BORIS IS DONE FOR

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear.

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

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

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

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

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

SLEAZE, CORRUPTION & IMMORALITY - NOT JUST A TORY PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

ABORTION ON DEMAND IS WRONG

Is abortion truly a 'human right' ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEN STOKES - COMETH THE HOUR ..........

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

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

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - DYSFUNCTIONAL IN THE EXTREME.

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

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

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

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

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

What a country. How proud its population must be.

ROONEY & VARDY - DOES ANYONE WITH A BRAIN REALLY CARE ?

Who on Earth are Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy ?

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON THE WHINGER

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANOTHER EUROVISION, MORE NOISE.

And so the Eurovision Song Contest was true to its traditional political approach. The appalling noise from Ukraine won, while the UK's awful entry came second, surely due to the UK being seen as Ukraine's most vocal supporter in its battle with Russia.

While songs from the past by groups such as ABBA, Brotherhood of Man and Buck's Fizz are still remembered and played, and entries from the likes of Cliff Richard, Lulu, Sandie Shore and many others still bring at least a smile of recognition to the faces of even older listeners, last night's two top entries will surely be forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history before the year is out, only ever to reappear when the BBC does its occasional trawal through that very dustbin. In short, both entries almost defy belief.

Stripping away the flashy sets, flashy outfits and flashing lights what was left other than NOISE ? Any resemblance to music was purely coincidental, quite possibly accidental, as it was all about the show rather than the words or music. Not that this was anything unusual, for Eurovision has evolved over the years form a competition designed to select the best song to one designed to select a performance which catches the eye, modified by the application of political or nationalistic preferences. In other words it now turns out tripe.

"Boom Bang-a-Bang", "Waterloo", "Puppet on a String", "Making your Mind Up", "All kinds of Everything", "Save your kisses for Me" and a few others all had staying power. More recent entries have almost all vanished from sight. 

Thank God for small mercies.

WILL CRICKET'S MANDARINS EVER GET IT RIGHT ?

Onve again, those who control English cricket have got it wrong. Having rid themselves of 'Managing Director' Giles and coach Silverwood, followed by the resignation of captain Root, all following a dismal period of Test Match failure, one might have hoped for some realism. Perhaps a real Managing Director, a real coach and a captain in the mould of Illingworth, Brearley or Vaughan. Sadly, the early signs are that it's "business as usual".

While the positions of coach and captain remain up for grabs, the top job, the one which will be responsible for appointing the others, has been given to Robert Key, a former player who was, to be fair, a decent batsman, though never quite good enough to nail down a permanent place in the England team as such. That said, the same applied to Brearley although his abilities as a manager and captain were outstanding, which probably cannot be said of Key. In fact, Brearley has the best record of any England captian who played more than 30 matches in that role, followed by Illingworth and Vaughan, then Strauss, May, Dexter and Hussain, bfore Root arrives in the list. 

While Root is undoubtedly a very good batsman, a very useful spin bowler and a fine fielder, he was no great captain. He did oversee a record number of 27 victories, but he also captained in 25 defeats, also a record. His demeanour on the field was frequently one of frustrated onlooker rather than of a captain in control of events. He was far too much "one of the lads" and a "mate" to the rest of the team, and far too rarely the man truly in charge. When it came to laying down the law to the likes of Anderson, Broad and Stokes, did he dare ? How often did he really control events, rather than being controlled by them ? To what extent do England's current problems result from his reluctance to bat at the number 3 position and to rely on a battery of seam bowlers, with himself as the principal spin bowling support ? 

As for the hierarchy which appointed a gaggle of old boys, from Giles at the top to Silverwood and Root, it's the same old story. Let's keep things "in house", let's not "rock the boat", indeed, let's "go with the obvious choice". In terms of the captaincy, Root was the obvious choice, in schoolboy terms, as he was the best batsman in the team so had to be captain, too. That may work in a team of  15 year olds but such an approach at the very highest level is nonsensical. Captaincy of a group of highly talented, highly motivated and often highly egotistical individuals requires rather more than being the best batsman; it needs real leadership ability.

Perhaps Key has the necessary ability to lead English cricket to a better future but he has no track record of any such qualities. In fact, it's suggested that he is seen as being a welcome appointment by the bulk of England's cricketing elite as he's an approachable and friendly face. He's never been seen as being someone who would do anything to "upset the apple cart", which is exctly the shake up English domestic cricket needs. The effective destruction of the county championship, the only 'real' cricket still played, must be reversed, the shocking financial reliance on ever shorter versions of limited overs cricket also. Is it truly beyond the wit of the 'powers that be' to revitalise the championship, to make it what it was in previous years, when crowds flocked in their tens of thousands ? Does it really have to be abandoned and exiled to the outer reaches of the frozen and dark days of late March and early October ? 

As Managing Director of Cricket, Key will be responsible for dealing with such matters as well as for appointing the next coach and captain of the England Test team; as one of the cricketing elite, another insider who's a "pal" to the current team and entirely unthreatening to the next generation, what chance is there that he'll do anything other than "go with the flow" and appoint Ben Stokes as the next captain or, if Stokes has the sense to turn the job down, the likes of Stuart Broad as an interim until either Stokes changes his mind or another "obvious" candidate appears ? As for the abominable mess that is the domestic cricketing calendar, what will he do other than listen to the voices of the accountants who will tell him that he tinkers at his, and English cricket's, peril ? (btw, I'm an accountant who knows better, and a cricket fan who first went to Lord's in 1962, long befor the current crop of 'experts' were born)

What is needed is real leadership and the courage to look outside of the "obvious". The England team needs real management and leadership, not the pal-ship of one of the current bunch who are all far too closely knit to ever take real control. It's like one of a group of drinking buddies taking over as landlord of their local pub - can it really work ?

