LEAVING THE EU ISN'T AN OPTION, SAYS CORBYN.

So Labour now want to have another referendum in which the alternatives will be Labour's Deal or Remain; that these options effectively amount to the same thing is ignored. That the referendum of 2016 produced a result of Leave, is ignored. That the Labour Party's manifesto in 2017 included promises to abide by the referendum result and not to seek another referendum is ignored.

As FREEDOM DAY, 29th March 2019, approaches, those who want us to remain locked into the stultifying bureaucracy of the European Union for ever are growing ever more desperate. Cabinet Ministers have openly challenged the Prime Minister's approach and policy; MP's increasingly demand that No Deal, the PM's only real bargaining chip, is ruled out as a possibility. Extending the lifetime of the Article 50 vote, effectively stopping Brexit, is now a distinct possibility.

So many politicians are dancing on so many pin heads that it's impossible to keep track. The one thing that is clear is that the establishment, the Liberal Elite, will do anything in its frantic attempt to keep the United Kingdom within the moribund and corrupt confines of the European Union, whatever the people actually want. Why ? Because this is what suits THEM best, this is what allows them to swan around Europe and the rest of the world enjoying all the perks that come with international gatherings, paid for by us the taxpayers, and, ultimately, it's another avenue for gaining political office or patronage once their careers in the UK are over.

Yes, leaving the EU may cause a few hiccups, leaving without a deal may be a bit bumpy, but staying in is not on the table; it was ruled out by the people in 2016. For Labour now to want make staying in an option in another referendum is nothing short of a criminal assault on our democracy, or what's left of it. That they have the most incompetent leader seen in British politics since the Ice Age is no excuse. Sadly, the Conservatives have the second least competent leader seen over that period, meaning that we have no leadership in Parliament, just a bunch of squabbling, egotistical and self-serving crooks.

If Brexit is delayed for anything other than a few more days to allow for the implementation of an agreed plan, it will be the end of our democracy. I will never vote in any election again unless it's for a party dedicated to get our poor country out of the EU; I will never vote in a referendum unless it's one in which I can say a resounding NO! to Europe, yet again. What would be the point of voting for anything else ? Whatever we, the electorate, vote for, those who nominally represent us take no notice unless it accords with their own wishes and desires. 

So to Hell with the lot of them. 

SOUBRY, ALLEN & WOLLASTON - AN UNHOLY TRINITY.

WHOOPEE !!

Three 'Conservative' Members of Parliament have resigned from their party and joined the Independent Group now sitting in a corner of the House of Commons. When I say 'Conservative' members, that might be a shade misleading.

Sarah Wollaston is distinctly leftish whenever the NHS is discussed, perhaps not surprising in that she's a doctor and has a vested interest; she is also an opponent of Universal Credit. Wollaston is also one of those of a 'nannying' disposition and who favour using financial measures to make us all do what is good for us - minimum alcohol pricing is one of her favourite notions. She takes a typical 'liberal elite' view on other social issues such as 'gender equality', abortion and the lunacy surrounding same sex marriage and all that goes with it.

The second resignee, Heidi Allen, comes from a wealthy background and only entered parliament in 2015. She seems to have made little real impact  but is another with a strong 'social' philosophy and has been a serious critic of the government's attempts to reduce reliance on state benefits, especially Universal Credit which she loathes. She sees herself as being a 'modern and progressive' woman as if being 'modern and progressive' is an automatic avenue to being right. In fact, this is the type of terminology more usually heard from Labour supporters. Ambitious in the extreme, Allen put herself forward to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, planning, somehow, to combine that role with being an MP; thankfully she was not selected.

The arrogant and loud mouthed Anna Soubry seems to consider anyone with genuinely Conservative views as being 'hard right' or 'extreme'. She is another who supports 'social' issues but, until Brexit popped up, has rarely made much of an impact; even as a junior minister she achieved little of note. As Public Health Minister, she criticised retailers for forcing customers to pass "rows of unhealthy food" on their way to the checkouts, while her own approach was clearly about forcing people to do what she wanted instead, hardly a Conservative approach to life.

All three, though Wollaston only belatedly, are fervent Europhiles and seem determined to keep the UK closely tied to, and preferably still in, the EU for ever. Soubry, in particular has been extremely vocal and has shouted her views from the rooftops; she's been critical, in fact rude, about those who favour leaving the EU and has voiced her opinions as if she has a monopoly on being right. Wollaston and Allen, while being less strident, have been consistent critics of the government's position of enacting the outcome of the 2016 referendum, not exactly a democratic approach.

