, 'Nothing is agreed until all is agreed', so what is really going on ?

Both the UK and EU were actually desperate for an apparent agreement on Phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations to enable progress to Phase 2, the all-important trade negotiations. Consequently, both sides had an interest in being able to present some sort, indeed any sort, of deal last week and the fudge was the best that could be found (keep in mind that the Belgians do make excellent fudge !). Whatever the rhetoric spouted by the representatives of either side, the only thing that really matters to the makers of German, French and Italian cars, French, Italian, Spanish and German wines, French cheeses, Italian and Greek olive oil and lots more, plus the owners of hotels across the continent, the Spanish, Italian and Greek holiday industries and the purveyors of vast quantities of meat and vegetable produce across the continent, is a trade agreement that avoids disruption and potentially catastrophic effects on their livelihoods.

The UK has an enormous trade deficit with the EU, that is the UK buys much more from EU member countries than it sells to them. Ergo, the EU has a huge vested interest in maintaining a good trade relationship with the UK though it also wants to discourage other states from thinking of having their own exit plans - Grexit, Spexit, Frexit are simply out of the question. Therefore, the EU's negotiators have been making all manner of unfriendly noises towards the UK while secretly knowing that the UK has a much stronger hand than is publicly stated; perversely, the UK's government appears to have also followed this line, "Why ?" is a major question that no one seems willing to address.

 

The good news is that talks will now move on to trade, the bad news is that progress is likely to be every bit as tortuous as before, with much huffing and puffing, much rhetoric and little substance until, that is, we reach the point at which a deal must be done for fear of there being no deal; that, of course, is a scenario that the EU dreads above all else. The UK simply needs to hold its nerve and it will get the deal it wants. The question is whether it has the stomach for the fight.

Ding-Ding : Seconds Out, Round 2 !

Btw, the 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' was about the complex relationship between 2 European duchies to the governments of Denmark and Germany. The one-time British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, was reported to have commented : "The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead, The second was a  German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it" 

BREXIT : REMAINERS STILL KEEP PLUGGING AWAY.

There is much feigned amazement amongst some in the anti-Brexit community today after David Davis, the 'Brexit Secretary' told a House of Commons committee, chaired by Labour's Hilary Benn, that the government had not carried out any specific assessments of the impacts associated with the UK's exit from the European Union. While this has been made to sound calamitous, the truth is surely rather different.

The fact of the UK's departure from the EU is not in dispute. That exit automatically means that the UK will leave the EU's Customs' Union and Single Market; the trading and other arrangements that will be put in place after Brexit have yet to be agreed. What possible benefit could there be from committing resources to assessing impacts that are as yet utterly unquantifiable and are, in any case, irrelevant ?

Given this situation, carrying out many highly detailed impact assessments would be a pointless exercise, wasting valuable time and expertise that could be utilised far more profitably elsewhere or on other issues. Those who are so keen on assessments being carried out are die-hard 'Remainers', people who seem to think that they can still prevent any real Brexit from happening by keeping the UK inside of the Customs' Union and Single Market; their pseudo-horrified reaction to David Davis' comments is aimed wholly at this. They are simply trying to put the Government in a bad light and to raise issues that sound of huge importance but are, in reality, entirely specious. Others, such as Labour's Keir Starmer, use every opportunity to denigrate the UK and its negotiators while saying nothing about the intransigence and sheer bloody-mindedness of those in the EU.

Instead of getting behind the clearly expressed will of the people, these individuals are continuing to put as many obstacles in the way of the government as they can and to, effectively, 'talk Britain down'. They should be ashamed of themselves.

BREXIT : IRISH BORDER NOW THE ISSUE.

There have been conflicting reports today regarding the latest Brexit negotiations but one thing is clear. The Irish government is hell bent on using Brexit for its own ends.