I have no idea who the potential candidates might be but I am sure that an effective England captain will only be found from outside of the current extended squads. I doubt that there is a Brearley or Illingworth out there, too many counties have used their captaincy as a a lure for foreign one year imports, but there must be someone. It's the job of Robert Key and whomever he appoints as the next coach, to find that person. If he does that, he'll have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. If he doesn't, he'll just be another of the failures of the English cricketing establishment.

I have my hopes, but they're not high.

WOKE WELBY'S SELECTIVE CHRISTIANITY.

So the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, thinks that the Government's plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda is "unGodly".

This seems to be another example of Welby's selective Christianity. This is a man who has no difficulty with, indeed he promotes, the utterly "unGodly" lunacy of marriage between 2 men or 2 womern, while denying the Bible's prohibition on homosexuality. In addition, he appears to ignore the Bible's teaching which says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created he them" (Genesis 1:27). There are, of course, further references to men and women in the Bible, not least that God created a woman from Adam's rib, but nowhere does it mention that sex, or gender, is changeable, something which the "woke" Welby seems to find acceptable. The truth is that male is male and female is female, unless, of course, you are a "trans" activist or utterly "unGodly" Church of England priest. 

Welby falls over himself backwards to prove his liberal "woke" credentials, while ignoring his principal duty which is to promote Christian teaching in line with the Christian Bible, not some politically correct interpretation of the modern mania for supposed 'equality, diversity and inclusion'. While the Church over which he presides slides evermore into obscurity, Welby does his best to hasten its decline by rejecting traditional Christain teachings in favour of some misguided appeal to the masses, an approach which simply discourages the few who still believe in his Church.

Welby was a political appointee, an Old Etonian with serious connections to a wide assortment of the rich and powerful; his uncle was 'Rab' Butler, deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and more, under Prime Ministers from Churchill to Douglas-Home. His ancestry even includes descent from an illegitimate son of King Charles II. He was always a man who was going places, although he was originally rejected for ordination in the Church of England for being too evangelical though he finally became a priest in 1993. He then gained numerous promotions until being installed as the Bisjop of Durham in November 2011, before his extraordinarily rapid elevation to the See of Canterbury was announced less than a year later. For comparison, his predecessor, Rowna Williams, had spent 8 years as Bishop of Monmouth before his promotion to the Archbishopric of Wales and it was a further 3 years before his elevantion to Canterbury. In contrast, the speed of Welby's rise to the highest position in the Anglican clergy was meteoric and even suggestive of a degree of political interference. 

Welby now regularly criticises the UK's Government for its Conservative values and actions and generally makes pronouncements on political issues. He is clearly a man of the liberal-left who uses his position to promote views from that quarter, while his Church crumbles around him. He's been in office for over 9 years - it's surely time for him to go, before the damage he's doing becomes irreversible.

TODAY'S "POOR" NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD !

I am sick to death of hearing the whinges of the so-called 'poor' in our country. Viewers and listeners are treated to the regular whining of single mothers with umpteen children, ill-matched couples in council houses or pensioners bemoaning their lack of income. None of these people, or those who interview them, ever remind these moaners that, regardless of what they may think, they are all infinitely better off than were their forebears even as recently as 60 or 70 years ago, Additionally, interviewers don't dare to ask questions about the paternity of children and location of absent fathers.

As recently as the 1950s, few homes in the UK had fridges or freezers; even washing machines were almost a luxury for many, while dish washers were all but unknown. Few families had a car, many did not have a television; the main source of entertainment was the radio, with just 1 or 2 BBC channels available and reception often problematic. The best alternative was a trip to the local cinema or, for children, to go on a bike ride or play with friends in the local park.

Most homes did not have a telephone, landline only of course, and those that did probably shared it with a neighbour; most had to use the telephone box at the corner of a nearby street, if there was one and if it wasn't already in use. Mobile 'phones, 'tablets', laptops, and all the other technological paraphernalia had not yet been thought of. Children sitting alone playing computer games was a nightmare for the future.

There was no such thing as the internet, while 'online shopping' and home delivery had yet to be invented. Foreign holidays were a luxury reserved for the genuinely wealthy. For most, clothes were handed down from generation to generation, designer clothes were for the rich and 'fast fashion' a thing of the future, as was fast food, excepting fish and chips. Eating out meant a pint and pie at lunchtime; family outings to restaurants were unheard of, again except for the rich. No one but the wealthy drank wine, for most men it was beer while their ladies drank gin or port on the rare occasions on which they went out to the local public house. 

Men went to work from the age of 15, as did the women until they married, after which they'd stay at home, clean, cook and look after the children. Young men aged 17 to 21 were required to undertake a period of service in the armed forces, between 18 months and 2 years followed by 4 years, or 3½ years, as reservists. For good or bad, fathers provided for their families and didn't leave women to bring up their children alone or with vast handouts from the state.

