COVID - WHEN THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE

COVID-19 case numbers are said to be rising, although the evidence is unclear. Are numbers really rising or is there simply more testing, and hence more positive cases, being recorded ? The 'Omicron' variant is said to be more infectious, but is this also a figment, created by an increase in testing ? What cannot be denied is that, despite apparently greater numbers of infections, hospital admissions remain at a far lower level than in the height of previous upsurges of the epidemic and the number of deaths recorded daily "with COVID" has barely changed over the last few months. "With COVID" is, of course, not quite the same thing as "of COVID" in any case.

Thankfully, the UK government has yet to offer a 'knee jerk' response to the latest developments and we are told that there will be no new restrictions on our freedoms before the New Year; at the same time, it's suggested that the so-called 'rule of 6' may yet be re-introduced before too long. Sadly, the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have already been hit with additional controls.

The evidence in support of further restrictions is scant, bordering on the none existent. For once, it seems that the UK government has got it right while, the socialist administrations in Wales and Scotland have been carried away by their innate desire to manage peoples' lives, and that in Northern Ireland has fallen prey to its fears of past events as well as of the European Union.

While the lugubrious Mark Drakeford and desperate Nicola Sturgeon seek political advantage through their increasingly authoritarian approach to this epidemic, the scientific evidence continues to indicate that they have both picked the 100-1 outsider in a two horse race. COVID-19 is on its way out and will soon be seen to be little more of a real threat than a bout of influenza or, even, the common cold. COVID is not smallpox or 'the plague'; it has far more in common with Legionnaires disease, HIV or BSE, all of which were publicised as being mortal dangers to the entire world population when they were nothing of the sort.

COVID-19 is a new virus and can be dangerous, especially to those with other morbidities or poor life styles. To the vast majority of the population, it is little more than a minor inconvenience. Unfortunately, the measures introduced to control a minor inconvenience have proved rather more dangerous to every day life of most of us than the virus itself. The societal, economic and financial consequences will be with us for decades to come, while the disruption to the education of those at school and university may well have even longer term impact.

COVID-19 will be little more than a memory before very long; the consequences of the measures taken world-wide to combat it will be with us for much, much longer. 

IN MEMORY OF ENGLISH CRICKET WHICH SANK WITHOUT TRACE AT MELBOURNE ON 28th DECEMBER 2021.

Has there ever been a worse England performance or more pathetic post-match comments from a team's leaders ?

The Ashes have been lost after less than an hour and a half into play on the third day of a planned 5-day match. England weren't just beaten, they were destroyed, utterly humiliated and yet the leadership had only the usual tripe to serve up after the game.

Head coach, Chris Silverwood, after seeing his team lose for the ninth time in their last 12 matches, opined that he believed the players still supported him and his methods. "We just have to put performances together and start pushing back", he is reported as saying. Are such statements of what might be called "the bleedin' obvious" the best he can dream up ? Is it not HIS JOB to achieve such an end ? Are not the team's miserable performances principally a consequence of his failure to do 'HIS JOB' ? 

Then there are the words and demeanour of captain Joe Root. Poor Root seems to have but one downtrodden expression on his face and his body language is equally gloomy. He trots out the same worthless banalities after every defeat, spouting such rubbish as "My energy has to be all about trying to win the next game" and "You've got to rally the players. That's a big part of captaincy". Sadly for Root, it's also where his most abysmal failure lies. "We know the areas we need to improve. We have to keep getting better ...... ", says Root; what ? "keep getting better" ? when all they've done is get worse. This is utter rubbish and shows Root trotting out what is little more than a programmed line for the media. Where are the real words of a real leader ?

Root is a fine batsman who is, perhaps, bordering on greatness in that role, but he is no captain; Silverwood has proved to be a failure as head coach. Both must go, Root back to being the team's best batsman by far and Silverwood to obscurity. While there may be no immediately obvious alternative to take on the role of captain, the truth is that almost anyone will do as they can do no worse. As for the role of coach, surely there is some inspirational figure waiting in the wings, some former player who can take over at least for the next couple of games before a permanent appointment can be made.

And finally, there is the role of the ECB, the body ultimately responsible for the almighty mess in which England's test match side finds itself. It is the ECB that decided to banish the real cricket of the county championship to the outer reaches of the season, to days when the weather is often dull and damp and players have little chance to hone their skills in preparation for more arduous contests. Instead, the best months of the season are reserved mostly for assorted limited overs competitions in which bashing the ball around takes precedence over the demands of longer forms of the game. Rather than looking to enhance the championship with innovative ideas, the ECB has chosen to whittle it down to a point at which it is now largely pointless and played at times when spectators will often be discouraged from attending due to the weather, thus providing perfect ammunition in favour of still more cash generating, knock-about tournaments in mid-summer. 

So if head coach Silverwood and captain Joe Root have failed, as they surely have, it is not their failure alone. At the top of the pile are those at the ECB whose failure has been even greater, for not only did they appoint Silverwood and Root, but they have also destroyed the main nursery for future test match players. The ECB is a disaster, simply one of the myriad bureaucratic bodies that now infest our society and set up to meet political ends as much as the needs of the sport. 

English cricket needs a total revamp. The ECB will no doubt set up a committee to review "what went wrong" in Australia and that will be expected to "make recommendations" at some future date, recommendations that will largely exonerate the ECB itself and will suggest various bits of tinkering at the edges of the national structure. Phooey ! 

The ECB should, and must, be disbanded and consigned to the rubbish heap. A far simpler and more reactive body should replace it, with a return to a system much more like the days when the MCC ran things. The county championship for 2022 must be dramatically enhanced and promoted, while the insane concentration on ever shorter forms of the game must be ended. Touring, both to and from England, must be more realistic, with touring sides allowed the opportunity to become acclimatised by playing matches against counties, states, islands or whatever the local structure provides. Trying to cram umpteen test matches, ODIs, 20-20s and heaven knows what else into as short a period as possible must end.

English cricket is in a parlous state. Only major surgery will save it.

MORE WOE FOR ENGLAND'S HAPLESS CRICKETERS

England's pathetic performance in the current Ashes series continued apace in the traditional Boxing Day test match in Melbourne. Once again, their batting crumbled in the face of the Australian attack with only captain Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow scoring more than 30; the rest did little to trouble the bowlers, let alone the scorer.

England had made an attempt to refresh their side, dropping the failing Burns and Pope, and bringing in Wood and Leach for Woakes and Broad; the result was the same old mess. Of the replacements, only Bairstow proved to be of any use. Zak Crawley, whose batting average in 15 matches is not even 20, excluding one major innings, was restored to the line up to no effect while the return of Wood and Leach has yet to produce any benefit.

Let's face it. England's selection, coaching and captaincy are all in need of serious attention. Ray Illingworth, who sadly died on Christmas Day, would have been appalled by the pathetic efforts of this current England team. In his day, players put in a full shift of county matches as well as tests in a domestic season, while on tour in Australia and New Zealand in 1970/71 they played the state sides as well as tests and no one complained about being tired or needing a rest, despite playing 16 first class matches and 13 others. Added to this, the appointment of Illingworth as captain was controversial but ultimately his leadership resulted in the winning of the Ashes despite his team being not dissimilar to that which Joe Root is leading; something of a mish-mash with few genuine stars. The difference was that Illingworth was a Captain and led his side by example, creating a winning mentality despite it all.

England now seem to be on an inexorable path to a 5-0 whitewash, with only the weather likely to save them this humiliation. Root's recent comments about his own desire to record a century highlight his own failure as a captain - his focus should be on his team, not himself. Sack the coach, find a proper captain and change the whole pattern of English domestic cricket. Only then will there be any hope of ever regaining the Ashes against a far more organised and determined Australia.

WOKEISM MUST BE REJECTED.

Watching the magnificent Stanley Kubrick epic, 'Spartacus', one is tempted to wonder how far back in time wokeish revisionism might stretch.

The Roman Empire covered much of Europe as well as parts of north Africa and the modern day Middle East. It was barbaric and forced many millions into the most appalling slavery; gladiators were habitually forced to fight to the death for the gratification of the free populace as well as for the pleasure of the elite. Some unfortunate souls were literally "thrown to the lions" and other beasts. Compared with the activities of the much later British Empire, the Romans, modern day Italians, were a hundred, even a thousand, times worse.

And yet it is the British and their empire which attract the constant attention of the woke extremists. It is the British who are vilified for their part in the slave trades of, particularly, the 18th and early 19th centuries; that thousands of white British citizens were subject to virtual slavery for centuries before this, it is the trade in African slaves that dominates all else. Why is this ?