Will they be missed ? I doubt it. None of them are household names and the likelihood must be that, after a brief moment in the sun, they'll fade away. Let's hope so, anyway. 

SEND BEGUM HOME - TO BANGLADESH.

The media is full of the story of Shamima Begum, the woman who made the choice to forsake a life in Britain to join up and live with a terrorist organisation. The decision of the Home Secretary to deprive her of UK citizenship has been greeted with every emotion from delight to despair.

Forgetting questions about whether or not the Home Secretary's decision is legal under international law, is it the 'right' think to have done ?

Begum has shown not the slightest remorse or regret for her decision to join the organisation which called itself IS. She is, without doubt, someone who considers herself to be, over and above all else, a Muslim and she has embraced every aspect of the IS philosophy. Being a British citizen was, in her eyes, an accident of birth and is now simply a convenience; it is something that she hoped to use in order to get her out of her current predicament. No one should believe that, given the opportunity, this woman's Muslim beliefs wouldn't again take precedence over else.

It's been said that her heritage gives her a right to Bangladeshi citizenship and Bangladesh is a Muslim country. Given Begum's beliefs and behaviour, Bangladesh is where she belongs and she should go there. If she wants so badly to be a Muslim, let her live that life to the full in a place where being a Muslim is far more natural than it is in Britain. That would be her true 'home', far more so than any part of Britain.

NAVRATILOVA, SEMENYA, MCKINNON AND MADNESS.

I am sick to death of hearing nonsensical tripe from the so-called 'gay community', 'trans community', 'lgbt community' or any other community which tries to impose its insane notions on the bulk of normal society.

Former tennis champion Martina Navratilova has found herself pilloried for making her views about 'trans gender athletes' known. She believes that it is unfair for people who were born male but have chosen to undergo 'gender reassignment' to compete with people who were born female. She says that those who were born male have inherent physical advantages which render them able to outperform biological females not because they are better athletes but because they are, effectively, males competing against females.

Navratilova is a lesbian but she was undeniably born female. She has a female body shape as anyone who remembers her early days on the tennis courts will know, even if she later developed a more muscular approach to playing than was common at the time. Importantly, she is not a white, heterosexual male sounding off against some 'monstrous regiment', but she has, nonetheless, been subjected to loud complaints from those whom she is deemed to have offended. Apparently, one is not allowed to say the things she has said, nor hold such views.

At the same time, the South African athlete Caster Semenya, also a lesbian, is involved in an argument about women who have unnaturally high levels of the male hormone testosterone. Testosterone is what makes men men; it is responsible for the development of male characteristics such as muscle bulk, strength and stamina. Any woman whose level of testosterone is above normal levels mat well have a serious physical advantage over other women and allow them to perform significantly better in athletic activities.

Semenya is one such person. Standing alongside other female athletes, she is far bigger and more muscular than her fellow competitors. Although he has been the subject of scrutiny and a test to determine whether or not she is biologically female, the results of such scrutiny have not been released. It has been suggested that Semenya is actually somewhere between being male and female - intersex - but this is speculation. What does seem to have been determined is that she does have a significantly higher level of testosterone than is normal. The IAAF has now introduced rules, which Semenya is challenging, designed to remove the advantage which high levels of testosterone give to a female athlete. Many in the 'lgbt' community, plus many of liberal-left elite, claim that this is wrong and their voices are resonating around the athletics world.

Another case involves the 'trans-gender cyclist, Rachel McKinnon, who was born male but has now 'become' female. Again, standing alongside other competitors, those whom she beat, McKinnon is massively bigger; if a casual observer didn't know better, they'd almost certainly think she was a man. One of those she beat later made comments which brought a storm of protest from McKinnon and her supporters, effectively rendering the commentator as the villain. How dare she complain ! McKinnon is female because she says she is and whatever advantages she has due to her previous existence as a man are irrelevant. Really ? 

Why are Navratilova and those who agree with her condemned for speaking their minds when those on the other side of the argument seem to be greeted with sympathy and support ? Why do we hear so much about the 'rights' of 'trans-gender' and other 'lgbt' individuals and yet so little about the illogicality of it all ? 

Some might say that the world has gone mad.

UMUNNA'S PATH TO GLORY ?

