HILLSBOROUGH : TIME TO MOVE ON.

 A jury in Preston seems to have shown a degree of common sense in deciding that David Duckinfield was not guilty of negligent manslaughter over the sad deaths at Hillsborough 30 years ago. Sadly, it seems that at least some of the relatives of those who died don't want to accept the verdict and are still looking for someone to blame for the incident.

As the man in charge of crowd control on the day, Mr Duckinfield was required to try to control tens of thousands of football supporters, some of whom certainly didn't much like being controlled. Duckinfield had to make decisions on the spur of the moment and at least one of those decisions, with benefit of hindsight, may have been misguided. However, how that amounts to such a serious mistake as to lead to 95 charges of "negligent manslaughter", and a witch hunt, escapes me. 

The inquests held in 2014-16 resulted in a jury deciding that the 96 people who died were "unlawfully killed". Ever since, those who have been determined to lay the blame on an individual have used these verdicts to demand "justice". Today, they got justice but still aren't happy because their target hasn't been found guilty. They seem to have forgotten that justice is about assembling evidence, laying charges and placing the case before a jury - what the jury then decides is justice, like it or not.

To my mind, the problem lies with the original inquest verdicts which were arrived at in a highly fevered and sensationalist environment. The unfortunate supporters who died were just that, unfortunate, and to claim that they were "unlawfully killed" is nonsense. No one set out to commit murder, no one made decisions negligently and no one was individually responsible. Yes, it was a terrible event; yes, things went wrong, but to try to lay the blame on any individual was also wrong. No one person was responsible; responsibility rests with those who managed the stadium, perhaps with those who managed the crowds, but probably also with some of those fans who forced their way into the ground through an exit gate. In truth, no one person was responsible, it was a terrible accident resulting from a concatenation of situations and actions.

The sooner the still-aggrieved relatives come to this realisation and move on, the better.

POCHETTINO SACKING A SAD EVENT.

As a decades-long supporter of Tottenham Hotspur, I have to say that the departure of Mauricio Pochettino saddens me. Over the last 5 or 6 years Pochettino has transformed the club into one challenging for the highest honours year after year, something which hasn't happened since the heady days of Bill Nicholson's long reign, which ended some 45 years ago. 

For the last 12 months or so, something has clearly gone wrong and results, the Champions' League apart, have been disappointing; the team has failed to perform. Whether this decline was down to the manager, the players or the managerial hierarchy we may never know, but something had to be done. In the end, the manager, Pochettino, has been sacrificed despite his incredible achievements. 

It is obvious that a replacement had already been lined up and that replacement is the self-styled "special one", Jose Mourinho. Mourinho's approach could hardly be any more different from Pochettino's and whether he's the right man for Tottenham we will have to wait to see; personally, I very much doubt it and I'll be very surprised if he's still around in 18 months time. Mourinho spends vast amounts of money wherever he goes and Tottenham don't do that; Mourinho likes to buy expensive, experienced players, Tottenham like to develop their own. Simply put, the philosophies are like chalk and cheese.

Pochettino may have reached the end of the road at Tottenham for reasons of which we are unaware but he will always be considered one of the club's greatest managers. Daniel Levy has done his own standing little good with the club's vast army of supporters by his action and should Mourinho prove to be a failure, his own position may well be called into question.

The next 6 months will be pivotal.

PRINCE ANDREW ON TRIAL BY MEDIA.

Prince Andrew, the Duke Of York, is most unlikely to ever inherit the throne. Other than his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, he has rarely done little that has had any lasting impact on the public consciousness. Until now.

Connecting him to the ongoing and highly questionable furore about the abuse of women, children and, for all I know, sheep, goats, dogs, and all other mammalian species, is a wonderful piece of journalistic bollocks. If the Prince did have dodgy friends, does it really matter ? If he did have a "relationship" with some nubile Californian (or Texan or whatever she was) does anyone really care ? There doesn't seem to have been any damage done to either party although one, the nubile one, is now looking to make her fortune by claiming  that there was, the best part of 20 years later.

The "Me Too" campaign has brought allsorts out of the woodwork claiming all manner of abuse, mostly from individuals of whom no one has ever heard - it's basically become a route to easy publicity and a potential gravy train. The attack on Prince Andrew may have merit or it may not - either way the first question is to ask why it's taken so long for such accusations to be made. Years after the supposed events, people are gaining publicity by claiming to have been abused. I don't defend the abusers, if indeed that's what they were, but I do not like the general atmosphere of victimhood that's been created and the suggestion that anyone who is accused is automatically guilty. This has horrible echoes of the claims of the jailed paedophile, Carl Beech.