Surely it is because the wokeish revisionists are not so interested in the basic issues as in destroying our modern society in favour of their own Marxist agenda. They care not for slaves, only for how slavery can be used as a weapon in their ultra-left wing campaign against the capitalist societies which they despise and are desperate to destroy; should they ever succeed, God help those who oppose them, of whatever colour or creed they may be. This is the reality of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement as well as of other recent upwellings such as "Extinction Rebellion" and "Insulate Britain"; it is the reality of those behind the promotion of the climate goblin, Greta Thunberg, who appears too naive to understand that she is simply a convenient tool for people who have a much darker agenda.

Even today, slavery remains in force in many countries, acknowledged or not, while genocide is in progress in China and other places. In many countries, women have few, if any. rights; in some countries, barbaric punishments such as the amputation of hands and feet remain in force, while it is not uncommon for there to be stonings or burnings to death of supposed blasphemers, carried out by fanatical mobs without the intervention of any form of legal process. Why do such atrocities escape the attention of the so-moral Woke ?

Strangely, the Woke brigade seems to ignore all of this and concentrates its fire on the British and one or or two other Western democracies that have done more to promote the rights of the coloured, the underprivileged and disadvantaged, the disabled and every other imaginable 'minority' group, even when these 'minorities' are, in truth, majorities. Western money poured into the bottomless pit that is Africa, is condemned, while Chinese money is welcomed - why ?

Woke ideology movements such as BLM, XR and all the rest are simply covers for a Marxist assault on the Western world. They must be rejected, repulsed by whatever means are available, not pandered to by governments which seem far too keen to jump on any passing bandwagon that makes enough noise. Noise is not public opinion, nor is Twitter; it is the ravings of a minority and should be treated as such. In the end, it is the 'Silent Majority' that will speak, and it's words may not be those which those blown so easily by the wind will wish to hear, let alone be prepared for.

The elite, which is Wokeish by nature, knows this and will take steps to introduce authoritarian measures to prevent it from happening. Either we act very soon, or we are lost.

TIME TO END THE COVID HYSTERIA.

As the Welsh and Scottish 'governments' impose evermore restrictive and authoritarian rules for dealing with the COVID epidemic, and specifically the so-called 'Omicron' variant, while the UK government seems unable to decide what to do for the best, what do we really know about what is going on ?

The 'Omicron' variant of the COVID-19 virus is probably more infectious than earlier variants. It may cause less severe symptoms, less hospitalisations and less deaths, or it may not. We also know that the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions or who are immunosuppressed for any reason are much more likely to be severely affected by all the COVID variants. 'Omicron' may be less susceptible to control by the existing vaccinations though a third 'booster' dose appears to provide quite strong protection.

That's it.

Beyond these few facts, all else is theory, derived from an assortment of modelling and associated projections made by fearful medics, scientists and politicians. The inevitable and real consequences of the often highly restrictive policies they implement seem to be ignored in favour of dealing with a theoretical threat in a draconian way.

Even today, as we live under the threat of yet another lock down, there are reports that the Omicron variant may already be waning; even if it is not, the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths being reported are not rising. Yes, the number of positive tests reported each day are at very high levels but so are the number of tests being carried out daily. Shockingly, it is only the first of these metrics which is ever mentioned, potentially producing a highly misleading and biased picture. 

And so we are told to wear masks, isolate, avoid socialising - basically, to give up any sort of normal life. Schools have been shut, universities defraud their students, pubs and restaurants are on their knees and half the workforce has converted its kitchen into a home office. ID cards, in all but name, have been threatened, even introduced in some parts, under the cover of calling them 'Vaccine Passports'. he police have been diverted from tackling real crime, if they ever do that any more, to tracking down those who dare to defy the new anti-COVID masterplan. 

While all this goes on, thousands upon thousands of people are being denied access to essential medical services and huge numbers of cancer diagnoses are being missed. Thousands of businesses are simply going out of business as their employees are forced to isolate or their customers are told not to visit. Our high streets are empty as retailers close, never to reopen, and their customers are forced to use the online services of the likes of Amazon. 

It seems that the government has adopted an approach of maximum caution even though the evidence in favour of this is scant. In reality, the sooner COVID, of any variant, is free to circulate, the sooner the epidemic will be over. Yes, there will be deaths but how many of these will be directly and solely due to COVID ? Another piece of information that we don't know as our masters have chosen not to share the historic data with us.

It is time for the UK government to get a grip and take proper control. COVID is a risk but it's not dangerous for the vast majority of the population; lockdowns and isolation, lack of access to healthcare and economic bankruptcy are.

TIME TO END THE NONSENSE OF 'TRANS'.

I think I've now heard more than enough about the absurdity of 'trans'.

The human species has 2 sexes, or genders - male and female. That's it. The idea that someone can 'change sex' is ludicrous and simply trying to confuse the issue by claiming that sex and gender are different things makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course, there are a very few people who are unfortunate enough to be born with a genetic abnormality which can cause them to be 'intersex', that is, to have a mixture of both male and female sex characteristics but these people are not 'trans'. They are usually treated medically or surgically, or both, to give them the appearance and overall characteristics of one or other of the 2 human sexes.

Equally, there are people who claim to have been born in the "wrong body" and can and do undergo treatments to adopt the form of the opposite sex. Whatever these people do in terms of cosmetic alterations to their bodies and however they live their lives subsequently, they remain male or female as they were at birth and as they always will be, no matter what pieces of paper they have been issued with to say anything different.

To be clear, I have no problem with people living their lives as they wish to, so long as they don't interfere with or annoy anyone else. However, I do have a problem with these 'trans' numpties who demand all manner of special rights and privileges, deny biological facts and generally make a bloody nuisance of themselves. That major organisations, including public and private bodies, seem so keen to kowtow and accommodate their every whim actually annoys me even more than the individuals themselves as without this bonkers acceptance of lunacy the whole 'trans' issue would surely fade away.

We die as we were born, whatever clothes we wear in the years between. 'Trans' is total nonsense and it's time those in authority said so, loud and clear.

ENGLISH CRICKET ON THE ROPES

Former Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting has taken a pot shot at England's current skipper, Joe Root, posing the question as to why he is captain.

Thus far, the performance of the England team in the Ashes series taking place in Australia has been abysmal. Apart from a couple of decent innings from Root and Dawid Malan, England have been utterly outplayed in all departments - batsmen like rabbits in the headlights, dropped catches, poor bowling strategy, inexplicable selection - all issues which a truly involved and competent captain would be addressing. But not, it seems, Joe Root.

Comparing Root's demeanour and behaviour on the field with that of Mike Brearley, even if Brearley was around 40 years ago, is educational. While Brearley was involved with his players, moving around the field at speed, talking at length with his bowlers as they walked back to their marks and racing back to his own position before they delivered, Root seems, literally, rooted to the spot. He stands at slip looking miserable and constantly bemused; rather than exhibiting confidence and energy, he looks fearful and worn out. Compared with Brearley and others of his predecessors, Ray Illingworth and Michael Vaughan spring immediately to mind, Root is nowhere in sight. 

Yes, he is a fine batsman, but being a fine batsman does not make him a good captain. In truth, he is  not a captain although this is only one of England's problems. Geriatric fast bowlers, poor fielding and a weak batting lineup don't help either. Some have complained that the England player's had too little preparation for this series, but whose fault is that ? Not the players themselves, for sure, but a system which tries to shoe horn far too many test matches, ODIs and 20-20s into too short a period, while having abandoned the once traditional round of games against local sides, in the case of a tour of Australia, 3 or 4-day matches against the various states and an assortment of other preparatory games. In that system, the touring players had every chance to become acclimatised, but no more. Today's players are simply thrown into test matches with little more than net practice.

The consequence of this, added to the astonishing mess that is English domestic cricket, is what we've seen in Australia in the last 2 or 3 weeks - the utter humiliation of England by a dominant and confident Australian team. England's problems go deep and a 5-0 whitewash is surely on the cards, unless the weather, or COVID, intervene. Maybe that will stir something amongst the moribund mob that make up the ECB, though I doubt it. 

ANGELA RAYNER - FISHWIFE

Labour Party Deputy Leader Angela Rayner refers to the Conservatives as "scum", "racist", "homophobic" and "misogynistic". Fine language indeed for anyone who holds high office and aims for still higher.

To me, this language simply confirms my previous view of Ms Rayner. She is a typical northern fishwife, harpy and harridan who has no place on the stage of a major political party; she is far more suited to a soap box on a street corner.

However bad the government has been in recent weeks and months, voting for a party that holds the likes of Ms Rayner in high regard is impossible. Her attitude and views are entirely class based - she despises those whom she considers 'middle class' and hates with a vengeance the 'upper class'. Anyone of 'working class' who may have voted for the Conservatives in the past is a 'class traitor'. 

Astonishingly, this woman also talks about uniting people; how hypocritical can she be ?

God help the country if she was ever to gain any real power.

EMMA RADUCANU - ROLE MODEL PAR EXCELLENCE !