Way back in 2015, Chuka Umunna first put himself forward as a potential leader of the Labour Party, after Ed Miliband's resignation, and then withdrew from the contest citing a reluctance to accept the degree of scrutiny which being a candidate would bring. Ever since, he has made his home on the back benches of the House of Commons, sniping at both his own Party's leadership and those of any party who supported the result of the Brexit referendum. 

Yesterday, he emerged as the de facto leader of the small group of otherwise largely anonymous Labour MPs who resigned from their Party and set up 'The Independent Group'. Umunna talks in lofty terms to the effect that "our politics is broken" or "we need a new kind of politics" or "politics has become too tribal" and so on. By all of these grandiose terms, what he really means is that the Labour Party isn't doing what he wants, so he's left it. Good for him.

However, what does he do next ? If it wasn't for Brexit, none of this would have happened. Umunna would have remained a back bencher and bided his time until the next opportunity for high office came along, for he is nothing if not ambitious. In Brexit, he's seen an opportunity to make a name for himself as being the man who saved the nation from disaster; his obvious hope is that other MPs will now leap to their feet and rush to join his rag-bag of a Group and that, together, they'll stop Brexit. He'll become a hero and succeed Jeremy Corbyn as the new leader, and Saviour, of the Labour Party, having been welcomed back into the fold. After that, it'll be huge electoral triumph and the door of number 10 wide open for him.

How naïve. 

Umunna is an oily, arrogant, disingenuous and privileged (yes, he went to a private school) member of the liberal elite. He has nothing in common with the bulk of Labour Party membership nor, it must be added, with the bulk of Conservatives. He has no understanding of democracy, and cares nothing for it, as is demonstrated by his total lack of respect for the result of the 2016 referendum. Typical of a certain type of politician, once elected, he will do what he wants regardless of what the electorate wants, because he knows better than they what is good for them.

When Umunna shied away from challenging for the leadership of the labour Party in 2015, could it really have been because he didn't want the spotlight directed at him ? Given his behaviour since then, not least his high profile action of yesterday, this seems most unlikely. Far more likely is that he realised that he had little if any chance of winning and would probably have come close to bottom of the poll, as did his chosen endorsee, Liz Kendall. Rather than risk this, an outcome which could have been fatal to any future leadership challenge, he chose to withdraw for the most fatuous of reasons; for heaven's sake, being a Member of Parliament automatically draws attention and scrutiny and he's always sought it.

His ambition is to be Prime Minister and yesterday's staged event was simply an attempt to set himself on the path to glory in a different way. It might easily turn out to be his political death knell instead.

"GANG OF SEVEN" MAKE THEIR MOVE.

Almost 40 years, 4 prominent Labour politicians resigned from their Party and established a new one, the Social Democrats. Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers (few ever remember him) had fallen out with the left-wing leadership of their Party as exemplified by the likes of Michael Foot and Tony Benn, and believed that the new Party would give them a springboard to much greater things.

They were wrong. The SDP never 'took off' and struggled on for only a few years before until it merged with the Liberals, in 1988, to form the current Liberal Democrats. All of the 'Gang of Four' left the House of Commons fairly quickly and gravitated to the Lords, where they vegetated as representatives of a largely irrelevant group. Their action in forming the SDP has been largely forgotten and, if it is remembered, it's only as an example of the futility of political gestures.

Today, 7 Labour politicians of a different generation have announced that they've resigned from the Party and have set up a new group which they term 'The Independent Group'. They have said that they consider all of the existing parties to be incompetent and to have failed; they've also made the usual vacuous remarks about leaving 'tribal politics' behind and dumping 'old fashioned politics'. In short, they're unhappy.

What they are unhappy about is a number of things. They are all rabid pro-Europeans, fiercely opposed to Brexit and prepared to do anything to stop it from happening, while the leadership of the Labour Party is less enthusiastic. Perhaps legitimately, they are unhappy about perceived anti-Semitism within the Labour Party and the Party's failure to take appropriate action. Thirdly, they're not supporters of the current Party leadership, in particularly Jeremy Corbyn, and see him leading the Party evermore leftwards.

Given their clear differences with the Party, leaving it seems to be a logical step, but is it not also doomed to failure ? In order for the move to bear fruit, many more parliamentarians need to be persuaded to join them and, as was the case after the 1981 split, this is unlikely to happen. Members of Parliament are protective of their own positions and party leaders have a limited lifetime; Corbyn won't be there for ever and many Labour Members will simply hunker down and wait for the inevitable change. Why risk their lucrative positions when time will resolve all ?