The published photograph of Prince Andrew with the claimed "victim" does not suggest she was unhappy to be where she was. Beyond that, what evidence is there that she and the Prince had any further contact ? Yes, the Prince did have ill-advised contacts but is that evidence of guilt or just the actions of a man who has been largely ostracized by his family ? 

If this isn't trial by media, and a gold digging exercise, what else is it ?

ANTIBIOTICS WILL KILL OUR CHILDREN.

I think I must be hallucinating.

On television I think I've just seen an advertisement aimed at preventing people from demanding antibiotics from their GP whenever they have a sniffle. If I wasn't actually hallucinating, it was an abomination.

This advertisement was presented in such a childish fashion as be insulting to anyone with half a brain cell. Clearly it was aimed at those who lack even that little evidence of intelligence. 

Is the NHS hierarchy simply addressing those who have been failed by the education system or those whom its own prior advertising has failed to convince ? If the latter, is there not a better approach than adverts that treat the recipients as morons. Or do they think that most of the population are, indeed, morons ?

What is wrong with some genuinely intelligent and educational public service advertisements, leaflets and proper information ? Targeting the lowest common denominator suggests a shocking attitude towards the general population and betrays an utter contempt for their overall level of education and understanding

Or is that what our masters really want ? A general population that is poorly educated to such a degree that they'll accept whatever crap they're fed ? Antibiotics have their place and are dangerous if misused - is that such a hard message to convey ?

Sadly. I believe we're already well beyond this point and that the current approach to dealing with bacterial infections will not work for much longer, whatever we do. A new approach is required, which excludes simply using yet more and newer antibiotics. The bugs may not have brains but they do evolve and much more rapidly than do people. 

It's past time that governments came clean and told their people the whole, unvarnished truth. Unless they stop using antibiotics for colds and sneezes and as a general stop gap for all else, their children and grandchildren will die from all manner of other infections - the simplest scratch could lead to untreatable tetanus, a streptococcal  throat infection will be fatal. Post-operative infections will become commonplace and also frequently fatal, as they used to be before the advent of modern antibiotics.

We need honesty from our leaders. Will we ever get it ?

HILARY CLINTON STICKS HER NOSE IN.

The good old BBC has been at it again.

Hilary Clinton, an egregious American who is no fan of anyone or anything that might be considered vaguely 'right wing', has been feted by the corporation this morning. Apparently, together with her daughter, she's co-authored a book which the BBC is only too happy to promote. As a bonus to the Beeb, Mrs Clinton has also had something negative to say about Boris Johnson's government.

Harking back to her own claimed experience in the US Presidential election of 2016, Clinton has said that it's "inexplicable and shameful" that the UK government has not yet published a report on alleged Russian interference in British politics. She's added that "Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens". Those who've interviewed her today have done nothing to challenge her statements, but have accepted them at face value. 

What our general election has to do with this awful woman is a mystery. Given that openness and honesty are sadly lacking in her own country, not to mention her own family - we all recall her husband's "honesty" over the Lewinsky affair for which he was all-but impeached - and that her failure to win the Presidency was more to do with her own failings than with the Russians, her arrogance in pontificating about our government is breathtaking.

Why on earth does the BBC publicise such a harridan ? The answer, of course, is obvious. Clinton is a leftie who doesn't like Boris Johnson and his "right wing" government, but does love the European Union and is a promoter of all things to do with so-called equality and "social justice". Consequently, she fits in well with the BBC's own left wing management, agenda and overall presentation.

Will we be hearing from a right wing author anytime soon ? Would such a person escape unchallenged, as Mrs Clinton has ? Not a chance.

SPRINGBOKS SPOIL THE PARTY.

It was not to be.

After the excitement of England's brilliant performance against the All Blacks, they were firm favourites to lift the Rugby World Cup but, for reasons unknown, they simply didn't perform to the same standard in the final. Instead, they were outplayed from start to finish by a South African side that had actually lost to New Zealand in the group stage of the competition.

Nothing went right for England. They lost one of their key players, Kyle Sinckler, to injury in the first couple of minutes and never seemed to get going. The passing and movement that had been such a characteristic of the victory over the All Blacks was completely lacking, with many passes dropping short or going astray altogether, while the Springboks hit peak form exactly when it mattered. England always seemed to be on the back foot and never looked like winning.

This is not to say that they had a bad tournament nor that finishing as runners-up was a failure, but it was a disappointment. They will now start building a new team to challenge for the ultimate prize in 2023 - I can't wait !