A few short weeks ago a teenaged schoolgirl recently sitting her 'A'-Levels and previously unknown except to her close family and a few in the tennis world, caused some ripples in the early rounds of the Wimbledon Championships. This girl had promise and, as she was British and really successful British players have been few and far between, she made news until an unfortunate exit from the Championships with breathing difficulties. "Did she have the bottle", asked some ? "Was she just a flash in the pan", asked others ?

Yesterday, this former schoolgirl proved that she both had 'the bottle' and was no 'flash in the pan'. Emma Raducanu, who had been ranked outside of the world's top 350 only 3 months ago, achieved what had never been done before. This young woman, no longer to be seen as a teenaged schoolgirl, came through 3 rounds of qualifying plus the 7 rounds of the main tournament without losing a set and rarely losing her serve, and lifted the trophy signifying that she had won the United States Women's Singles' Tennis Championship. In only her 4th event on the Women's main tour, and 2nd Grand Slam event, she achieved what had been considered impossible.

Never before had a player, man or woman, who had come through the qualification rounds of a Grand Slam tournament even reached the final of such an event, let alone won it without conceding a single set upon the way. Never before had such an inexperienced player won a major championship. Emma Raducanu's achievement is mind-boggling. Now set to be ranked as the 23rd best player in the world, she will be seeded and amongst the favourites for whichever events she enters in the next few months at least. Qualifying for events is a thing of the past.

When it comes to Grand Slams, if she maintains her form and position, she will surely be among the favourites to win the Australian title next January, if the tournament goes ahead. At the French championship it may be that the game of yesterday's opponent, and another brilliantly talented teenager, Leylah Fernandez, could prove to be better suited to the Paris clay, but her performance at this year's Wimbledon suggests that grass suits her.

For the first time in 44 years, a British woman won a Grand Slam tournament, the last such triumph being that of Virginia Wade at Wimbledon in 1977, the year of the Queen's Silver Jubilee. There can be no doubt that an 18 year old Raducanu can only improve and that further Grand Slam victories may well be within her grasp but, perhaps, to win Wimbledon in 2022, the year of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee would be a most wonderful way to celebrate both the life long dedication of Her Majesty and the amazing promise of the next generation, and the next, and the next ........ .

Win or lose, this young woman is astonishing. Her calm maturity on court in front of a vast crowd, mostly supporting her opponent added to her equally calm manner before the stern eye and ear of the media mark her out as a woman of extraordinary abilities. After yesterday a millionaire and a global sensation; in the future and if she can continue in the same vein, the world is truly her oyster. 

If anyone needed a role model, male or female, they need look no further.

NOW 'BIG BROTHER' THREATENS OUR FOOD.

Drip, drip, drip.

There was a time when people were allowed to take responsibility for their own lives, to make decisions about their children and what they ate, who they liked and what they said. No longer it seems.

We've already been subjected to ludicrous laws around the various 'hate crimes', laws which effectively require police, judges and juries to decide the motivations of offenders by inferring their thought processes. A variety of words which were commonplace in my youth, words that may have been intended as offensive but were frequently used without malice, have now been effectively banned and anyone using them may well find themselves with police knocking on the door. Our children are no longer educated in traditional subjects or ways but are indoctrinated with a mish-mash of left wing ideologies, while parents are powerless to intervene. 

Increasingly, responsibility for children and their welfare has moved from parents to the State with ever greater state provision for nursery care and 'free' school meals while a myriad of rules and regulations now control what children can and can't do as well as who can be trusted to be with them.

Today, the latest piece of potential state sponsored nonsense has hit the headlines in the shape of a National Food Strategy. Ostensibly intended to tackle inherent poor diets and obesity, the strategy proposes that government should impose taxes on whatever foodstuffs are considered to be unhealthy, while our GP's should offer prescriptions for fruit and vegetables to those in need. That the strategy, produced by Henry Dimbleby, a grandson of the less than svelte Richard, is a step, actually several miles, too far seems to have been the reaction of many, not least Prime Minister Boris Johnson who has reportedly said that he does not find the idea of taxes on food 'attractive'.

To my mind, taxes should never be attractive, Taxes should only ever be essential and should never be used to impose particular behaviours on the populace. It is morally wrong to try to promote any particular action by way of financial rewards or disincentives and it is a grotesque misuse of government authority so to do, at least in a democracy.

By all means, government should encourage people to adopt safe and healthy lifestyles but they should only ever do so by way of education and information. Any other approach smacks of the methods of the Chinese Communist Party and George Orwell's 'Big Brother' society.

We all have free choice in how we live our lives and if we choose to make wrong choices, so be it. It is not for governments to promote, or even enforce, whatever happens to be the latest faddish nonsense. Today's fad too often turns out to be tomorrow's catastrophe and governments should get on with running the country, not telling us all how to live our lives. Or do we all want to live in the ultimate 'Nanny State' ?

HANCOCK OUT, JAVID IN

So Matt Hancock has gone, and rightly so. Now every opposition voice, including that of the equally discredited Dominic Cummings, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to resign but should have been sacked and Boris Johnson is being accused of being weak.

None of this should really be any surprise. The Labour Party, effectively leaderless and with no identifiable policies other than of opposing the nasty Tories, uses every opportunity to throw mud at the Prime Minister while the Liberals and Scottish Nationalists make every effort to twist any negative story in a direction that supports their own agenda.

Hancock may have been a fool and may have been incompetent; he may even have been bordering on corrupt but the only firm evidence against him were the pictures leaked to the Sun newspaper. Yes, he has been embroiled in a variety of apparently dodgy dealings but who in the political sphere hasn't ? On the positive side, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care he has presided over the most extraordinary period in our nation's history and has overseen an astonishingly successful vaccination programme. He certainly had to go but let's not forget that his legacy isn't entirely a bad one.

Replacing Hancock is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as previous occupant of numerous other senior government jobs, Sajid Javid. His appointment has been welcomed by his fellow MPs although Cummings, who it seems was instrumental in getting him sacked from No 11, has posted a vitriolic diatribe against him. It seems that once this self-proclaimed genius has got his knives out, he carries on sticking them in whenever he can. He seems oblivious to the simple fact that such behaviour reduces his credibility to vanishing point.

And so we go on. COVID-19 cases are continuing to rise although hospitalisations and deaths remain low. July 19th is only 3 weeks away and Sajid Javid has the chance to be a hero by releasing us all from what has seemed like interminable misery. Let's hope he takes it.

MATT HANCOCK - DEAD MAN WALKING.

There have been many criticisms of the performance of Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the last year or so and yet he has held on to his job throughout. Now things may be changing.

Hancock has now been caught on film having a rather intimate 'clinch' with one of his aides, a woman whom he has known for many years and whom he seems to have employed within his department last year. While the simple matter of him possibly having an affaire (he is married with 3 children) may not be considered a critical offence in these supposedly enlightened days, the ramifications are significant.

Firstly, he has spent much of the last 18 months telling us all that we "must" follow the rules relating to COVID-19 restrictions, including those around social distancing; he clearly believed that these rules did not apply to himself.

Secondly, how can the people of this country believe whatever he tells us when he is obviously very ready to lie to and deceive his wife of 15 years in this way ? A man who will happily deceive his closest family would surely find it a far less difficult matter to deceive people with whom he has no close relationship. To put it mildly, his credibility is shot to pieces.

Thirdly, it seems that the woman involved has a brother who is a senior figure in a company which has been awarded major NHS in recent times, while questions have been raised about the process which saw her appointed to her non-executive role in Mr Hancock's Department. There have been other questions raised about similar issues over the last year, Hancock and his sister owning some 40% of another company that was awarded NHS contracts though Hancock did not fully declare this family connection. 

Fourthly, how on earth was he caught on film, apparently in his private departmental office ? Are ministers now routinely subject to CCTV monitoring ? If so, why and by whom ? If not, then how was the incriminating film obtained ? The implications for the security of government buildings is massive.

I have no idea whether Matt Hancock has been a good, bad or indifferent Secretary of State but this littany of failings, added to the comments of Dominic Cummings and elleged remarks of Boris Johnson, should surely be enough to see him booted out of office. However, for the moment at least, Boris is standing by his man though for how long remains to be seen. As the pressure mounts and public opinion swings against him, Hancock's tenure must be approaching its end.

Whether it's a couple of days, a few weeks or a couple of months, he's a dead man walking.

BERCOW : TRUE COLOURS FINALLY EMERGE.

It comes as no surprise that John Bercow, previously a member of the Conservative Party, has decided to formalise his true allegiance and join the Labour Party. No 'half-way' house with a move to the Liberal Democrats for him, but a full 'about face'.

Throughout his time as Speaker of the House of Commons, Bercow supported all manner of anti-Conservative movements, most notably over the vexed issue of Brexit. His clear oppositon to his notional party was obvious and his dislike of Prime Minister Boris Johnson almost palpable. No doubt for Bercow, the final straw was Johnson's refusal to put his name forward for the usual ennobling given to retired Speakers and now he has issued a vitriolic statement associated with his change of Party.

