CLIFF RICHARD, THE BBC AND PRIVACY.

The way in which the BBC and other media have reacted to the court judgement regarding the harassment of Cliff Richard is concerning. How anyone can argue that the appalling way in which the police raid on his home was covered by the BBC escapes me.

Similarly to the shocking case of Christopher Jeffries, the Bristol landlord who was tried and convicted of murder by the media having done nothing wrong, Cliff Richard was effectively condemned without trial by the appallingly intrusive actions of the BBC. The court quite rightly determined that there was no justification for the way in which Richard's privacy was invaded nor for the way in which entirely unsubstantiated accusations were reported. Significant damages have previously been awarded against the South Yorkshire police and now damages have also been awarded against the BBC, with the likelihood that further very substantial damages will be added at a later date.

Shockingly, the BBC has still refused to apologise for its actions and has said that it will appeal the court's decision; it claims that it had run a 'public interest story', although how spreading highly damaging and unfounded accusations in a highly sensationalist fashion can be considered to be in the public interest is a mystery. Along with other equally self-interested media, the BBC has attempted to claim that invoking an invasion of privacy defence to such reporting will prevent their ability to do their job and to raise matters of public interest. In my view, this is total rubbish as there can be no public interest in such reporting other than in satisfying the prurience of certain sections of the populace; in terms of fairness, justice and honest reporting, there can be no justification for it.

Whatever damages the BBC eventually has to pay will have to come out of the money paid by licence payers. This is scandalous. The decision to act as it did was made by BBC senior managers and it is they who should bear the costs of their entirely unacceptable actions. They should also be sacked.

ANNA SOUBRY - ARCH EUROPHILE & ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

Following the government's 'agreement' at Chequers 10 days ago, the Brexit rollercoaster has careened on. Yesterday, various votes in Parliament were won by small margins and even with the help of rebel Labour members. Today, the odious arch-Europhile Anna Soubry, has been making a nuisance of herself on the BBC, voicing her opinions about matters.

Soubry is of the opinion that Theresa May no longer runs the government but that Jacob Rees-Mogg is now in control of the country. She wants there to be a 'Government of National Unity' embracing what she considers to be the 'pragmatic' parties - that is Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists as well as those members of the Labour party who do not think much of Jeremy Corbyn. In other words, Soubry allies herself with every socialist party in the House of Commons though excludes the Eurosceptic parts of both Labour and her own Conservative parties. She talks of democracy while rejecting all who do not share her own views.

The agreement reached by the government ministers at Chequers was for a severely watered down version of Brexit which has failed to find much favour with anyone and could still be rejected by the European Union itself. Nonetheless, Soubry continues to rage against those whom she refers to as extreme hard-line Brexiteers, whatever that means; one suspects that it encompasses anyone who is in favour of the UK leaving the EU and who opposes her own pro-EU stance.

In her interview on the BBC this morning, it was very clear that Soubry has nothing but hatred and contempt for her fellow Conservative, Jacob Rees-Mogg; every time she mentioned his name it was accompanied by real venom. She even implied that Rees-Mogg had some involvement in the Conservative party's problems of the mid-1990s when John Major faced criticism from various senior party figures, although Rees-Mogg only entered Parliament in 2010, at the same time as Soubry herself.

Soubry is an arrogant and highly opinionated individual who seems to care little for democracy, but only for her own beliefs. Her political views seem to be very confused and she appears to be extremely embittered, especially towards men such as Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson whom she also detests. One wonders exactly what is her driving force.

BIG SERVERS ARE RUINING TENNIS.

Kevin Anderson, the big-serving South African who's made it to the final of the Wimbledon Men's Championship, has been whingeing about the length of his semi-final match against the even bigger-serving American, John Isner which extended to 6½ hours. Apparently, the match went on too long and Anderson wants Wimbledon, along with the French and Australian championships, to curtail the 5th set of men's matches just as they do the first 4, by the use of 'tie breaks'. That the second semi-final was also a marathon - lasting 5hours 17 minutes - but did not have anywhere near the same number of games, is ignored. Anderson and Isner played 99 games with 3 tie breaks, while Djokovic and Nadal played 59 games with only 1 tie-break. Clearly, the length of matches is not a function of the incidence of tie breaks nor even of the number of games played. Having a 5th set tie-break is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Not that many years ago, 'tie breaks' didn't exist and yet the tennis world managed very nicely. It was only after the integration of the amateur and professional tournaments in the late 1960s that anyone even had the thought of introducing ways of shortening matches, and that had much to do with the American inability to cope with anything which isn't over quickly. 'Tie breaks' at 6 games all in the first 4 sets of men's and 2 sets of women's matches, then most men's tournaments reduced to the best of 3 sets, doubles' matches reduced to 2 sets followed by a quick-fire deciding game of 10 points; all of these measures were introduced in order to shorten matches and, supposedly, heighten the excitement. 