Despite all of these deficiencies, trials and tribulations, people got on with their lives and accepted their lot, while striving for better days. Listening to the continual gripes of today's generation, mollycoddled as they are, weighed down with sack loads of state benefits and every 'mod con' imaginable, tripping off to foreign parts for their annual holidays (it was Southend or Blackpool in the 1950s), and dolled up in their fancy outfits, makes me see these pampered prats as the utterly self serving and self obsessed morons they are.

And these are the people who will choose our next government, lead our country forward through this century and into the next. God Help Us.

PUTIN IS A SYMPTOM OF A DEEPER MALAISE.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be in some trouble as the Ukrainian population is putting up rather more of a fight than Vladimir Putin had bargained for. Despite the destruction of its towns and cities and the emigration of millions of its women, children and older citizens, Ukraine refuses to surrender to the brutality of Putin's military assault.

Putin has clearly miscalculated and there are reports that he's sacked a number of senior army officers for failing to get the job done. Apparently, the advance of his forces on a number of fronts have all but ground to a halt and he's resorted to mass bombing of civilian targets in an attempt to terrify the population into surrendering. Even worse, it is suggested that he may be on the point of deploying chemical or biological weapons, something which is outlawed and reviled by all civilized nations, not to mention assorted international bodies and treaties. Would Putin even go further and use small scale nuclear weapons, thereby risking an escalation of his limited attack on Ukraine into a full blown European, or even World, War ?

Putin is a monster, a tyrannical and despotic ruler in the mould of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong. For years, the Western world appeased him and became increasingly reliant on his exports of oil, gas, coal and other natural resources. In truth, much of Europe has been appallingly let down by its political leaders who have sort cheap products while ignoring the potential danger from a despotic and expansionist regime. In similar fashion, the West, led by political elites with utterly misconceived priorities, have allowed themselves to become reliant on China, various states in the Middle East, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and assorted other countries in the 'Third World' for supplies of all sorts, ranging from oil and gas to foodstuffs and clothing, our mobile 'phones and laptops, even the production of drugs and vaccines. In short, the West has outsourced control over its own economies and is now subject to the whims of a whole assortment of countries, all of which can now set the terms of trade to suit themselves and at least some of which are potentially hostile.

This is a consequence of the failure of a smug political elite over a period of several decades, an elite which has been far more interested in gaining election and winning power than in worrying about the future. Today, our country along with the rest of Europe is on the edge of a precipice but, shockingly, there does not seem to be a single political leader who is prepared to admit the situation they have brought us all to, nor who is prepared to begin the task of reversing our decline. In fact, they seem more interested in controlling us, through various legislation which has its origins in George Orwell's nightmare novels "1984" and "Animal Farm".

Nero famously fiddled while Rome burned. Our leaders have done just the same, only the conflagration has taken longer to take hold and even to be discovered. What is needed now are some real leaders who will cut through the red tape and utter lunacy of 'wokeish' ideology, who will begin the process of regenerating our manufacturing base and ending the reliance on others. 

What chance ?

WHY IS THE WEST SO ARROGANT ?

Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.

There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of  execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .

Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.

More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.

That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist  minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ?  While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.

To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?

The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'. 

Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.

BERCOW - HOW THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN

I will admit that I always thought John Bercow, former Speaker of the House of Commons, was a rather pompous, arrogant and unpleasant little man. That he also used his position as Speaker to try to advance the cause of the 'Remainers' during the Brexit debate was obvious and another reason for my dislike of him. His abuse of his position was palpable and shocking. However, having no direct personal knowledge of the man, I had no idea just how nasty he really was.

Yesterday, a report by an independent committee revealed that they had found Bercow to be a serial bully and serial liar. For someone who had ambitions to be appointed to the House of Lords, as has been usual for retired Speakers for centuries, and to go down in history as a 'Great Speaker', this determination is crucifying. Bercow had already left his erstwhile home in the Conservative Party and joined Labour, largely in pursuit of a seat in the Lords; it had become clear that the Conservatives were never going to put him forward for such an honour so what else was he to do ? For a man blinded by ambition and his own self importance, there was no choice but to forget whatever beliefs he had ever held and simply sign up with anyone who might, just, give him what he wanted. Jeremy Corbyn, a man whose political views could not have been further removed from those of any Conservative, eventually did propose him for a peerage but the nomination was blocked due to the investigation into his behaviour.

Now, and following the release of the utterly damning report, Bercow has found himself on the point of being kicked out of the Labour Party and ostracized by the entire political establishment. The report says that, were he still a sitting Member of Parliament, the committee would recommend that he be expelled by resolution of the House, and recommends that Bercow never be allowed a Parliamentary pass again, effectively banning him from ever being promoted to the House of Lords and barring him from being anything more than a public visitor to the Palace of Westminster in the future. 

To compound his dishonour, Bercow has thrown scorn on the report, calling it amateurish, unjust and a travesty of justice. Rather than acknowledging any wrongdoing and apologising, Bercow has denied all the allegations against him, decried those who made the allegations and criticised those who spent some 22 months going through the evidence in minute detail.

Never has any Speaker so defiled this great office of state. What a nasty little man he is.

PUTIN - JUST ANOTHER BRUTAL TYRANT.

Only in  a world of make believe could anyone come up with the latest words uttered by the Russian tyrant, Vladimir Putin.