Of course, he is married to an active socialist and Labour supporter and is an ardent opponent of Brexit. That he is also a little man, in every sense of the word, who appears to have the sort of complex common to other little men, Napoleon being one example, which results in them being overly keen to emphasise their self-importance. Seeing Bercow march through the House of Commons on his way to the Chamber, this little puffed up man surrounded by his entourage, was almost laughable and encouraged the us of the song "Big John" by some television cbhannels.

Bercow's appearances in the House frequently saw him attempting to take centre stage with pompous pronouncements and unnecessary interventions. After his retirement, he made capital out of his previous behaviour by appearances in the media, something undertaken by no other Speaker and which has undoubtedly demeaned one of the highest offices in the land. It seems that Bercow was, and still is, more interested in his own self-aggrandissement than in upholding the honour of the position he once held. Indeed, it may be that he has hopes that by joining the Labour opposition, he may finally gain the one thing that he craves, a Life Peerage, for it must be certain that the Conservatives will never offer him one. 

Will Keir Starmer or a future Labour leader oblige ? Maybe, maybe not, but Bercow will surely have his fingers crossed. 

GB NEWS - TERRIFYING THE WOKE !

The reaction of the liberal and left wing media to the first few days of the "GB News" television channel has been an amazing indicator of how terrified they are of the advent of a new outlet that prefers discussion to indoctrination, thought to knee-jerk and an approach which avoids the appalling wokeness of so many newspapers, websites and other channels. The bile pouring from the pages of 'The Mirror', The Guardian', the laughably named 'Independent' and even 'The Times' is astounding. Added to this, it seems that there's been a concerted effort by some broadcasters, including the ultra-woke BBC, to interfere with the normal arrangements for sharing of news between channels while a number of companies have either suspended or withdrawn their adverts from the new channel (HOORAH !!)

Incredibly, "GB News" actually seems to be ticking many of the boxes that the hordes of Islington wokies must surely feel are essential - an array of female presenters and commentators, often outnumbering their male colleagues; several coloured women, a gay or two. Reports are regularly presented from all parts of the country, not just the few miles around Westminster, and issues are discussed rather than simply being reported as undeniable facts. 

Presumably what the Woke don't like is that subjects such as the various aspects of racism are being treated as rather more than one-dimensional statements of fact. The highly political actions of the National Trust have been questioned and, today, there has been discussion about yet another piece of nonsense, put out by English Heritage, regarding the supposed racist and xenophobic nature of the works of Enid Blyton. Sadly for the woke brigade, rather than being horrified at these revelations about the much loved children's author, presenters, including two coloured women, expressed their childhood delight at the books and one even told of her favourite doll being a 'Golly'. The simple fact, as indicated by several of those on screen, is that trying to apply the transitory morality of today to the transitory actions of yesterday is ridiculous nonsense.

By all means draw attention to the failings of society in bygone days but do not tar those who lived in those times with a brush dipped in today's paint pot. Pulling down statues and banning writers, speakers or television programmes is censorship, regardless of the supposed reasons. History is history; what was done yesterday was done, don't hide it and don't try to view it through some wokeish lens of today. Simply be open about it and admit that it might not gel with today's morality - end of.

"GB News" is a new channel and has had its teething troubles, but why should it be lambasted for being what it is ? With Andrew Neil, it has probably the best political broadcaster of his day, and he's assembled a bright and lively band of helpers to support him. Even within the first week, we've seen the first question at a Prime Ministerial press conference handed to the "GB News" reporter; an interview with former Chancellor Sajid Javed and another with his successor, Rishi Sunak. Michael Portillo has made a welcome return to the politcial debate and the now reviled-by-the-left Laurence Fox has shared his thoughts with viewers. Of course, some will say that these are all right wing figures and there's a lack of balance, but perhaps left wingers are frightened by the prospect of being subjected to propoerly critical interviews rather than the soft-left approaches of the BBC and others. That said, one of the presenters is former Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and one can only wonder how long it will be before current left wing politicos find themselves unable to resist the opportunity to appear on our screens.

None of this is to say that "GB News" is yet the answer to anyone's prayers but it's started pretty well. Over the coming months there will undoubtedly be changes to formats, sets, even presenters and programming, but so far, so good. 10 out of 10 for effort, 8 out of 10 for delivery, looking to make that a 9 before very long.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE SEX, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.

The case of Maya Forstater demonstrates just how far down the insane road to extreme wokeishness our nation has travelled.

Forstater holds, and has expressed, the view that the matter of biological sex is immuntable, that is, no matter what surgery or other measures an individual mau undergo, they can never actually 'change sex'. She is particularly concerned that there is now a vociferous lobby which is demanding ever greater recognition for so-called 'trans-people', nearly all of whom are males who apparently prefer to behave as and be seen as being female. These 'trans-females' expect to be treated as women, allowed to use facilities generally reserved for women and to compete in sports as women, despited having very obvious male attributes. Forstater believes that all of this is wrong, as does her supporter JK Rowling, but when she said so, her employer dismissed her on for expressing views which it found unacceptable. Rowling has also been vilified for providing support. 

Forstater then took her case to a tribunal which astonishingly took her employer's side, stating that "her views were not worthy of respect in a democratic society". It went on to say that Forstater was "absolutist" in her view and said she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the "enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering". 

What ? In effect the tribunal was saying that the expression of views which are not popular in modern society should not be allowed - where on earth are we living? Communist China ? 

The tribunal appears to have failed to notice that biological sex and the apparent gender that a person wishes to exhibit are quite different. Any male can, if he wishes, disport himself as a woman, wearing female attire and using make-up, growing his hair in a female fashion and so on; such things do not and never can make him a woman. To many this must be blindingly obvious though to a shockingly noisy but very tiny minority it is a mark of the most appalling harrassment and discrimination to say so. Equally shocking is that there are now many organisations and even judicial bodies which appear so terrified of offending this, and other, tiny minorities that they have decided to remove the right of the vast majority to voice an opinion on such matters.

Thankfully, a judge in the High Court yesterday determined that the tribunal in Forstater's case ahd been wrong in law and ordered that the case be reheard. Effectively, he ruled that holding and even expressing a view contrary or offensive to that held by some others was not of itself criminal; Forstater had not done anything to directly harm, or even try to harm, anyone.

That such a case ever arose in the first place is frightening but demostrates how far down the road to totalitarianism we have gone. There are now so many forbidden topics, things we cannt say for fear of causing offence to someone who may then take legal action against the 'offender'. We are being monitored in all quarters in case we say something out of turn, usually something that would have passed unnoticed 50 years ago but now brings the full weight of the law crashing down on our heads.

How on earth did we get into such a mess ?

WHERE IS JIM HACKER WHEN HE'S NEEDED ?

It's tempting to say that you couldn't make it up but, of course, someone did !

The reported 'sausage war' currently raging between the UK and EU seems like a surreal piece of nonsense that couldn' possibly be happening. That it was foreshadowed by an episode of the still quite brilliant "Yes, Minister", way back in 1984, demonstrates that fiction is not always stranger than fact.

In the final episode of "Yes Minister", the Minister for Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker, looks for a way of raising his profile as he pursues promotion to No. 10. Hilariously, an opportunity is presented to him as the European Union is about to introduce new regulations regarding the definition of sausages; Hacker leaps on this move to claim that the nasty foreigners are threatening to outlaw the 'British Sausage', and his manoeuvering pays off as the final scenes of the episode see him achieving his goal.

Now no one is claiming that the EU is planning to ban British Sausages (yet) but it does seem that there are problems over the movement of goods of all sorts, sausages being used as a suitably ridiculous example, from the island of Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is apparently a consequence of the "Northern Ireland Protocol", a cobbled together piece of the treaty that saw the United Kingdom, as a whole and including Norther Ireland, leave the European Union. 

This protocol was never going to be workable as it a) effectively partitioned the United Kingdom and b) kept Northern Ireland border arrangements under the control of the European Union. It seems highly likely that the protocol was as much about the ambitions of the Irish Republic as anything else, their hope being that it would help to pave the way for the eventual reunification of the 2 parts of the island of Ireland. However, others have also jumped on the opportunity to throw mud and threats at the UK, particularly the French and those at the highest levels of the EU itself who have still not forgiven the British for daring to leave their dictatorial and protectionist club. As for the French, they've always hated us and recent events over fishing rights around Jersey have probably inflamed this hatred still further; additionally, President Macron is in all sorts of trouble and faces an election next year, so any opportunity to bash the British will be grabbed with both hands as a potential vote-winning ploy.