Is it likely that Members from other parties will feel emboldened and join in ? Again, why would they ? It would lead to deselection and the probable loss of their parliamentary seats, with an almost inevitable loss of influence. In any event, what are the real similarities, apart from Brexit, between the 7 and, say, the current Conservative 'rebels' ? The answer must be "very few".

Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker, Mike Gapes, and Ann Coffey; how many of these will still be in Parliament after the next general election ? How many will we still remember in 30 or 40 years ? 

FORGET THE EMOTION, BEGUM IS A TERRORIST.

Inevitably, all sorts of arguments are being put forward by all sorts of people as to why the unrepentant Shamima Begum should be welcomed back to the United Kingdom. Some seem to be suggesting that the real fault for her situation lies with various official bodies in London - her school and local council for example - and this enemy of Britain has even had the temerity to say that people should have sympathy for her. Much emphasis is being placed on the 'plight' of her new baby, with every opportunity being taken to use emotional language about it.

It's said that Britain will eventually have no choice but to allow Begum to come back as she is a British citizen and has no other nationality; under international law, we can't deprive her of her citizenship as this would leave her stateless which isn't acceptable. The child automatically gains the citizenship rights of his parents and so is also to be considered a British citizen; consequently, the child has to be allowed to enter the UK as well. However, little has been said about the citizenship of the father and it must be that the child will also be entitled to citizenship rights from that side; it may also be that Begum has gained her own citizenship rights from her husband. Why then can't Begum and her child take advantage of these rights and move to whatever hell hole her husband is from ?

Whatever the arguments about the origin of Begum's so-called radicalisation, she is now an ardent Islamist and sees nothing wrong in either her actions nor those of the thugs and butchers with whom she has lived for the last 4 years. The only reason she now wants to return to the United Kingdom is that her chosen life has broken down; Islamic State has effectively been wiped out, her husband is at least a captive, if not dead, and she wants the comfort and security that she had when living in Bethnal Green. She didn't make this plea when pregnant with her first 2 children as, then, she was happy in the world of terrorists, only now that that world has crumbled does she seek solace in what she has the nerve to refer to as 'home'.

Actions have consequences and this woman's actions speak volumes. She deserted the UK for a life with an organisation devoted to terrorism and the overthrow of Western society; now that things haven't worked out as she'd hoped, she expects us to forgive her and welcome her back to the UK with open arms. This is akin to someone supporting Adolph Hitler up until the end of the Second World War and then deciding that, as they'd originally come from the UK, they should be allowed to come back, no questions asked.

Yes, the environment in which this woman, and her friends, grew up allowed for them to gain a distorted notion of the world, but years later she shows no remorse and expects to be forgiven for her traitorous behaviour. For me, she stays where she is or goes to wherever her husband comes from. There really is a special place in hell for people like these.

SHAMIMA BEGUM - LEAVE HER TO ROT.

Four years ago, 3 young British women made a choice to leave Britain to join up with the Islamic terrorist group usually known as IS. Now, with IS having failed in their attempt to create a puritanical Islamic Caliphate, one of them wants to come 'home'. 

Shamima Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 and married one of the terrorists. Since then, she's apparently had 2 pregnancies, both babies having died, and is now close to producing a third baby; she says that her husband was been taken away by Syrian soldiers a couple of weeks ago and she hasn't seen him since; one assumes that he's probably been killed.

The usual 'bleeding hearts' have popped up to tell us that we should help this woman, mainly because she was 'only 15' when she effectively renounced her British citizenship and went off to join a bunch of terrorists; they argue that she must have been groomed and she didn't really know what she was doing (perhaps the same people who claim that those who voted to leave the EU didn't know what they were doing ?) These 'bleeding hearts' appear to be less concerned for the safety of law abiding British citizens than for the welfare of an unreformed Islamic fanatic.

Shamima Begum has said that she wasn't 'fazed' by seeing a decapitated head dumped in a bin and has had a 'normal' life while living in the midst of a war zone. She has expressed no regret for her decision to leave the UK to join the terrorist group, but now says she wants to return 'home' for the sake of her unborn child. In other words, she wants the country she abandoned for a life of terrorism to take her back simply because it suits her current situation.