According to this monster, Russia has "no bad intentions towards (our) neighbours". He says that "everyone must think about how to normalise relations, cooperate normally and develop relations normally". Putin also claims "And all our actions, if they arise, they always arise exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions, actions against the Russian Federation".

If things weren't so serious, I would laugh out load. 

It may be argued, and some do argue, that Putin's invasion of Ukraine has come about because of his perception that Ukraine was becoming to close to the West, with NATO keen to develop its ties to the country and Ukraine itself looking to join the European Union. It is suggested that Putin sees this as a direct threat to Russia which must be negated. In his eyes, diplomacy has failed and so direct action is the only course, Ukraine being perceived to be acting in an 'unfriendly' manner towards its huge neighbour.

What an absolute load of poppycock. Russia is vastly bigger than Ukraine and has enormously greater military power, including the possession of nuclear weapons. While Ukraine may have found the West attractive, it also has strong historic links to Russia and has done nothing to harm its former Soviet master. Ukraine has not massed an army on its border with Russia, it has not sent those troops across the border, supported by aircraft, parachutists and much other military paraphernalia. Ukraine has not launched bombardments of any Russian cities and has not attacked or killed any Russian civilians.

However, in Putin's fantasy world, the very existence of Ukraine as an independent state which might look favourably upon the West is abhorrent. In his mind, Ukraine was, and always should be, part of a Greater Russia, just as other former Soviet states should be. His action in invading Ukraine, for the second time, be it noted, after his earlier invasion and annexation of the Crimea, serves this purpose and this purpose alone. It demonstrates that Putin, and Russia under Putin, is no different from the old Soviet Union under its brutal dictators, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, all of whom ruled over regimes of mind blowing horror.

How Putin can believe that anyone will accept his ludicrous assertions about having no bad intentions and acting only in the face of 'unfriendly actions' has to remain a mystery buried deep inside the skull of this psychopath. Were the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London or the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury acts without 'bad intentions' ? Were these acts which demand any 'normalisation of relations ? Did Litvinenko or Skripal represent any real danger to Russia ? Does any normal country send its operatives on missions to foreign nations to carry out the assassination of civilians ?

In Russia, all dissent is met by the full force of a military dictatorship. Opponents of the regime are rounded up and thrown into prison; if they're lucky, they may face a show trial and an opportunity to confess their guilt and beg for forgiveness, if not they simply 'disappear'. It is no fun being an opponent of someone like Putin, so most normal Russians keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They suffer in silence, as they have done for centuries, first under the Imperial Tsars, then the communist dictators and now under a man who seems to be at least as monstrous as any of his predecessors.

If Putin really wants a normalisation of relations and cooperation, the path is there in front of him, should he wish to walk it. Withdraw from Ukraine, pay for the costs of reconstruction, accept that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent nation, able to determine its own future, give an undertaking not to carry out any further such aggressive acts against either other nations or individuals and, start behaving like a human being rather than a psychotic mad man

Not much chance of that then. When Putin dies, he will go down in history alongside those other cruel and brutal men of history, the likes of Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Hitler and others who brought about the slaughter of hundreds, thousands, even millions in order to satisfy their cravings for power. He will be vilified, rightly, and his legacy will be written in the blood of Ukraine.

PUTIN DEMONSTRATES THE WEAKNESS OF THE WEST.

 

"Who in the name of God does he think he is ?" said US President Biden, speaking of his opposite number in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin. Well, Mr Biden, Putin thinks he is Emperor of all the Russias and he's probably right.

In the 1930s, another psychopath, Adolph Hitler, decided that all ethnic Germans, or Aryans as he termed them, should be under one flag and so he invaded the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia; the rest of the world tutted, but did nothing more. Prime Minister of the UK, Neville Chamberlain, flew to Berlin and came back waving a piece of paper which apparently confirmed Hitler had no other designs. Of course this was poppycock and it wasn't long before the German war machine, something which had been outlawed by various treaties and agreements, rolled into Poland and the Second World War began.

Three quarters of a century later, Putin began to pursue a similar plan. All Russian speakers should be under one flag, he claimed, and set about recreating the Soviet Union which had been broken up in the years immediately following the smashing of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Various new, or resurrected, states in the south west of the old Soviet area of control began to find themselves under threat, eventually invaded and ultimately restored to control from Moscow. In 2014, Putin took the bold step of invading and occupying the Crimea, legally an integral part of Ukraine; the rest of the world tutted, again, but did nothing more.

In recent months, Putin has amassed a vast army along the Russian border with Ukraine; the world has tutted, dozens of diplomats and politicians have journeyed to Moscow and returned with various demands, moderated with assurances that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine. Little more than 36 hours ago, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Putin claimed that this was a 'peace keeping' operation and that he was only trying to bring peace to areas of Ukraine in which there have been separatist movements causing trouble for some years. What this has to do with Russia is a mystery; the same logic could be used by France to invade the Basque region of Spain or the forces of Eire to invade Northern Ireland. That Putin's claims were utter rubbish has been proven by the fierce fighting much closer to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, missile assaults on both Kiev and a nearby airfield, locations nowhere near the claimed separatist areas.