And so we now have the "Sausage War". Residents of Northern Ireland are, reportedly, in danger of being deprived of supplies of the good old 'British Banger' as imports into the territory face so much red tape that companies are deciding not to bother. The UK is telling the EU to be realistic and flexible, the EU is telling the UK to be realistic and accept the rules they agreed to in the protocol. Failing an agreement, the EU is threatening to take legal action against the UK, all notionally because of the movement of sausages across the Irish Sea.

You couldn't make it up, except that Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn effectively did just that, more than 35 years ago. What we need now is a Jim Hacker, backed by his Humphrey Appleby, to win the day and save the "British Banger" !

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD !

More than half a century ago, there was a film titled "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World !" It was a comedy about a group of people racing each other to find a pile of loot. While the case of cricketer Ollie Robinson is rather different, it's an indicator that we now inhabit a world that's at least as mad and it would be comical if it wasn't so absurd.

As a teenager, Robinson made some comments that are now considered to have been 'unacceptable' due, apparently, to them being deemed sexist and racist. Now, nearly 10 years later and after he's just enjoyed a highly successful test match debut, Robinson has been banned from all international cricket while a disciplinary investigation is undertaken.

I have no problem with murderers or rapists being pursued, caught and penalised years after their crimes are committed but Robinson's offences are hardly in that league. Indeed, they're more akin to a bit of minor shop-lifting or speeding, neither of which would attract the attention of anyone for more than a few days after the event. For Robinson to be dragged up in front of the court of wokeish opinion and to potentially lose his career over what amounts to stupid, childish remarks made years ago is bordering on the obscene.

Robinson did not hurt anyone by his actions. He did not steal anything. He did not even disadvantage anyone. He did what most of us do at some time as a result of being young and, possibly, a bit foolish, but to splash his supposed misdemeanour across the media and pursue him as if he was a major criminal is itself a crime. How many of us would be found guilty in the court of current public opinion for acts we committed decades ago if only Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the egregious social media had been around then ? 

Making remarks about niggers or poofs, wolf whistling at pretty girls - are these really crimes ? When I was a child such things were commonplace, offensive though some may have found them, but criminal they weren't. However, in today's "Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", being offensive seems to have become the Number One crime and the offender has become Public Enemy Number One. At the same time, convicted and often deceased offenders from decades ago are pardoned because their crimes would not be considered crimes in today's world. What lunacy !

It is insane. In the words of the old saw "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me". It's time we took note. 

PS.

How good to read that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, appears to agree with me. He's recently suggested that suspending Robinson is 'over the top' and that the England and Wales Cricket Board should reconsider it's action. Good for him !

FOREIGN AID IS NOT THE ANSWER

Year after year and decade after decade, our television screens have shown pictures of malnourished, sick or disabled children, accompanied by voice-overs begging for money to alleviate the suffering. Organisations such as Oxfam and Action Aid, UNICEF and Lord knows how many others regularly pluck at the heart strings of viewers who have, collectively, contributed billions of pounds in aid. At the same time, our government has provided many more billions through its foreign aid budget while foreign governments and their people have also made similar donations. Taken together, there must by now have been many hundreds of billions of pounds, dollars, yen, marks, franks, Euros and almost every other currency known to man thrown into what is little more than a bottomless pit.

How can it be that, after so many years of such vast financial support, nothing seems to have changed ? We are still chastised for failing to provide healthcare, clean water and food for the poor, mostly in Africa but also elsewhere. Campaigners demand that we provide funds for them to protect young girls from abuse and to ensure that they receive a decent education. In truth, charity has become big, even gigantic, business from which many from wealthy countries have made a very nice living, thank you. Some of the providers of supposed aid have even been caught carrying out various abuses of their own, using their status and power as bargaining chips to obtain 'favours' from those whom they are notionally helping.

Where has all the money gone ? Clearly much of it has been stolen by the tyrants who have ruled many of the affected countries - Mugabe, Bokassa, Amin and many more, all of whom enriched themselves at the expense of their people - but much more seems to have simply vanished into the African landscape. If the pictures shown to us night after night are true, then the vast resources poured into assorted charitable causes have achieved nothing over a period of many years and one has to wonder what will be achieved by throwing yet more money down this drain. However, if progress is being made, why are we continuing to be shown pictures of such misery and suffering, which must then be a gross misrepresentation of the true situation.

Seeing people living in squaid circumstances and suffering from an assortment of ills is uncomfortable viewing but clearly the solution is not simply to throw money at the problem. Medieval societies, for that is what many of these populations are, live with tribal and cultural issues which are almost incomprehensible to those in the modern Westernised world. However, as recently as 2 or 3 hundred years ago, the majority of the population of Britain lived in similar style to that of the poor in today's 'Third World' nations. People survived for as  long as they could as subsistence farmers with no health care worthy of the name, no clean water, little food and minimal housing; they were controlled by their landlords and the church and faced a legal system that was barbaric by any standards. Then came the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, which swept through Europe bringing new ideas and technologies, not imposed with foreign money but growing from within. 

That is the secret, if there is one, to solving the problem of 'Third World' poverty. The answer has to come from within, from the people of those nations chnging things for themselves and as long as Western societies continue to pour in money, they won't do it. Charity produces nothing but demands for more charity; out of adversity comes innovation and change.

Far from giving more to foreign aid, our government should have the courage to call a halt to all but the most highly targeted aid for specific issues; no more blank cheques to the likes of Oxfam or UNICEF. If the 'Third World' is ever to prosper, it must do it by itself. It must have its own Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, not have Western values and cultural ideas imposed upon it. 

Sadly, that seems very unlikely to happen and the charitable black hole will continue to suck in as much Western cash as it can, while giving almost nothing back. The only winners will continue to be the workers employed by the charities concerned; the poor will stay poor, uneducated, sick and hungry.

TOTTENHAM, LEVY AND AN ALMIGHTY MESS - UPDATED, TWICE !

As a longstanding supporter of Tottenham Hotspur (approaching 60 years in fact), I seem to have spent much more time being disappointed and frustrated than in any form of celebration. Certainly since the advent of the Premier League, successes have been rare, to say the elast, and even good seasons can really be counted on the fingers of not much more than one hand.

This is not to say that the team hasn't had it's moments, such as it's 'nearly' years of 2015/16 and, particularly, 2016/17 when it produced ut's best league performance since the 1960s. However, the good years have been surrounded by far too many mediocre ones and stringing good years together has proved problematic. Few managers have lasted very long, with 14 permanent appointees and  caretakers filling the post since 1992 alone and now they're looking for yet another. Pochettino nearly achieved 2 league titles on a shoestring budget and with the development of numerous youngsters, not least of whom is Harry Kane.

Pochettino developed a side that played good, attractive football but also had a solid defence; Mourinho's approach is to defend and counter attack, a system for which the Tottenham squad was ill equipped. Deprived of his customary spending power, Mourinho's time at Tottenham turned out to be even less good than Pochettino's swansong season and close to a disaster. Getting rid of him was the best thing that Daniel Levy could have done although why he appointed the man in the first place is something of a mystery to me.

Having dumped the 'Special One', Levy eventually embarked on a search for a replacement, a search that has been nothing but chaotic. Favoured candidates have taken other jobs in droves and it seems that the only man who wants the job is Pochettino, whose present club, PSG, are either not willing to let him go or are looking for massive compensation if they do. Almost in desperation it seems, Levy turned to the out of work Antonio Conte who, having got very close to accepting the job, has now decided against it, Tottenham also apparently deciding that they didn't really want him anyway. 

Just what are Levy and Tottenham playing at ? Managerless since 19th April they appear to have no idea about what to do next. Mourinho was a mistake and Conte, a manager out of the same mould, would have been at least as bad. Like Mourinho, Conte never stays long anywhere and like Mourinho he has no interest in bringing on new talent, only in buying a team of ready made 'stars'. Tottenham do not work like that so why, oh why, were they ever interested in either ?

Shockingly, having made an almighty bollocks of things they now have little in the way of options. Can they convince Pochettino to return and PSG to let him go ? Might Pochettino return to Tottenham and Conte replace him at PSG ? Not if the PSG players have their way, it's reported, with them rejecting the idea of being under a man who is renowned for being 'difficult'.

Failing that, could it be Roberto Martinez, currently manager of the Belgian national side but who has reportedly expressed an interest in the Tottenham job ? Another previously favoured candidate was Erik ten Hag of Ajax who is, apparently, the new leading contender despite him having recently agreed an extension to his current role. Who else is there ? Graham Potter, currently of Brighton, or Eddie Howe, formerly of Bournemouth ? 

Perhaps I should put in for the job. Any other takers ?

Update :

Well, it seemed to be all set for Paulo Fonseca, previously manager of Roma where Mourinho is now ensconced, to take over in the Tottenham hot seat, but wait !