Thankfully, it's unlikely that her wish will be granted any time soon. There are no British consular services in the area in which she is now living and so contact with British authorities won't happen unless she can get herself moved to a less dangerous place, which won't be easy. Even then, her story is not one that makes her a case for very much sympathy, except for the 'bleeding hearts' who see nothing but a need to 'help' everyone who asks. This woman has not changed her mind about IS or Islamic terrorism after a few weeks, or months, she's actually lived with it for 4 years and expresses no regrets about being involved in some of the most gruesome acts carried out by anyone in recent years. All she wants is what far too many younger people seem to want, that is, for the world to do their bidding regardless of whatever they've done for themselves.

This woman made her home with IS and has lived with terrorists for 4 years. She married one and is on the point of producing his third child. She has no regrets for her actions or those of the fanatics around her. Originally 'groomed' or not, this woman is now an enemy of the United Kingdom and of the civilised world. If we have to take her back, it should be for a lifetime in prison; preferably, we leave her where she is, to rot with the corpses of her fellows.

TRAUMATISED POLICE SHOULD GO BACK TO BASICS.

When I was a child, the police were respected. They patrolled our streets singly, wearing the traditional 'bobby's helmet' and carrying a truncheon. Their only link to their station was via the strategically placed police telephone boxes. They were helpful and friendly, chatted to passers by and gave everyone a feeling of security.

Today, many patrol in pairs, or more, and wear a frightening array of paraphernalia; all manner of protective clothing and a vast array of weaponry. They can call on assistance through their police radios and can monitor us all through their 'bodycams'. They appear unfriendly and distant, avoid the gaze of passers by and far from engendering a felling of security, engender feelings of threat and fear.

Despite this obvious increase in the extent of their personal protection, it's being reported that they are unhappy, feel under pressure and can't cope. Those who find themselves patrolling alone are complaining that they aren't safe and don't like it; most officers, according to a survey, complain that they've "been exposed at least one traumatic experience in their career", with 62% of those surveyed claiming to have had such an experience in the last 12 months.

Well, poor old them.

Policing has clearly changed over the years as our society appears to have become less respectful of authority figures and more violent. However, the change in the 'Bobby on the beat' has been even more profound. They do not engender respect and feelings of security, but fear. Their appearance as a sort of para-military force does nothing to render them approachable and the expansion of the number of laws for which the public can be hounded for breaking hasn't helped either. Yes, there are some nasty people out there - terrorists, drug traffickers, knife or gun wielding thugs - but they're a tiny minority of the population and are mostly confined to the larger conurbations. That the police in parts of London may need greater protection does not mean that those in rural Wiltshire have to dress themselves up in the same 'wild west' fashion.

As for having traumatic experiences, isn't that what being in the police, and the other emergency services, is all about ? Anyone who can't cope with a bad experience shouldn't be in the police. Actually, in what job aren't their the occasional traumatic experiences ? The sudden and unexpected death of a colleague, finding oneself under extreme threat for being loyal to your boss, being issued with an illegal redundancy notice by a bullying chief executive, losing a parent and sibling while trying to care for a distraught mother and hold down a senior position; these are just some of my "traumatic experiences" from a career in public service but I didn't whinge, I got on with it.

Somewhere in the past, someone talked about "getting back to basics". That is what is needed now. Stop the insane proliferation of laws, get rid of the body armour, pepper spray, tasers and the rest, and let our police go back to good old fashioned policing. Is that really too much to ask ?

CRACK DOWN ON EVIL TAXI DRIVERS.

More 'knee jerk' politics.

It's been announced that the government is considering instituting more restrictive rules on the granting of taxi licenses. This is apparently in an effort to reduce the risk of passengers being the victims of taxi drivers who have evil intent.

One assumes this is another part of the response to the story of the 'Black Cab Rapist', John Worboys, following on from the proposal to give victims of crime a stronger say in the parole process. That was a mistake and this is little better.

Apparently, the granting of licenses to prospective taxi drivers is currently a matter for individual councils and some are more lenient than others when it comes to considering an applicant's previous history. Now the government wants to implement new rules which all councils would have to abide by and which, presumably, would be at the tougher end of the spectrum. There are obvious problems with this approach.

Firstly, what about local autonomy ? At a time when there are ever more demands for local authorities to have greater power over their own areas and services, how can the implementation for nationwide rules make sense ? Surely it is up to each council area to assess its own needs and determine its own regulations.

Secondly, since when did checking past records ever stop criminals from acting in the present and future ? Criminal records' checks are all very well but they only flag up those who have been caught; the clever ones, or those who have yet to offend, pass the test with flying colours. There's also a big difference between crimes - where will the line be drawn in determining who can, and who cannot, be granted a license ?