During all of this, the United Nations has said very little and done even less; that it is a completely useless and toothless organisation which consumes vast amounts of money must be obvious to all. The European Union and NATO have made noises but done nothing significant to prevent the invasion and occupation of a sovereign European state by a highly militaristic and expansionary nation. The European Union, the United Kingdom and United States have made lots of noises and warned of very damaging sanctions against Russia, Russian organisations and wealthy Russian individuals. None of this has caused Putin any concern and the invasion has continued. Indeed, Putin has even threatened the Western powers that any actual intervention by them will result in the most appalling consequences, a thinly veiled threat that he may deploy nuclear weapons. The UN, NATO, EU, US and UK have all been shown to be utterly toothless.

Part of the problem is that the Western civilized, democratic world has, for years, allowed Putin to build a power base from which he is in control of critical economic elements. Much of Europe is reliant on Russian oil and gas, Russia is a major exporter of wheat and various essential metals; at the touch of a switch, Putin can virtually cripple European economies which have become far more concerned about the nebulous nonsense of equality, diversity and 'net zero' than in manufacturing. These European nations have allowed themselves to believe that Russia was a friendly country, one which could be brought into the fold, rather than seeing it for what it is - a state under the control of a vile, autocratic, psychopathic monster who will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. Thankfully, Hitler never developed nuclear weapons - Putin has them in thousands and has made it clear that he might well opt to use them if the West gets in his way. To all intents and purposes, Ukraine is lost and Putin has won  Round One of what could easily become a long and horrendous conflict affecting much of eastern Europe. 

Far too late in the day, Boris Johnson has talked of Europe becoming independent of Russian oil and gas although he has done nothing to ramp up production from our own North Sea fields or to give the green light to 'fracking'; in fact, it's only a few days since fracking was all but banned for good from the UK. With inflation soaring and an energy crisis already in place, Johnson actually has an opportunity to not only help the rest of Europe but boost our own economy, yet there is no sign that he will do either. 'Net Zero', and the 'equality, diversity and inclusion', lunacy which tries to redefine our culture and history, language and even our biology have taken precedence over all else. None of these are of concern to a man like Putin and they are a terminal weakness to a society which has become obsessed with such matters, inward looking and afraid to .stand up for itself.

Putin has won in Ukraine. Next stop - Estonia ? Lithuania ? Latvia ? Romania ? Poland ? Yesterday, President 'Sleepy Joe' Biden was seen smirking as he was asked questions about the current situation. Clearly the US will not intervene in a war which is many miles from its shores and does not involve a NATO country, but what will it do if Putin's next target is a NATO country ? What if Russian troops next march into Estonia or Romania ? Putin knows that the West is scared of him and what he might do if he is opposed; he has the upper hand, just as Hitler had, up until he went one step too far and invaded Poland. 

The parallels are too great. Putin is today's Hitler and he will not stop until he is made to, but is anyone brave enough to stand up to him ? We will soon find out.

CRESSIDA DICK - ON HER BIKE AT LAST !

At last, Cressida Dick has been fired. Why it took so long is a mystery.

It seems that this woman was earmarked for the top job from an early age and, regardless of whatever happened during her career, she was always destined to become Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Somehow, her involvement as leader of the operation which culminated in the public murder of a wholly innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, who was chased by armed police officers and shot multiple times on a London underground train, failed to derail her career. Even the subsequent lies and attempted cover up had no effect. Dick still progressed to the top.

As Commissioner, she has overseen a force which appears to have more interest what people think than in what they do. While drug dealing and murder have spiralled out of control in parts of London, time and money has been spent on investigating the nebulosity of 'hate crimes' and, even more ludicrous, 'non-crime hate incidents'. Although some see the Met's initial refusal to become involved in investigating whether or not there were parties in Downing Street during COVID lockdown as a failure, I see it as one of the few signs of any sanity within the force. Sadly, the sanity, if that's what it was, quickly vanished and a full scale operation, reportedly costing up to £1m, was established to discover the 'truth' about the Prime Minister's cake-eating habits.

While the men and women of the force were spending their hours investigating thoughts in true Orwellian style, a serving officer, Wayne Couzens, was left free to kidnap, rape and murder a member of the public despite there having been more than enough known about him to have justified his imprisonment for earlier, uninvestigated offences. Officers at Charing Cross station engaged in passing around hundreds of highly dubious and seriously inappropriate messages with no one seeming to be concerned. This and much more was what Cressida Dick oversaw during her 5 years at the helm.

Today, much is being said about the need for the Met's culture to change; for God's sake, isn't that what Dick should have addressed from Day 1 ? Much is said about the failure to solve real crimes; again, isn't this were Dick's energies should have been directed all along ? 

Cressida Dick was picked out to be the Met's first female Commissioner from an early age and she gained that appointment, not because she was the best person for the job but because her appointment had been pre-ordained. That she's been a disaster should be obvious to all. That such an appalling mistake should never be made again is equally obvious. The next Commissioner must not be an internal appointee, indeed it may even be that it should be someone from an entirely different background, perhaps the military or major business. Whoever it is will have a devil of a time re-engaging with the public and turning the Metropolitan Police Force into an organisation which is trusted and which does the job the public expect of it.

TIME TO FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT THINGS.