Apparently talks have broken down, after at least a couple of weeks of supposedly positive talks, and now the new favoured candidate is Gennaro Gattuso. Considering that at one time, Pochettino was an odds on favourite, around 1/5 at least, Conte reached something like 1/20, and Fonseca was also in the region of 1/5, what should we make of SkyBet's current 1/2 for Gattuso ? Doesn't seem that they're really all that confident. 

What price Tottenham to be relegated in May 2022, still without a manager ? 

Another update !

Little more than 24 hours after ending their efforts to land Fonseca in favour of pursuing Gattuso, now Gattuso is off the radar too. It seems that there was such a negative response from the club's supporters that there will be no further pursuit of the Italian.

Where next for this now utterly farcical saga ? There are now few, if any, obvious candidates who have any real experience or favour the style of play that Tottenham fans want to see. 

It's a mess that is now a huge embarrassment for the club and its fans. Will Fabio Paratici actually take up his new role at the club on 1st July as planned ? Can Daniel Levy survive ? Jose Mourinho must be laughing all the way to the bank.

BORIS GETS MARRIED - DOES ANYONE CARE ?

What is it about the British media that makes it so pathetic ? 

It's been reported that the Prime Minister, Boris (otherwise Alexander Boris de Pfeffel) Johnson, has married his fiancé, Carrie (Caroline Louise ?) Symonds in London today. Big news, an engaged couple who've been living together and already have a child have actually tied the knot; this is not entirely newsworthy stuff.

However, the media, in typical fashion, have looked for any angle to make it seem as though it's an event that matters. Is Boris being controlled by Carrie ? Is Carrie the real power behind the throne ? Why did they not tell the world about the date of the marriage instead of keeping it a 'secret' ?

Perhaps I'm old fashioned but for me the marital doings of a Prime Minister are not my business, nor those of anyone else, until they become entangled with affairs of state. If, when and where Mr Johnson and Ms Symonds choose / chose to marry is their business, not mine nor that of anyone else. Why the evermore intrusive press should believe otherwise is something of a mystery. Are they angered at missing out on a 'scoop' or is it just a result of an insatiable urge to know the ins and outs of the private lives of anyone whose name has ever appeared in print ?

This marriage is not news. It never will be news in any meaningful sense. It is merely fodder for the masses whose lives are so dull that they drool over the doings of anyone whose face appears on television or on the cover of a magazine, no mtatter how far down the scale of dreggery. 

Given tripe such as this, my contempt for the British press grows by the day. As for the future of mankind, obsessed by this kind of drivel, I've given up all hope some time ago.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO CUMMINGS !

It's fairly clear that Dominic Cummings is a man on a mission. If you cross him, watch out !

Yesterday's appearance before a House of Commons committee proved to be a fine opportunity for him to 'grand stand', giving the world the benefit of his wisdom, both in foresight and hindsight, while throwing lorry loads of manure at those whom he now despises. Rather strangely, some of these are the same people with whom he worked, apparently in close harmony with, for prolonged periods, notably Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having worked with Mr Johnson to bring about Brexit and been his right hand man in Downing Street, Cummings now claims that Johnson is incompetent and that his being Prime Minister is almost unbelievable. So is Mr Johnson a man who deserved Cummings' loyalty and support, or is he an incompetent fool ? Whichever it is, Cummings' account shows him to have been wrong in his assessment at least half of the time.

Another who has come in for huge criticism from Cummings is the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Mr Hancock has been accused of being a 'serial liar' as well as simply being incompetent. In Cummings' view, Mr Hancock should have been, and almost was, sacked several times over the last year as he repeatedly misled or lied to his colleagues about his department's progress with various aspects of the government's response to the COVID epidemic.

Cummings made his assorted allegations while indicating that there was evidence to support them but failing to be very forthcoming with any. He offered to make available various text messages and other records of his own, but refused to be as open as the committee would have liked, citing the privacy of other parties. If his accusations are true, surely these other parties will be prepared to give corroborating statements to the committee and would therefore have no problem with being named and sharing their own records; if they do not, this will throw considerable doubt on Cummings' recollections and statements.

Cummings hates the Prime Minister and has a serious dislike of Mr Hancock. Both opted to take actions with which Cummings did not agree and ultimately Cummings left his role in Downing Street under a cloud; this cloud was, of course, at least partly of his own making through his highly ill-advised trip from London to Durham and thence across some 60 miles to 'check his eyesight', before returning to London, all during a period of extreme lockdown. At this time, Cummings was fully supported by the Prime Minister and yet, little more than 6 months later, he stormed out of Downing Street threatening all manner of recriminations.

Cummings has history. For a few months in 2002, he was Director of Strategy for the Conservative Party under Ian Duncan Smith; his 8 month stay in this role ended with him resigning and calling his boss 'incompetent'. He followed this job with 2 campaigning roles, firstly founding the short lived 'New Frontiers Foundation' and then 'North East Says No', an organisation dedicated to rejecting the notion of a regional assembly for the north east of England. Next came a brief period at the Spectator magazine, where he caused mayhem by publishing a cartoon of Muhammed before returning the Conservative Party to work for Michael Gove for 7 years. That he survived for such a length of time in this latter role seems to have owed much to Mr Gove's willingness to turn a blind eye, or deaf ear, to his assistant's working methods, there being a number of debatable actions attributed to him during this period, including at least one of bullying.

Even when working with the 'Vote Leave' campaign, Cummings continued to have difficult relationships with colleagues and his overall contempt for others seems to have continued up until the present day. Cummings clearly has little time for anyone who doesn't agree with him or act in accordance with his perceived notions of what is right. Anyone who does not accept his view of the world is automatically incompetent, thick, stupid or whatever other words come to mind. His own actions are always well-meaning, even when, as he has admitted, he may have been wrong, while others are simply stupid regardless of whether their actions are well-meaning or not.

Cummings has set his sights on destroying Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and, no doubt, a few others as well. Whether he succeeds or goes the way of other vengeful egotists is yet to be discovered.

NUL POINTS !

A self proclaimed 'Eurovision expert', interviewed on television a couple of days ago, said that she believed the UK's entry in the latest Eurovision Song Contest was the best we had managed for a number of years. While she didn't go so far as to claim that it might win, she was quite positive about its prospects.

Sadly, she was utterly wrong.

The dirge churned out by one James Newman was, frankly, awful. I haven't watched the show for several decades but I have listened to the Newman effort and I'm not even sure that awful is quite strong enough. The guy can't really sing, his presentation was terrible and the set surrounding him was indescribable. 'Nul Points' was probably more than it deserved.

The only questions that arise after this latest national humiliation are 1) why do we bother entering at all ? and 2) if we must enter, why can't we come up with a decent song ? In the distant past, we actually did have some good entries but recent years seem to have produced a succession of what might be termed 'turkeys'. 

One wonders how much the BBC pays into the Eurovision pot in order to have the 'privilege' of putting this tripe onto our screens. How ever much, it's too much. 

HARRY - IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, ME, ME !

Poor Harry.

No one will deny that the revelations about the infamous interview of Princess Diana conducted by Martin Bashir in 1995 are shocking. Bashir lied and deceived in order to obtain the result he wanted and it seems that the hierarchy of the BBC at the time, including recently departed Director General Lord Hall, took a blind eye to the whole affair. A inquiry at the time concluded that nothing was wrong, though not it's clear that very much was wrong.

Following the publication of the latest report, by Lord Dyson, Prince William has taken the quite unusual step of making a public statement in which he lambasts the BBC for its failings and the effect which they had on his mother. He has not sought sympathy for himself but has concentrated on the damage done to Diana. If only his brother had done the same.

Poor Harry. While equally castigating the BBC, Harry has then turned the attention onto himself and his own supposed struggles. I don't deny that for a young boy, barely into his teens, to experience the publicity that surrounded his parents marital strife followed by the death of his mother in a horrendous car crash must have been traumatic, but for him to use the Dyson report into Bashir's activities as a basis for launching into more claims of neglect by his family, leading to supposed drug and alcohol abuses by himself is pathetic.

Harry is one of the most privileged people in the world, a close member of what is probably the most well known family there is; while the monarch does not have the political power of other leaders, her 'soft power', and that of other senior members of the family, is immeasurable but vastly greater than that of most national and even international leaders. As one of the most senior members of this bastion, Harry was in a position to do great things, to bring about change if change was necessary, and to provide long lasting and loyal support to the family, monarchy, nation and world. 

He appeared to be doing this when he joined the army and served with some distinction. Whenever he appeared on screen, he gave every impression of being happy and fulfilled and his involvement in the 'Invictus Games' was widely applauded. The occasional blip - such as being photographed taking part in a NAZI themed party - was put down to youthful indiscretion. Nonetheless, things seem to have begun to change after he left his military career and that change has escalated in more recent times.