Thirdly, what's to stop bogus taxi drivers from setting up in business or are we going to have a new agency, OFCAB perhaps, to monitor all taxi and minicab activity nationwide ? 

Fourthly, how many taxi drivers have actually been found guilty of any crime against a passenger in, say, the last 10 years ? The government's 'Taxis Minister' (really ??) has been quoted as saying that "we have seen too many cases where taxi and minicab drivers have used their job to prey on vulnerable people, women and children". Nowhere can I find any numbers to back up this claim.

Is this not just another example of government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut ? Of more 'knee jerk' law making ? Of yet more restrictions on individual freedom in the pursuit of unachievable perfection ? Why not just microchip us all at birth so that the government can know our whereabouts and actions at every moment of every day ? That would solve the problem once and for all.

SADIQ KHAN - ANOTHER POINTLESS POLITICIAN

This morning, I heard the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, telling us about how he was going to tackled the appalling level of violence on the streets of his city. Yes, well, yawn.

Khan was at pains to tell us that the increase in 'knife crime' was not really his fault, it had all started under the regime of his predecessor, the Conservative Boris Johnson. So that's all right, it can all be blamed on 'the other lot', even though Johnson left office almost 3 years ago and the incidence of 'knife crime' has increased exponentially since then.

Khan then went on to explain his strategy for resolving the problem. He's set up planning groups to discuss how to sort things out and to produce plans. There are discussions with local communities and he's looking for ways to engage with the young people most at risk of being involved in 'knife crime'. Of course, his biggest problem is a lack of resources, but that's all down to, you've guessed it, those nasty Tories in Westminster.

It occurs to me that Khan has his priorities wrong. Instead of wasting heaven knows how much money on investigating, planning, discussing and doing all of the other namby-pamby, touchy-feely things, why doesn't he spend this scarce resource on actually doing something useful ? The young thugs on the streets need to be caught, so how about putting a few more police or council wardens, on patrol ? How about making the detection and prevention of 'knife crime' a priority, over and above the ticketing of motorists and litterlouts, the prosecution of so-called 'hate speech', and other petty social misdemeanours ? 

Sadly, Mr Khan isn't up to it. He's just another pointless and useless politician, far more concerned about not offending some minority interest group than he is about actually getting the job done. The people involved in 'knife crime' are vicious thugs and yet we hear more about those who supposedly carry knives 'for their own protection' than we do about anything else. There can be no reason for anyone to be walking our streets carrying a knife unless it's a domestic knife, just bought and in a wrapper. Yes, some workmen may need knives but they can surely be easily distinguished from violent, ignorant yobs. 

It may sound extreme and probably is, but extensive 'stop and search' and house searches on suspicion are surely one answer. Another is a mandatory 5 years in prison (before any chance of parole) for anyone found carrying any type of knife without proper cause. Mr Khan can investigate, discuss and plan until the cows come home, he'll have no effect on the level of 'knife crime' until he gets properly tough on the perpetrators.

EU BENEFITS ARE IMAGINED.

Back in June 2016, the 'Independent' newspaper listed a number of supposed benefits of membership of the European Union. These were :

 - The freedom to live, work and retire anywhere in Europe

 - That the EU sustains many jobs in the UK due to trading arrangements and freedoms.

 - That holiday arrangements are easier and safer due to factors such as access to healthcare and the         EU's monitoring of airline safety.

 - That consumers across Europe have enhanced protection from shopping 'scams'

 - That the EU provides enhanced protection from terrorists, paedophiles, people traffickers and               cyber-crime through cross-country coordination and cooperation.

 - That trading arrangements with the EU are a major benefit for UK businesses.

 - That membership of the EU gives the UK greater influence in world affairs than it would otherwise     have.

Now, I may be a curmudgeonly old fogey but I can see nothing in this list which justifies handing the EU power over our law making or power over our courts. I can see nothing which justifies handing that institution some £13bn each year so that it can run its bloated administration and fund all manner of pet schemes, while failing to produce acceptable accounts. 

I find it interesting that the 'Independent' did not list membership of the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy as benefits of membership. It didn't mention the imposition of all manner of common rules and regulations which have been implemented by majority decisions only and which may have been detrimental not only to the UK but also to other member states. It didn't mention the overbearing and even dictatorial attitude of the EU to a whole raft of financial issues which, admittedly, have had greater effect on users of the Euro but have, nonetheless, impacted on the entire organisation.