While Boris Johnson has busied himself rearranging the deckchairs, the 'drip,drip' of allegations of misdeeds has continued. The clearly coordinated assault on Johnson's character, equally clearly with the egregious Dominic Cummings hand on the tiller, has produced claims and pictures of the Prime Minister supposedly breaking all sorts of rules during the national lockdowns related to the late unlamented COVID epidemic; rather shockingly, much of the media has ignored it's own responsibility to be truthful and has painted every tasty morsel in the worst possible light, effectively prejudging the outcome of a police investigation which, itself, is an enormous over-reaction.

One of the worst examples of this emerged yesterday when it was reported that Johnson had been pictured surrounded by bottles of fizz and people adorned with tinsel. The photograph in question actually appears to show the Prime Minister standing at some distance from either people or fizz, which raises serious questions about the reliability of press reports and the media in general. How many of the other multitude of allegations, made by a coterie of anti-Boris zealots, have been similarly hyped up and  misreported ? 

Boris Johnson may well have broken rules, but he didn't murder anyone, nor did he actually injure anyone in any way. In fact he stands accused of what are little more than social contraventions, albeit that some of these had been enshrined in law due to the panic over COVID. However, the current obsession with pursuing 'crimes' which are no more than causing offence has led to Johnson's misdeeds being accorded a far higher level of scrutiny and far greater approbation than they deserve. 

It does appear that Johnson has, at least, been unwise at times and may well have infringed some of his own COVID rules; he may even have tried to cover up his indiscretions, though whether such behaviour is worthy of the character assassination currently being practised is debatable. Many previous Prime Ministers had their shortcomings too, though they were lucky that the internet, social media, instant photography and the paparazzi either didn't exist in their time or were less active.

It really is time to move on from what has now become a rather boring story. Cummings may be a very clever schemer but the continued drip of allegations, while it still attracts the attention of the media and Westminster Bubble in particular, for most of the population I suspect the story has now run its course. We have other things to worry about, such as potential war in Ukraine, dealing with the aftermath of Brexit, rising inflation, sky-high energy prices and issues of energy supply, a 'Green' agenda no one voted for, uncontrolled illegal immigration, illiterate children, drug gangs controlling multitudes of children, street violence, increasing restrictions on freedom of speech, police vigorously pursuing 'non-crime hate incidents' in preference to real crimes, and so much more.

Do I care about the honesty and integrity of our political leaders ? Of course I do, but today's mob are almost certainly no different to those of the past and the attention on the minutiae of their behaviour is hugely excessive. We all know that Tony Blair lied about Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction', John Major had an affair with Edwina Currie while both were MPs and Major was a government Whip, Ted Heath misled the nation about the EEC, Harold Wilson had friends who were later implicated in cases of fraud and corruption and, of course, to go back to an earlier generation, William Gladstone was well known to have an interest in 'fallen women'. All of these, and others, were far from perfect. 

Today, there are far more important things to focus on than whether or not Boris Johnson failed to maintain a 2-metre distance between himself and others in his offices, or whether he partook of a glass of bubbly at a colleague's leaving do.

TIME TO RETURN TO REALITY AND FREE SPEECH !

I find myself wondering exactly what has happened in the world over the last few years. Instead of a world in which reason took centre stage, we find ourselves in one in which all reason seems to have been thrown out.

Dissent from any supposedly established view is not longer allowed and even discussion is shut down. Anyone who dares to say anything about the genocide perpetrated by the NAZI regime in Germany is labelled a "Holocaust-denier", called antisemitic or even labelled a NAZI themselves. Anyone who questions the established view on climate change is instantly called a "climate change denier", and all discussion is  virtually outlawed. Anyone who dares to try to start a discussion about the latest load of nonsense, gender identity, is labelled as a sexist, misogynist, transphobe, 'terf' and worse. Effectively, only one point of view is allowed, that being the view vigorously promoted by a handful of lunatic 'activists'.

What is going on ? Is it really the case that there is no alternative to the heavily publicised ideology of climate change and the 'Green' agenda ? I think not. There are undoubtedly alternative views but we are not allowed to hear about them, the government and media being united in their adherence to the supposedly unquestionable certainty of their position. That the 'Green' agenda has left our country dependent on imports of vast amounts of energy is ignored, as is the unimaginable cost of changing to all renewable energy sources within a couple of decades. 

When it comes to the matter of so-called gender identity, even our universities and major corporations have joined in with the lunacy. That the very idea of biological sex being sidelined has been accepted is insane; that anyone who wants to be seen as something that they are patently not, is accepted is even worse. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me and they don't try to impose their views on me, but I draw the line at the utter nonsense of 'trans' people being accorded the rights of whatever sex they decide to claim to be. We are being bombarded with the most ludicrous range of 'identities', people claiming to be not just homosexual or lesbian, but now we have bisexual, pansexual, non-binary, trans and heaven knows what else, and organisations such as the egregious Stonewall, promote all this rubbish as if it's all normal. I have news for them - it isn't. That some of our schools are promoting this tripe to our children is terrifying, and for universities and others to ban discussion and even refuse to allow people with alternative views to appear on their campuses is obscene, particularly when, at the same time, they happily accept huge financial support from the grotesque and tyrannical government of China.

Why do so few stand up against this tripe ? Men are Men and Women are Women; yes, there are a very few people who are born with indeterminate sex due to genetic abnormalities but these are not even included in the discussion. What we have is the introduction of a laughable redefinition of 'gender' to allow for anyone to claim to be whatever sex they like and to demand to be treated as if they'd been born with that sex. Reality check - NOTHING can change a biological man into a woman or vice versa. Appearance can be changed, even physical attributes can be changed cosmetically but the underlying body remains as it was born. 'Trans', as it's promoted, is the invention of a tiny minority of anarchists who simply want to destroy the basis of our society. 