Those of us who remember the epic matches between Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Pasarell or between Ken Rosewall and Cliff Richey do not need quick-fire endings to raise the pulse. Indeed, a major part of the excitement of a great tennis match is the cut and thrust over multiple sets with a drawn out denouement - no one can be quite sure who will triumph until the final point is won. Sadly, too many modern audiences are far more interested in a quick result than in the drama.

Anderson has been annoyed by the length of his match against Isner though he and Isner are themselves largely to blame. At 6ft 8", Anderson is a giant whose serve is frequently unreturnable; at 6ft 10", Isner is even bigger and has an even more powerful service. Inevitably, if both men are srerving well, the opportunities for their opponents to return serve and actually play some real tennis are few; both players simply hold serve until the tie break comes along which, in the 5th set at Wimbledon, it does not. Consequently, these 2 serving giants 'enjoyed' a long drawn out and pretty boring final set that stretched to 50 games; this was not, though, a result of anything but the playing styles of the 2 men.

Neither Anderson nor Isner can be counted as a great tennis player and, but for their service games, neither would have achieved very much. Rather than pandering to Anderson's call to accommodate players such as himself by artificially reducing the length of matches, surely the tennis authorities should act to make matches more competitive by reducing the dominance of the serve. Most male players are now much taller and stronger than they were 50 years ago; some, like Anderson and Isner, are ridiculously tall and have a huge advantage purely from their height, which masks shortcomings in their overall level of skill.

It is time for the net to be raised a few inches or the service box to be shortened by a few inches. It wouldn't take much to reflect the general change in player stature in recent years but it would dramatically reduce the dominance of players who rely almost entirely on a powerful and largely unreturnable service. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen and American influence will almost certainly lead to shortened matches and the huge, crashing service will slowly become an even more dominant part of the game. Truly great players such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will become no more than distant memories.

The misguided notion that bigger, faster or newer is always better simply doesn't hold water.

MAY SELLS US OUT; JOHNSON & DAVIS STAND FIRM.

It seems that Brexit is finally coming to a crunch point. Following Theresa May's watered down proposals which were 'agreed' by the Cabinet on Friday, first David Davis and now Boris Johnson have signalled their disapproval of the plan by resigning from their positions as Brexit Secretary and Foreign Secretary respectively. What now ?

Mrs May has reportedly said that she did not agree with the two ex-ministers about "the best way to honour the result of the 2016 vote" which seems to me to be a complete surrender to both the European Union's negotiating position and also to those here who want the UK to remain as closely tied to the EU as possible, if not actually remaining inside it. There is only one way to "honour" the vote and that is to do what it asked, that is, to take the UK out of the EU, Customs' Union, Single Market and all of the other nonsense that goes with it.

Some time  ago, Mrs May told us that "Brexit means Brexit" and she promised that we would be leaving the Customs' Union and Single Market, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as well as bringing an end to the free movement of people across the EU. Now it appears that she is effectively proposing to keep the UK in the Customs' Union, to keep us fully aligned with all EU rules and regulations and to offer European citizens preferential rights of migration. All of this of course means that the ECJ would also continue to be the ultimate arbiter of our compliance with EU diktats although we would have no say in the formulation of such rulings.

On television yesterday, Michael Gove attempted to dance on the head of a pin, saying that the UK parliament would, nonetheless, have the final word regarding any EU rulings, and trying to make out that this was perfectly normal in trade deals. Although he claimed that his acceptance of, and support for, the Prime Minister's proposal was a result of him being a realist, it was clear that it was nothing more than a sell out of the people who, like him, voted to leave the EU. Gove was positioning himself as a reasonable alternative to Theresa May in the event that any of his other Cabinet colleagues decided to be more forthright in their opposition. While supporting Mrs May's proposal, he did not renege on his Brexit credentials and could now easily be seen as a Prime Minister in waiting by both sides of the Conservative party.

Theresa May has let the country down badly. She has failed to carry out her own promises from 2016 and 2017 and has failed to conduct any effective negotiation, refusing to issue any threats, veiled or otherwise, to the EU and refusing to use the UK's bargaining power on money, trade, defence and much more. Rather than tell the EU what she will accept, she has bent over backwards to accommodate its every whim and has, frankly, been pathetic. What we now have to wait to see is whether the resignations of Johnson and Davis are anything more than just acts of petulance. Will there now be a leadership challenge and a far harder attitude from the Conservative Brexiteers in Parliament ?