There is nothing in the list which seems of over-riding importance or, indeed, seems very significant. Freedoms to travel, work and live in the various EU countries is not dependent on continued UK membership, only on cross border agreements. Consumer protection is a matter for individual nations and most surely have well established systems in place anyway. Trading arrangements between nations are a matter for discussion and agreement to the benefit of all, being a member of the EU quite possibly interferes with the implementation of more wide-ranging arrangements. There is no reason why protection against an assortment of criminal activities has to be reliant on membership of the EU, surely this is just another for agreement between sovereign states. As for international influence, how does being allied to Bulgaria or Romania increase the UK's influence ? Only 2 of the other EU states - Germany and France - have any true international status and, for the most part, the UK outguns both of them when it comes to involvement in world affairs. 

So what is all the fuss about ? Membership of the EU brings little in the way of real benefits that could not be gained from outside of its sphere of influence and it may actually prevent the development of much wider access to the rest of the world. The people who benefit from it are the rich and powerful who love to play 'power politics', love the kudos of mixing with their fellow elitists, drink from the trough which the rest of us are expected to keep filled to the brim with our hard earned cash.

No, No, No, a million times NO ! The EU gives us nothing that we can't enjoy from outside of its boundaries. LEAVE SOONEST ! 

MAY TRIES AGAIN, CORBYN SIMPLY OBSTRUCTS.

As Theresa May sets off to have further, probably fruitless, talks with the bully boys of the European Union, Jeremy Corbyn, while pretending that he might support the Prime Minister, has set down what are referred to as Labour's '5 Demands'. 

That Corbyn's demands fly in the face of the expectations of those who voted for Brexit seems to have been forgotten. Effectively, they 'demand' that the UK remains so close to the EU as to not really leave, remaining in a customs' union and closely aligned with the 'single market', thus making an independent trade policy a non-starter. Additionally, Corbyn wants the rules applying to workers to remain tied to those of the EU, apparently regardless of how insane they are or whether the UK might prefer to be even more generous. His other demands are probably less contentious, wanting the UK to continue to participate in certain EU agencies and continuing to play a role in the EU's security arrangements.

Being a lifelong Eurosceptic, Corbyn is clearly playing a political game designed to keep his own party onboard an, at the same time, make life as difficult as possible for the Prime Minister while appearing to be reasonable and cooperative. He has only one aim in mind and it isn't achieving the best outcome for the UK, it's gaining power.

Listening to the various pundits who have been 'analysing' every word, phrase, nuance, cough, smile, frown and even sneeze, one could be forgiven for believing that Mrs May is about to betray Brexit and betray Remain, both at the same time, while the EU will remain utterly intransigent, is on the point of caving in or is preparing for anything in between. There's been a suggestion that yesterday's disgraceful outburst form Donald Tusk was a smokescreen and precursor to EU concessions; who knows ?

Given the way in which the representatives of the EU have acted over recent months and how intransigent, rude and bullying they've been, let's not forget that Tusk's outburst follows on from Juncker's comments about Theresa May being 'nebulous', I'm almost coming round to the view that a second referendum might not be a bad idea, although the demands for this seem to have abated. If such a vote was called, the Leave side would surely need to do no more than broadcast clips of the various EU bureaucrats, as well as national leaders such as Macron or Merkel, being their usual unpleasant selves. Leave would win in a landslide.

So much for fantasy. Whatever will Theresa May achieve from this latest visit to the superpower that is Belgium ?

EU STILL PLAYING THE BULLY-BOYS.

So, while Theresa May tries to find a way to bridge the gap to the European Union, Donald Tusk, one of the several Presidents of something or other in that Union, and Leo Varadkar, the Irish Prime Minister, have made it clear that they have no interest in listening to anything that Mrs May may have to say, unless, that is, it's that she's happy to leave the 'Irish Backstop' untouched.

The latest nonsense from the EU is to try to link the 'Backstop' to the maintenance of peace in Ireland, surely utterly ridiculous. The UK has made it clear that it will not create a 'hard border' between the north and south in Ireland, as has the Irish government; this is regardless of whether or not there is a deal over Brexit. The only participant in the discussions who does want a hard border is the European Union, desperately scared of the possibility of losing a few Euros through a bit of smuggling if there isn't one. What the existence of a border, hard or soft, has to do with the maintenance of peace escapes me altogether; peace will continue unless those of a violent tendency decide otherwise and go back to their former aggressive ways. With the IRA based in the South and it being the South which wants to annexe the North, it is Varadkar who holds the key to peace, not Theresa May, not the EU and certainly not a divisive 'Backstop'.