Of course, all of this goes much further. We are being increasingly beset with rules, regulations and even laws which limit and criminalise our right to free speech. How can 'hate crimes' really be assessed ? What on earth is going on when anyone can claim to be a victim and their assailant is automatically deemed to be guilty ? How can simply expressing a view render someone potentially guilty of an offence ? This is the beginnings of an authoritarian police state akin to that of George Orwell's "1984".

Why is no one in government fighting against this ? Why are our schools, colleges, universities, public services and major corporations kowtowing and even providing their staff with badges showing their 'preferred pronouns' ? That this is all quite frightening is obvious and yet no one in authority seems to either care or want to do anything about it. 

God help us.

CUMMINGS' PARANOID VENDETTA

Dominic Cummings may well be a very clever man but he's also showing serious signs of being an obsessive psychopath.

It seems quite clear that, ever since his dismissal from his role as Boris Johnson's principal advisor, he's been working on a plan to gain revenge on his former boss. Completely ignoring his own highly questionable trip from London to Durham and Barnard's Castle during 'lockdown', he's spent the last 14 months accruing whatever dirt he can find to use against the Prime Minister in his crazed effort to have him removed from office. Even today, he's issued what he's described as a 'warning' that there are more damaging revelations to come and they'll continue to be drip fed to the media until Boris is ousted - if that's not a vendetta and action of a man with severe psychological, or even psychiatric, problems, I don't know what is. If there is so much more to come out, why not let it see the light of day now ? The only answers are either that doing so would not suit Cummings' purpose or that there are no such revelations and that this is merely rhetoric designed to create an atmosphere of fear and ramp up the pressure on the Prime Minister. 

Cummings has also refused to be interviewed in person by Sue Gray, the civil servant conducting the review into the 'Partygate' allegations against the Prime Minister and others. While Ms Gray has interviewed other witnesses, apparently including the Prime Minister himself, Cummings has agreed only to provide written responses to specific questions, claiming that this is to protect both himself and Ms Gray from lies and distortions which the Prime Minister would otherwise invent. How this actually makes sense is beyond me. What avoiding a face to face interview actually achieves is the avoidance of any deeper questioning that such an event might allow, the avoidance of being asked tangential questions and the potential exposure of Cummings own failings and motivations. It also speaks volumes about the paranoia from which Cummings appears to be suffering.

Dominic Cummings is giving every impression of a man who is paranoid, bitter and twisted. He hates Boris Johnson and will do anything he can to destroy him. Everything he does and says should be seen in this light. 

BORIS MUST STAY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.

While Dominic Cummings seems determined to continue his personal, and vindictive, vendetta against Boris Johnson, at least some of those who have been screaming for Boris's head may need to be careful what they wish for.

Despite his acknowledged deficiencies, of which there are many, under Prime Minister Johnson the United Kingdom has escaped the clutches of the European Union, to the most part at least, and is undoubtedly in the best position of any European nation when it comes to tackling the COVID-19 epidemic. While others continue to thrash around and impose yet more Draconian measures, England has just about reached the end of restrictions and will soon be followed by Wales and Scotland, while even EU member Ireland is following suit, separated as she is from her fellow European states by ocean and the UK.

The outlook for the United Kingdom looks good on many fronts, even if there are major hurdles to be overcome - piles of debt, rising inflation, soaring immigration, problems in the NHS, social care, schools and universities, logjams in our justice system and more - but many of these are a result of government action, or inaction, over decades and cannot be laid at the door of the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street. In truth, now free of the shackles of the European Union and probably the first major Western economy to emerge from the epidemic, the United Kingdom is in pole position to steal a march on its rivals. If only it were that simple.

Standing in the way of real progress are numerous obstacles, foremost amongst them being the ongoing saga about the Prime Minister's own future. If his detractors win the day and he is ousted, who will replace him ? What policies will then be pursued ? Will Brexit and its benefits be preserved, or will we slide back into the European maw ? Too many questions and too few answers, even long before we get to the little matter of who amongst the potential rivals for the leadership might be able to stir the electorate sufficiently for the Conservatives to win another general election.

Boris Johnson needs to survive if the benefits of his overwhelming success at the polls in 2019 are to have any real chance of being fully realised, and those who are plotting against him need to understand this. Yes, he is flawed, but who is not ? What we need is a leader who will take charge and make high level decisions, others can implement policy. We need genuine controls on immigration, lower, not higher, taxes, less state involvement in all things, the clearing away of ludicrous, entirely subjective crimes and the freeing of police to catch criminals rather than those who commit social offences, true reform of the NHS and social care, a complete rethink about our hopeless education system - I could go on.

Which of the potential successors to Boris Johnson is likely to promote any of these vital policies ? Rishi Sunak - not a chance; Michael Gove - not in a month of Sundays; Liz Truss - who knows ? These are all politicians, pure and simple, with nothing but an eye on the polls and trying to ensure they rise to the top. Boris is different and that is why he should stay as he is the only one who just might make some inroads into at least one or two of the major issues now facing our country.

ENGLAND'S CRICKETERS - HOW MUCH LOWER CAN THEY SINK ?

