ORGAN DONATION PRESUMED CONSENT IS WRONG.

It seems that our masters are determined to return us all to the dark days of the 19th century when even our bodies were not our own.

It's reported that the government is planning to introduce a new law under which the question of organ donation would be dealt with by 'presumed consent'. In other words, unless the deceased person had specifically opted out of such donation, their organs would be presumed to be available for doctors to do with as they please. The law would not apply to children, which I imagine means those under the age of 18, but would, no doubt, apply to those who, for example, died unexpectedly and had simply not got around to opting out of the scheme. It also seems likely that relatives, other than those of children, would no longer have a voice.

Back in time, the bodies of executed murderers were made available to medical schools under the provisions of the Murder Act of 1752. However, the increasing interest in medical science and a fall in the number of available bodies meant that this source of supply gradually became insufficient and this gave rise to the rather unsavoury trade of the 'resurrectionists', people who dug up freshly buried bodies and sold them to medical schools and students for their research and training. By the early 1800s, it was becoming clear that the law needed to be changed though it was not until the passing of the Anatomy Act in 1832 that anything actually happened.

Under this Act, the needs of physicians, surgeons and students were met by giving them legal access to corpses that were unclaimed after death, which meant many of those died in prison, hospital or a workhouse. The Act also allowed next of kin to donate a relative's body in return for burial at the expense of the anatomy school, something which was akin to the selling of the corpse, and individuals could also donate their own bodies although relatives could object to this.

The real effect of this Act was to make the corpses of the poor generally available for anatomical dissection, whether they liked it or not. Inevitably, there were protests although these were mostly ignored and the effects of the 1832 Act remained in force until it was repealed in England and Wales in 1984; access to the bodies of the deceased is now regulated by the Human Tissue Authority, but the wide-ranging access which was available under the 1832 Act no longer exists.

What the government is now proposing is a return to the days of the 1830s when the poor and uneducated were not even allowed the dignity of burial, but could have their bodies chopped up by any passing doctor. The latest proposals would mean much the same, with the wealthy and knowledgeable being able to opt out of the scheme while the poor and uneducated could well find themselves being cut up simply because they didn't understand how the law worked or hadn't known how to opt out. No doubt, opting out of the scheme will be made confusing and difficult, so as to ensure that few actually do it, poor or not.

One wonders how the much vaunted rules and regulations around 'equality' will be applied in the event of an opt out system being introduced. Will those who opt out of donating their own organs still be entitled to receive the organs of others should the need arise ? How will different religious beliefs be accommodated ? Would the law apply to all who live here or would, say, foreign nationals be excluded ? 

The enactment of such a law would be an infringement of the liberties of every single person in our society. My body belongs to me, not to the state and for the state to 'presume' authority over it after my death is anathema to me, as it should be to every right minded person. I have no objection whatsoever to organ donation but it must be by the specific wish of the donor, not a result of theft by the state.

Should this law come to pass, I will be among the first to opt out, however difficult the government makes it.

FOR MUGABE, READ MNANGAGWA

One of the most appalling tyrants of modern times, Robert Mugabe, may have gone but little else seems to have changed in Zimbabwe.

'Free and democratic' elections have been held but have been accompanied by the same scenes of violence as before. Days of rioting, opponents hustled away by police, claims and counter-claims about vote rigging; it's all as if Mugabe had never left the scene.

Whatever the truth, it's clear that many Zimbabweans believe that there has been foul play and that the voting, and its results, have been subject to manipulation. In such circumstances mistrust will endure and the state will continue to subdue all opposition in any way that it can. If that means police brutality, manufactured charges, false imprisonment or even murder, so be it.

Emmerson  Mnangagwa has said that his victory in the Presidential election paves the way for a new beginning for his beleaguered country but isn't this the same old tosh that was spouted by Mugabe, over and over again ? As a former associate of Mugabe's, is not Mnangawa just another old man who fancied grabbing the limelight, and the power, before it was too late ? 

Zimbabwe, as Southern Rhodesia, may not have been perfect but it was surely a lot better than the appalling cess pit of corruption, violence and murder that it has become. 

THE WEATHER AND BREXIT; IT'S ALL THE SAME.

In Britain, we never seem to be satisfied about the weather. It's always too cold, too wet, too windy or, less often, too hot. Why can't we just accept things and get on with it ?

The wonderful weather we've been experiencing in recent weeks has brought comparisons with the summer of 1976, the last time we had a really long hot, dry spell. Yes, the lack of the usual cloud and rain has brought a few problems but surely the beautiful blue skies and warm days have more than compensated. Perhaps the trouble is that our sensationalist media has been more interested in reporting the associated problems such as threatened hose-pip bans, supposed melted roads and buckled rails, overly hot train carriages and the potential for suffering sunburn or heat stroke. How sad.

Having raised all of these potential nightmares, what has actually happened ? So far, there are no hose-pipe bans in force, although one is still threatened in the North West of the country, and I've certainly heard no more about our roads turning into rivers of tarmac or our railway lines becoming molten masses of metal. I've heard of no vast swarms of people flooding into our hospitals with crispy skin although no doubt a few stupid ones have suffered a bit of dehydration. All in all, none of the threatened disasters have actually befallen us.

What this tells us is that our media love to report things that haven't happened and probably won't happen. They love the sensational stories that attract attention, whatever the truth really is. In this case the truth is that we've had some fantastic weather, albeit unusual and a little uncomfortable at times, but why can't we and the media just celebrate what is, after all, a rare event ? From the point of view of the media, of course, that wouldn't be a story, so it's far better to invent associated horrors, true or not, in order to sell their papers, news feeds, channels and whatever else they do.