Only time will tell though we're unlikely to have to wait long to find out.

TURNIPS BEAT SWEDES AT LAST !

Years after the infamous newspaper headline, the Turnips have finally beaten the Swedes in a meaningful football match. WHOOPEE !

Sadly, the victory doesn't mean that the Turnips, aka, England, have actually won anything, just the chance to win something. Nonetheless, it's a bit more than the ridiculously named "Three Lions" have managed for many years and is to be applauded; after all, this young England team seem to have a bit more about them than many far more lauded squads of recent memory.

The victory over the Swedes was a good one and well deserved, even if the Swedes did provide several severe tests for the England goalie, Jordan Pickford; on the overall run of play, it would have been something of a travesty had there been anything but an England win. However, England did make it somewhat more difficult for themselves than it might have been; if Raheem Sterling was even close to being a top class player, the result would have been beyond doubt much earlier than it was.

Sterling runs fast and dribbles well with the ball, but he's far too easily pushed aside by chunky defenders. When he does make a nuisance of himself in the opponent's half, he generally ends up having no idea what he should do - should he shoot, pass, go for a corner ? The inevitable answer is that he loses possession far too often, nothing results for the team and his efforts end up proving pointless. Sterling does not have the strength to hold off defenders, as does Harry Kane, and does not have the striker's instincts of Kane; he might be 'great' playing in the 'armchair' provided by Manchester City but, for England, he's a liability. In his England career, Sterling has played more than 40 times and scored twice - against the mighty giants of Lithuania and Estonia and both in 2015.

England can get to the final and might, just might, even win the World Cup, but they'll need a far more effective player than Sterling if they're to worry the French or Belgians. The rest are fine.

MORE EU BLUSTER.

As the European Union forged a supposed 'agreement' on the vexed matter of migration, one of its leading figures, Donald Tusk, set about telling the UK that quick progress was now needed on a number of issues if a Brexit deal was to be agreed by October. What a hoot !

The 'agreement' on migration is nothing other than a vaguely worded fudge which has led to sharp disagreements between the various national leaders within hours of it being announced. However, and for reasons which are only too clear, a similarly fudged agreement regarding Brexit seems to be impossible. As has been the case all along, the EU simply keeps demanding that the UK produce answers to all of the bones of contention for fear of dire consequences if we don't.

Mr Tusk, who is President of the European Council (whatever that is) believes that the most difficult issues remain unresolved and wants the UK representatives to "lay their cards on the table" very quickly in order that a deal can be done. He makes no mention of the need for the EU to do anything similar, even though negotiation is usually a 2-way process. As far as the EU is concerned, it's for the UK to make all of the proposals and for the EU to simply tell us that the ideas are no good, the aim being to end up with such a watered down version of Brexit that we might as well stay in the dreadful organisation.

Well Mr Tusk, perhaps you've forgotten the phrase "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". You may go on about issues such as the puffed up 'Irish Border' problem but the UK actually has the whip hand, if only we would use it. In the absence of an agreement, it is the EU which will suffer a huge potential loss through reduced trade and it will lose some £39bn of cash which it's expecting. The EU would be so diminished that it would crumble, whatever its arrogant bureaucrats might say. 

It is time for the EU to make some realistic proposals of its own, rather than sitting back in the smug conviction that the UK will ultimately see the error of its ways and agree to accept whatever the EU wants. Tusk, Barnier, Juncker and all the rest of these buffoons need to beware; the people of the UK can bite.

EUROPE ISN'T THE ONLY MARKET PLACE.

As the Brexit negotiations chug along to their inevitable conclusion - yet another fudge - it occurs to me that our 'friends' in Europe ought to think long and hard before pushing the British people too far.

I drive a German car, in fact my last 2 cars have been German. I also drink French wine and have done so, by the bucket-load, for decades. My kitchen contains olive oil, the produce, so it says on the label, of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. No doubt there are many other European products which I also consume in one way or another, just as do millions of other Britons. At the same time, my television is of Japanese origin, my laptop probably made in China. Many of my clothes and household linens convey the message that they were made in India, Bangladesh, China, Malaysia and heaven knows where else. 

My conclusion from this is that there are many places from which to buy goods which are not in the European Union. If the Bureaucrats in Brussels continue to obstruct Brexit at every turn my next car certainly won't be German, nor French nor of any other European origin; I hear that Japan, China, Malaysia, the USA and more all make perfectly good models. My French wine will be replaced with similar and sometimes superior products from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, the USA and others. Olive oil isn't essential and there are plenty of alternatives that will do. My fruit and veg will come from elsewhere than in Europe and my clothes already do. 

On balance, I reckon the EU will be the poorer for mistreating me and serve them bloody well right !