Now, on the back of the Dyson report, he bemoans his own fate in an American television chat show and berates his family. It was they, not him, who was responsible for his binge drinking and other wild exploits which he attributes to claimed mental health problems. The family didn't help him and now he's having to undergo therapy, he says. Does it occur to him that his supposed mental health problems are nothing but the mostly minor irritations that most of us experience at points in our lives ? His grandparents went through the Second World War, experiencing far greater problems and deprivations than he has ever suffered, but they got on with life without whining and without the need for therapy. It appears that Harry is a victim of a modern society in which every slight problem is deemed to assume massive proportions and to be in need of professional attention.

If Harry had 'issues' I have no doubt that the Duke of Edinburgh would have told him, quite rightly, to "pull himself together and stop whining". It is a shame that such advice is not given more often, indeed, much more often, in these days in which every slight problem seems to be evolved into a mental health issue. As for Harry, the more he whines, the less he will achieve, for himself or for others, except within the closed world of US media celebrities which he now inhabits. The rest of the world will soon lose interest in this whining. highly privileged and super-rich little boy.

WILD EYED CUMMINGS THREATENS MAYHEM - AGAIN.

 As the government and country gets on with dealing with the COVID epidemic, Dominic Cummings continues to believe that he is the real centre of everyone's world.

Whatever the truth about his dramatic departure from Downing Street last year, Cummings' behaviour in the last few months has been nothing but self-centred. His latest attacks on the government, and especially his former boss and close colleague Boris Johnson, are bordering on the manic. Erratic tweets, blog-o-sphere diatribes and a general wild-eyed manner all contribute to the appearance of a man on the edge of sanity. 

Cummings is threatening to wreak all sorts of havoc when he appears before a House of Commons' committee in a few days time but one wonders what effect he will have in the real world, the one outside of the "Westminster Bubble". Surely the more fanatical he appears, the more fantastical any claims he makes will seem. After all, he has clearly declared war on the Prime Minister which must throw doubt on the veracity of any claims or accusations that he makes.

Cummings was obviously badly hurt by his Downing Street departure but his actions since are those of a man purely out for revenge, which is hardly the behaviour of a supposedly highly intelligent political mastermind. Perhaps he was badly treated, perhaps his advice was ignored but does he consider himself to be such a genius that he is always right ? 

Maybe that's the way a man with an ego the size of Mount Everest actually thinks but it's hard to believe that others will see things the same way, other than those who have their own political agendas for doing so.

STARMER'S RESHUFFLE - WILL ANYONE REALLY NOTICE ?

Following fairly disastrous election results, Keir Starmer has carried out a minor reshuffle of what is laughably referred to as his "Top Team". Will anyone really notice ?

The initial headline was the removal of Angela Rayner from her role as Party Chairman which was greeted with bemusement by most. If, as he repeatedly claimed, Starmer took full responsibility for the failings of his party's election campaign, why was he then apparently making Rayner a scapegoat ? To demonstrate the actual weakness of his own position, Rayner was then rapidly recycled into assorted roles including as Michael Gove's shadow, a senior position.

Less fortunate was the ineffectual Anneliese Dodds who has been almost invisible during her tenure as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dodds has gone, to be replaced by the egregious harridan, Rachel Reeves, whose main ability seems to be to speak over, under and round all and sundry while rudely ignoring their right of reply. Dodds herself has been retained in the role of Party Chairman, though why is an unanswered question. If the gobby Rayner couldn't succeed in it, how on earth will the mouse-like Dodds ?

Other changes seem to be cosmetic rather than substantial. the long serving Nick Brown has received the order of the boot and been replaced as Chief Whip by his deputy, Alan Campbell. Shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, sister of the disgraced Keith, has been replaced by Thangam Debbonaire. Finally, one Shabana Mahmood has been given the job of Campaigns' Coordinator, a role previously held by Rayner, and Wes Streeting (who ?) has become something to do with child poverty.

There can be no doubt that Ms Reeves will make more of a splash than did her predecessor though the rest seem to be simply the replacement of one bunch of virtual unknowns by another. That the reshuffle wasn't more extensive appears to indicate that Starmer's own position is now very weak and there has already been talk of a leadership challenge, although this seems unlikely to materialise just yet. 

The Labour Party is in turmoil, virtually leaderless, certainly directionless. It's credibility will be sorely tested by the forthcoming By-election if the constituency of Batley & Spen, vacated by the newly elected Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and where a Labour majority of 6,000 in 2015 had already been reduced to 3,500 by 2019. Losing this seat, once in the possession of the murdered Jo Cox, would surely place the spotlight very firmly on Starmer's leadership and could well be sufficient to bring about a leadership election.

Then there would be the question of who, out of the innumerable available nonentities, would replace him. Fun times ahead.

STURGEON STEAMS ON, BUT TO WHERE ?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, following agreement between the governments of England (including Wales) and Scotland, and the passing of relevant Acts in the parliaments of both countries. In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All three nations had previously shared the same monarch from 1603 when James VI of Scotland had become James 1 of England, the Kingship of Ireland having been already taken on by Henry VIII of England in 1541.

Now, after more than 300 years of unity, Nicola Sturgeon wants to impose her fanatical desire for Scottish independence on both the people of her nation and also those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom has already been reduced by the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the secession of a large part of the island of Ireland although this owed as much to religion as to politics. Sturgeon's plans have nothing to do with religion and are all about politics and her desire to be 'free' of what she sees as the malign influence of the UK's government in Westminster.

Back in 2014, David Cameron allowed the Scots to conduct a referendum on the simple question of whether or not they wanted to become an independent nation once again. The result was a reasonable clear one - they did not. The promoters of the referendum, the Scottish National Party, were very clear that this was a 'once in a generation' opportunity for Scots to make such a choice, and they still rejected the idea. Ever since, Sturgeon and her pals have used every excuse under the sun to claim that another referendum should be held rather more quickly than was previously suggested; actually, they want one within a year or two.

Before the current round of elections, Sturgeon was saying that if her SNP gained an absolute majority in the Holyrood parliament, she would see that as a mandate to demand a second referendum. Now seeing that the likelihood of an SNP majority is not great, she's changed her tune - now it's a majority of pro-Independence parties in the new parliament that will be sufficient, which takes advantage of the Green Party being in favour of separating from the United Kingdom.

Of course, Sturgeon only talks about the issues which support her position and ignores all else. Even if it's accepted that all SNP voters support independence (which is far from certain), that's only around 48% of the 63% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Adding in those who voted for the Green Party makes little real difference and with all other major parties opposed to another referendum, we're left with something like 30% of the electorate supporting pro-independence parties; for Sturgeon to claim that this gives her a mandate for another referendum is risible, regardless of the number of seats held in the parliament.

If she did actually get her way, held and won a referendum, what would that mean for both Scotland and the rest of the then former United Kingdom ?

Sturgeon has always claimed that the head of state would still be the Queen, but would hold for any future monarchs, or would Scots be looking for a Presidential system ? It has also been claimed that Scotland would retain use of the British currency and there would be no problems over borders or trading arrangements. In fact, as far as Sturgeon is concerned, life for Scots would be almost as it is now, with the single exception that she would be the boss; she glosses over the issues which would arise from her plan to take an independent Scotland back into the European Union.

Despite Sturgeon's optimism, an independent Scotland, especially one that is a very small and insignificant member of the European Union, would not have it so easy. The Queen may well be happy to remain as head of state but what about the future ? Might we see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, even George Galloway, standing in a Presidential election ? What a horror show !

Continuing to use the pound sterling would only be possible if agreed by the parliament in Westminster and would leave the Scots tied to financial decisions made by Westminster and the Bank of England. Joining the European Union would, of course, require Scotland to adopt the Euro as their currency while there would also be the small matter of the border with England which would then become a border between England and the European Union; given the ongoing issues over Brexit and the position in Ireland, this could be a major problem. Would we have border posts along Hadrian's Wall, or some other line of EU defence, or would there be calls for England to accept EU rules in order to avoid such nonsense ? 

What would happen as the economies of the 2 nations diverged, as seems inevitable, has been ignored. Scotland has a large budget deficit and there has been considerable criticism of many of the services provided by the SNP administration; EU rules would mean tight financial controls would have to be imposed and the impact of these could be dramatic. Adoption of the Euro as the national currency would place Scotland under the control of the European Central Bank, rather than the Bank of England, and Scotland would then be required to follow whatever fiscal rules the ECB imposes. Scotland would also be tied to whatever fate awaits the Euro and the rest of the highly protectionist European Union. Trade with England could be significantly damaged as EU rules on borders, the single market and customs' union could well mean the imposition of tariffs and other border controls. Anyone living on one side of the border and working on the other may have unwanted issues to deal with as well.

By contrast, England would fare quite well. The financial support given to Scotland would cease to the benefit of taxpayers in the rest of the former union. Exports to Scotland are relatively minor, while disruption to imports from Scotland (principally whisky ?) would hardly be life threatening. England would surely care very little about the border issues which would be a major problem for Scotland and the EU. Indeed, would the EU even baulk at the very idea of Scotland joining them because of this ?