The final humiliation for England's cricket team was reserved for the fifth match of their series against Australia, played in Hobart, Tasmania, probably the antipodean location most similar to that with which they should be accustomed and comfortable playing in.

But no such luck. How can one adequately describe their abysmal performance in this Ashes series ? Humiliating ? Embarrassing ? Shocking ? Disgraceful ?  These and many other words could be applied, and yet neither the coach nor captain seem to believe that they should be sacked. How can this be ?

Anyone with an ounce of pride would surely have offered their resignation on the back of leading their national team in such a series of shameful performances, or been sacked, but not this lot it seems. Captain Joe Root says that he's still the man to put things right while coach Chris Silverwood is strangely silent about his own future. My God !

Is it possible to contemplate an England football manager surviving a year of results like those achieved by this rag bag of coach, captain and players ? Of course not. Would those at the Football Association responsible for the national team still be procrastinating ? Not a chance ! So why are the bureaucrats who run English cricket so inactive ?

English cricket is a mess. The national team relies on Root and Stokes, who seems to be injured more often than not, Broad and Anderson, while the rest come and go through a revolving door. Yes, these four are fine players but a team needs more than one top batsman, a frequently unfit all-rounder and two ageing bowlers if they are to compete. Broad will be 36 in June and Anderson 40 in July - it's well past time that they had been replaced by up and coming competition, but where is that competition ? Where are the new young batsmen and spin bowlers, pushing for places in the national team ?

The answer is that there aren't any. The decimation of real cricket, the County Championship, and its replacement by a mish mash of limited overs knockabouts has effectively removed the development pathway for the next generation of Test Match players. While responsibility for the appalling performance of the England team in recent times lies fairly and squarely with Silverwood and Root, ultimate responsibility for the mess rests with those who run the England and Wales Cricket Board, the ECB.

Once again they will say that lessons must be learnt and changes will be made. There'll  be yet another review conducted by the same tired old hacks which will achieve nothing. What is needed is a genuine clear out and a genuinely different approach. Fat chance !

DOWNING STREET PARTIES v REALITY.

It seems that while the rest of the population was meant to be in seclusion, hiding from each other for fear of catching the dreaded COVID-19 virus, a mish-mash of civil servants working in various government offices held parties. It's even suggested that the Prime Minister himself attended at least one or two of these and the media is utterly obsessed with the whole story.

Forgive me for thinking this is somewhat ridiculous. At a time when our country is faced with an energy crisis, inflation at levels not seen in decades and threatening to rise further, NHS waiting list soaring to previously unimagined heights, a manic and hugely expensive charge towards the unobtainable goal of "net zero", 'woke' ideology running riot through our schools, universities and many major organisations, and illegal immigrants pouring across the English Channel in their tens of thousands, the media is obsessed with whether or not there were parties that 'broke COVID rules'. 

Add in the threats posed by thousands of Russian troops massing on the  Ukrainian border and increasing Chinese belligerence towards Taiwan, a general concern about China's growing economic power over the rest of the world as well as its attempts to subvert our own democracy by placing a spy at the heart of our parliamentary system, and the general weakness of the current US leadership, is the holding of parties really of any significance other than in the minds of the media and political opponents of the present government ?

One wonders how many of those now making the loudest protests about government parties are all that squeaky clean when it comes to their own conduct during the times in question. Was Dominic Cummings, whom one has to believe is a prime instigator of the 'Partygate' assault, alone in inventing a suitable story to justify 'breaking the rules' ? Who else might have got involved in the odd gathering or two ? I'm fairly sure that many of the rest of us did, regardless of the ever-changing rules. Yes, some people were more put upon than others, but let's have a sense of proportion.

It's high time that our representatives and the media started dealing with things that really matter, instead of prattling on about the rubbish which makes short term headlines.

DJOKOVIC v AUSTRALIA - WHO WILL WIN ?

Whatever is going on regarding Novak Djokovic's visa to enter Australia for their tennis tournament, his on court rival, Rafa Nadal, has summed things up perfectly. He points out that Djokovic knew the rules and has had plenty of time to sort things out - he has only himself to blame if its all gone wrong.

That said, there does seem to have been some confusion as Djokovic presumably believed that he had been given a valid visa and permission to enter the country. However, has he also tried to use his fame and celebrity status to try to almost blackmail the Australian authorities into caving in to him ? It seems to me that he may well have tried to force the authorities to accept him, claiming he had a visa, arriving and presenting himself in what he hoped would be a fait accompli. 

Clearly, the Australian authorities have been put, or found themselves, in a difficult position but they really have only one way out. That is to deny Djokovic entry unless he complies with the rules they have in place; allowing him some special status would be utterly unacceptable to the majority of the Australian population as well as probably to most of his potential fellow competitors in the forthcoming Australian Open Tennis Tournament.

I have no problem with the stance Djokovic has taken regarding disclosure of his vaccination status but he has to understand that others may have different views and approaches. He has to understand that he has no right to force his beliefs on others and that, regardless of his beliefs, he has to abide by the laws and rules imposed by governments and other organisations. 

Of course, Djokovic may still be able to convince the Australian authorities that he should be granted a medical exemption from their entry regulations and he may even go on to win the tournament yet again. However, if his appeal fails and he is deported, he will have learnt a salutary lesson - not even the world's best tennis player is above the law.