At one point it was reported that the UK and EU had reached an agreement over the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It was said that the UK had agreed to some sort of arrangement whereby Northern Ireland would be more closely tied to the EU than the rest of the United Kingdom, allowing for the retention of the current very loose border between north and south. However, it soon became apparent that either this story was wishful thinking by those on the EU / Eire side or that it was true but completely unacceptable to many on the other side. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been a degree of backtracking.

Arlene Foster, leader of the  DUP, has made it clear that no such arrangement would be acceptable to them while representatives of the administrations in Scotland, Wales and even London, have asked that if Northern Ireland can have a special relationship with the EU, why can't they ? Some Conservative 'Remainers' have also been upset by this proposal, fearing that it could, indeed, lead to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Conversely, the government of the Irish Republic was all in favour but is no disappointed that the proposal has struck the rocks; from their point of view, nothing could better suit their aim of establishing a united Ireland than to create a rift between the North and the rest of the UK.

That this issue has been given the importance which it has is nonsensical. The UK government has made it very clear that it does not want  a so-called 'hard border' and yet it is the UK which is being held up as the 'bad boy' in this argument. It is actually the EU which is causing the difficulty by demanding that there is a 'soft border' across which all of its rules and regulations must also apply. It's crazy.

Theresa May seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the demands of the bureaucrats of Brussels and it's time that she stopped. Tell them, in clear terms, that the UK will not impose a 'hard border' but that  Northern Ireland will continue to operate as a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom, whether the EU likes it or not. If they don't like it, they're at liberty to institute whatever border controls they like or they can just accept things as they are.

Come on Theresa, show some steel and stand up for your country.

CROYDON CAT KILLER GETS MY VOTE !

There are reports that the so-called 'Croydon cat killer' has expanded his area of operation and is suspected of killing 5 animals in Northamptonshire. It's suggested that the same person, or persons, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of cats across England.

Frankly, I'm on the side of the killer. Cats are little more than vermin with so many of them now wandering around our neighbourhoods that they are becoming a nuisance. Unlike dogs, which form clear relationships with their owners, cats are utterly self-centred creatures. They are soft and furry and can be cuddly; they will sit and be stroked so long as it suits them but they owe no allegiance to anyone. They drain resources that could be far better used elsewhere.

Many people will say that cats are clean animals although the truth is that they are usually afflicted with at least a few fleas and their cleanliness comes from a rather unsavoury habit of licking themselves all over. Their normal activities including sleeping for most of the day and then slinking around overnight in search of small animals to kill. They mess wherever they like, often in gardens and on flower beds, and sit in wait for opportunities to chase and catch small birds. They contribute nothing of any value to our society.

The owners of cats take no responsibility for them beyond feeding and housing them, although most cats will just as happily bed down anywhere and accept food from anyone. These verminous creatures are not kept under any control and are left to roam freely, causing damage and injury without the owners showing any concern or being held responsible.

Surely it is time for some order to be brought to the ownership and proliferation of cats.

DAMIAN GREEN : TRIED AND CONDEMNED BY BBC !

The utterly appalling 'trial by media' of Damian Green continues, with the BBC revelling in claims made by a retired police officer. Whatever happened to 'trial by jury' and 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

I find it quite shocking that, in the middle of an investigation by the Cabinet Office, any media outlet should act in this way and especially one seen as being our national broadcaster. There is no evidence to link Mr Green with the allegations against him, there is no actual evidence that anything illegal was done by anyone and 9 years have passed since the alleged activity took place; what on earth is going on ?

Of course, this is little more than a left wing witch hunt aimed at further destabilising an already weakened government and the BBC is only too happy to be in on the act. Its behaviour in this matter, which it will undoubtedly claim is 'in the public interest' although it is nothing of the sort, shows it to be no more than an organisation which lives in the gutter, dredging up whatever salacious stories it can find in order to boost its viewing figures. It is obsessed with left wing causes and will do anything it can to bring about a Corbyn government. It is a disgrace and it's well passed time that it was done away with.

There was a time when the BBC was a highly respected and impartial broadcaster, now it is a dirty little scandal sheet. How times have changed.