Sturgeon is a fanatic who will steam ahead regardless. One can only hope that the Scottish people would have more sense than to follow her down the road to disaster if, or when, given another opportunity to express a view about potentially breaking up a union which has existed for over 300 years to the substantial benefit of all concerned, in favour of surrendering their sovereignty to a different union of which their nation would be a tiny and wholly insignificant member, lying across the sea and attached to a serious trade competitor. The chances are that the European Union would turn out to be a much less supportive 'friend' than the United Kingdom has been for centuries.

How all this will play out is anyone's guess.

PROMISES, PROMISES, BUT WE ALL END UP POORER.

Listening to Sir Keir Starmer on the radio and television this morning has left me wondering what is the point of politicians.

Year after year, leader after leader, election after election, political figures emerge from their comfortable homes and offices to promise voters the world. Better education, more jobs, better healthcare, better welfare provision, better policing, better air quality, greater 'diversity', 'equality' and 'opportunity' (whatever any of that means), better housing; you name it, they'll promise it. In truth it's the same nonsense every time and none of it is ever delivered.

What we get is higher taxes, more surveillance, poorer education, more street crime and drug dealing, roads with more pot holes than tarmac, millions waiting to see a doctor or get necessary treatment, worse public transport, less and less freedom of speech and action, more and more immigration and far less integration, more warehousing and industrial units despoiling our countryside, more lorries clogging up our roads and ever-increasing congestion, more and more rules and regulations to control our lives. 

This is not characteristic of any one party but is a phenomenon common to all. The headlines are always the promises, designed to win our votes and put whichever mob it is into the most powerful offices in the land. The downsides, if they're ever spoken of, are dressed up in impenetrable gobbledegook or hidden under mountains of promised 'extra cash' which never actually materialises. The 'drip drip' approach of the assorted encroachments on our quality of life, freedoms and general wellbeing goes on unabated until, suddenly, our village has become an industrial town, our park a vast warehouse and our wallets are empty.

Starmer is an oily weasel, but so are the other high profile politicians. All have only one thing in mind and that is to gain, or retain, power for themselves. Not one of them gives two figs for the common people whom they just see as cash cows, there to be sucked dry to satisfy whatever is the latest whim, fad or fancy.

Come Thursday 6th May, I will vote but only in an effort to keep the worst of these parasites out, not because I trust any of them or really want my life controlled by any of them. That said, I certainly won't be voting for any 'Police and Crime Commissioner', a job created by politicians, for politicians and with no purpose whatsoever other than to politicize law and order. 

I believe it was the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham (aka Quintin Hogg) who said that we did not really have a democracy in this country, it was an elective dictatorship. Every few years we, the common people, are given the chance to vote for whichever party we want to dominate us for the next few years; the choice is usually very limited and it makes little difference which lot wins. 

While on the surface, things might seem better at times, underneath, the country slides inevitably downhill and will continue to do so until either we get some real leadership and a return to what are now seen as old fashioned values, or there is a revolution. I won't be holding my breath to see which it is.

SELF DRIVING CARS - ANOTHER HORROR COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

Not very long ago, our country was introduced to so-called "Smart Motorways", a system in which the previous hard shoulders are automatically changed to 'running lanes' at times of congestion. It was claimed that this would ease the congestion and was entirely safe for road users. Today, we know that there have been numerous accidents and deaths arising directly from the lack of a safe refuge for drivers whose vehicles have broken down. The system is being reviewed further deployments are, I believe, suspended.

Despite this  serious failure of technology it's now proposed to allow so-called self driving vehicles onto our motorways. Why anyone would want a self-driving vehicle is a question that that has yet to be asked, let alone answered, but the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, simply claims that we cannot be left behind and must employ such technological advances. One wonders how many accidents and deaths there will have to be before this nonsense will also be dumped back where it belongs, on the rubbish heap with all the other failed "if it can be, it must be" projects.

However, there is another aspect to this latest suggestion which might just keep it going. By introducing 'self-driving' vehicles, governments may be taking us down a road that leads to total control of our movements. For a vehicle to be truly 'self driving' it has to be controlled; what better way to ensure this than to have some form of enhanced GPS doing the job ? All the driver would need to do would be to tell the vehicle where he, or she, wanted to go and the vehicle would do the rest, all under the control of some unseen hand. Speeding and jumping traffic lights would no longer be a problem; if any driver or passenger had the tiniest whiff of alcohol about them, the vehicle would refuse to move. 

In time, such technology could even be deployed to decide that our journey was not necessary, was inappropriate or would add to already unacceptable levels of congestion or crowding somewhere along our route or at our destination. Our trip to Blackpool might be turned into one to Southend at the whim of a soul-less but all powerful computer and all in the cause of safety. Personal wants and desires, self will even the right to be wrong sometimes would be lost; the serendipitous finding of some unknown wonder while trying desperately to get back to the 'right road', would be a thing of the past.

There are things that technology can achieve that should be firmly rejected, and self-driving cars are right there at the top of my list of such horrors. In the words of Mrs Thatcher "no, No, NO !!".

LABOUR SLEAZE AND CORRUPTION - WHO CAN FORGET IT ?

Does anyone know what the Labour Party's policies are ahead of next week's elections for local councillors, mayors and police commissioners ? 

I've certainly heard very little in the media about the subject, Labour's entire electioneering campaign seemingly being focused on trying to demonise Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Allegations of 'sleaze' abound, although whether there is any real truth or relevance in them is, to say the least, unclear. 

Who paid for the redecoration of the Prime Minister's Downing Street flat ? In truth, does anyone care so long as whatever it cost did not come out of the public purse. Labour seems to have forgotten about the grotesque expenditure of Lord 'Derry' Irvine when his former pupil, Tony Blair, appointed him to the role of Lord Chancellor. Irvine splashed a reported £650,000 (more than 20 years ago and substantially more in today's terms), including around £60,000 on wallpaper alone, on redecorating his residence at Westminster, every penny being paid for out of public funds. 

While England's Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, holds shares in a company which gained a contract from the Welsh government can this really be considered 'sleaze' ? In Liverpool, the Labour mayor and several of his cronies have been arrested on charges of corruption; Joe Anderson, the now former mayor, wants the city council to pay for his legal costs. Who is the real crook here - Tory Matt Hancock or Labour's Joe Anderson ?

When he was Prime Minister, Tony Blair clearly misled Parliament and the country with his 'dodgy dossier' and claims that Iraq had to be invaded due to its supposed stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction". Again, Keir Starmer's Labour Party seems to have forgotten all about Blair's duplicity and. instead, trots out the egregious Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves and John Ashworth to voice their unsubstantiated and fanatical diatribes against Mr Johnson and others in the Cabinet. Interestingly, Starmer himself seems to stay fairly clear of the fray, except fro his appearances at Prime Minister's questions when, regardless of how clever he may be, he comes across as a grey man in a grey suit.

Have we all so quickly forgotten about Keith Vaz, rent boys and cocaine in 2017, or about Labour's Fiona Onasanya, imprisoned for perverting the course of justice in 2018 and then refusing to resign her parliamentary seat ? Further back there was "Jowellgate" a financial scandal that involved Tessa Jowell, her husband, David Mills and had links to the highly suspect Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. There was also the little matter of Ron Davies, 'cottaging' on Clapham Common and a later resignation due to allegations of illicit sexual activity. 

Of course, sleaze, corruption and downright 'naughtiness' have never been the property of just one party. In 2010, the Liberal Democrat David Laws was caught wrongly claiming expenses of £40,000 and in 2012, Chris Huhne and his wife were both sent to prison for perverting the course of justice over a speeding offence.

None of the above absolves current political figures from responsibility for their actions and there have been plenty of Conservatives who went every bit as wrong as their Labour and Liberal opponents, but Labour's current strategy appears to be to throw as much mud as possible in an effort to discredit a popular Prime Minister, rather than to put forward much in the way of alternative policies.  Is this really what is needed ? Does the Labour Party have any actual policies ?

The people will make clear, on Thursday 6th May, what they think of Labour's approach as set against dramatic Conservative success in tackling the real issue of a viral epidemic.

H.R.H. THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH

HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was a man who experienced great difficulties and even serious danger during his long life and yet he never wavered. Not for him trips to counsellors, psychologists, therapists and the like; no, he took what life threw at him shrugged his shoulders and got on with things.

An old fashioned attitude, full of the 'stiff upper lip' mentality of his generation, and one that is so absent amongst today's frail and cosseted little darlings. At the same time, he was a moderniser and a man who believed passionately in moving forward at all times through innovation and invention. 

The Duke also truly understood duty and service, fulfilling his role as the Queen's consort for almost 70 years, gaining a reputation for being 'his own man' while also supporting his wife unreservedly.

His contributions to his family, his country and the world are immeasurable. He will be missed.