Thus far, the EU has shown no interest in exploring ways of managing a border through the use of technology or advance clearance. It has, and still is, using this fabricated Irish border issue as a mechanism to beat the British, and especially Brexiteers, around the ears. Today, Tusk has even gone so far as to invoke visions of a future in Hell for them, surely not language which should ever be used in diplomatic negotiations. It is clear that Tusk and his pals intend pushing things to the wire in the hope that the UK parliament will ride to the rescue of the EU by somehow stopping 'No Deal' or even Brexit itself.

All that we can hope is that Theresa May can convince her parliamentary colleagues to play this ludicrous game every bit as hard as is the EU. No one wants 'No Deal', and this is now all about which side takes fright first. Given that the balance of trade between the UK and EU is massively in favour of the latter, all that the UK has to do is hold its nerve.

Will it ?

VICTIMS HAVE NO SPECIAL RIGHTS IN PAROLE HEARINGS

In this country, we have a well established legal process. 

Someone commits a crime and gets caught; they're charged, tried and sentenced, which may mean they go to prison. For some of the more serious offenders, their prison terms may be quite long and the question of when, or whether, they should be released is eventually considered by the Parole Board. The Board will determine whether release 'on parole' is appropriate and, if it is, the conditions under which that parole will be served. However, it seems that things are about to change.

As a result of the furore surrounding the case of John Worboys, a convicted serial rapist, our government is proposing that 'victims' should be given a greater say in such matters. The problem is that this knee-jerk reaction from politicians anxious to garner favour with every special interest group they can find is fundamentally wrong and risks bringing our entire criminal justice system down around our ears.

Of course, victims of crime, especially serious crime, feel aggrieved. Of course some might want to see their oppressors locked up for good, tortured, even hanged drawn and quartered, but that is not justice it is vengeance. At the same time, some may prefer to be merciful and may wish to forgive the offender, welcoming them back into society as reformed characters at the earliest opportunity.

The outcry over the Worboys case came from those of the 'hang, draw and quarter' brigade and the government has not only caved in to them but now proposes to change the entire basis of parole to accommodate their extreme views. The views of the forgiving element of society are ignored in favour of satisfying the strident cries of the others. Worse, the role of the courts and Parole Board are to be made secondary to the baying of public mobs.

Already, 'victims' are permitted to make statements in court prior to sentencing, something which also flies in the face of justice. Sentencing is not about how much the 'victim' cries, or how strongly they may be able to tug at the heart strings of judge and jury, but is about the nature of the crime committed. If an elderly person with no relatives and few friends is murdered, and there is no one to tell the court how much they are missed, is their death any less of a crime than is that of the child whose grieving parents and multitude of Facebook 'friends' queue up to beg the judge to 'throw the book at them' ? Murder is murder, regardless of the impact on those left behind. Similarly, some 'victims' may recover more easily, be more resilient, than others; does this mean that the offenders who choose the less resilient 'victims' should receive harsher penalties ? Clearly it does not. In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan "let the punishment fit the crime", and not the wants of the 'victim'.

The same applies to the parole system. Once all of the facts have been considered, whether or not parole is to be granted cannot be a matter for angry 'victims' to decide; it is a matter for dispassionate and unconnected individuals to determine. For our government to now be in the process of changing this basic principle of the legal system is dangerous and foolhardy. How long will it be before 'victims' are asked to give their views on appropriate sentences ? How long before the evidence given by 'victims' is determined to be of greater weight than that of other witnesses ? 

People may not like some elements of the legal system but it is a system which has been developed over decades, even centuries, and which separates victim and prosecution, accused and defence, jury and judge; all four elements have their part to play and those parts should not be confused or muddles together. In like fashion, the Parole Board has its job to do; the potential parolee has representation and various others can be called to give evidence. Once that evidence has been heard, it is for the Board, as judge, to make a determination. If there are legal grounds for challenging that determination, there is a process to allow this, but, as in court, there can be no automatic right for 'victims' to be given a special say, in this case via a direct appeal to the Secretary of State, simply because they don't like the decision. In fact, this proposal risks turning the eventual granting of parole into a political rather than a judicial matter, which cannot possibly be right.

Knee-jerk legislation by governments is rarely a good idea, and this certainly isn't.