I can't help feeling that this coverage of the weather situation has been akin to the government's handling of Brexit. Forget facts, just invent potential nightmare scenarios in order to sell its desired outcome and, ultimately, to get us all to do what we're told. The weather, and its supposedly dreadful effects, is a result of man-made climate change so we must change our bad ways; the horrors that will result from Brexit are of our own making, so we must change our minds.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher "No, No, No !"

"NO DEAL" BREXIT IN POLE POSITION !

At long last, it seems that the UK government has woken up to the fact that raising 'No Deal' as a genuine possibility might just make the EU sit up and take notice.

For months, the  European Union's negotiators have not negotiated at all, they've simply adopted the stance of General de Gaulle and met every UK position with a resounding "NON !" They've assumed that the UK is actually so desperate to remain closely tied to the EU that it would accept whatever was demanded, be it money, border controls and migration, trade arrangements or anything else. They've ignored the fact that the UK is a huge contributor, one of very few, to the EU's budget and they've ignored the massive trade imbalance, entirely to the EU's benefit, which exists. Their entire approach has been predicated on the basis that the UK would ultimately roll over and accept whatever the EU wanted.

Of course, it may all be 'smoke and mirrors' from the UK government but at least the messages now emanating from it give the appearance that a stronger line is being adopted. Indications that there are now active preparations for a 'No Deal' scenario may be aimed at pacifying Brexiteers but may also be a shot across the bows of the EU, the clear message being "negotiate properly or else".

For all our sakes, I truly hope that, at last, the UK government has got its act together.

TELL BARNIER IT'S NO DEAL !

It appears that Michel Barnier and his cabal of dictatorial European Union bureaucrats have as much liking for Mrs May's 'Chequer's Deal' as have Boris Johnson, David Davis and others in this country.

Yesterday, after a meeting of senior EU figures, Barnier came to the rostrum to relay the message that Mrs May's proposals were, effectively, being rejected. He didn't quite say that, but he did imply that the UK's proposals were little more than an interesting starting point for discussions; he made it clear that the UK would be expected to make further concessions if a deal with the EU was to be achieved.

Barnier also talked about a no-deal situation and issued thinly veiled threats about the consequences of such an outcome. Given that Mrs May now has almost no wriggle-room with her own supporters, no-deal must now be a real possibility; some are suggesting that Parliament has lost control and is in such turmoil over the matter that the only way out is to hold a further referendum in order to ask the people for their view although why this would help is a bit of a mystery. Our politicians have already largely ignored the result of the original referendum so what why would they take notice now; on the one hand a vote confirming a wish to leave the EU would still find little favour with MP's while a vote to cancel the result of the original decision would create constitutional mayhem and a huge public outcry.

The EU seems to be operating on the basis that the UK government will make whatever concessions are demanded in order to obtain a deal while the UK government seems to be running scared of a no-deal outcome as the belief is that Parliament would not support this; in truth, this is all about brinkmanship. The EU needs the UK's money and trade and would be severely hurt if no deal can be agreed. Yes, the UK would also suffer in the short term but it would be free to take whatever steps were necessary to solve the resulting problems; it could make deals and arrive at agreements with others on a bipartisan basis without the need to satisfy the vested interests of 27 other countries as well.

The EU still harps on about the Irish border, the situation with Gibraltar and umpteen other parochial matters. The UK should tell them, firmly, that we've gone as far as we can; if the EU wants more, it will have to whistle. No Deal.

EU WILL SUFFER FROM DISORDERLY BREXIT.

It seems that the reality of Brexit is finally beginning to hit home; both the EU and IMF have started  to understand that there will be serious consequences for the remaining European Union members if there is no satisfactory resolution to the Brexit negotiations.

While the EU's leaders have begun to panic about the potential effect of a disorderly Brexit, the IMF has attempted to quantify the possible impact. According to them, European economies could suffer an average 1.5 % reduction in GDP, although the Irish Republic could lose out to the extent of 4%. Even accepting that the IMF's history on such prognostications is poor, this is a new element in the Brexit saga.

Until now, little has been said about the potential effect of Brexit on other European economies and the emphasis has been heavily on the supposedly catastrophic impact on the economy of the UK - 'Project Fear' in full flow. Now it seems that 'Project Fear' has begun to spread to Germany, France, and the rest, especially Ireland; maybe now there will be a new realism from the EU negotiators and a withdrawal from their previous intransigent positions.

The UK has always been in a much stronger position than has been generally admitted - might that strength finally be becoming apparent ?

ISREALI APARTHEID MUST BE CONDEMNED.

The actions of the Israeli government in implementing a legal apartheid in their country must surely be condemned, but no. Israel appears to be immune to such condemnation, at least in any meaningful form.

Having occupied land previously home to a variety of Arab tribes, Israeli settlers have gradually extended their sphere of influence, pushing the original Palestinians further to the periphery of their former lands. The Israeli government has ignored numerous international calls for it to give up the occupied West Bank area and also to stop its continuing creation of new settlements in disputed territory; it has continued to use massive and lethal force against poorly armed, often unarmed, Palestinians.

Now, a new law has been introduced which effectively makes anyone who is not a Jew a second class citizen; Palestinians, and others, whose families have lived in the region for centuries have been declared to have none of the accepted rights of self-determination that apply globally. In effect, the government of Israel has introduced apartheid.

When the government of South Africa behaved in such a way, it was condemned and ultimately ostracized. When the government of Southern Rhodesia did something similar, it was driven into submission through the imposition of draconian sanctions, although when the white regime was replaced by a far worse indigenous African one,  the international response was rather more muted. It seems that the actions of some groups are treated rather differently from the actions of others.

The Israeli government is a disgrace. It's extremist attitudes would not be tolerated if they were exhibited by an Islamic state or, indeed, most others. Why does the world do nothing in the face of such behaviour ?