MARGARET COURT POINTS THE WAY TO TYRANNY.

Margaret Court was a truly great tennis player. In her day, she was undoubtedly the best and her record of triumphs in Grand Slam events is testimonial to that. 

Unfortunately for her, Mrs Court has views on some matters which run counter to currently promoted notions of supposed equality and she has received considerable criticism, even odium, for expressing them. In truth, Mrs Court has shown great courage, far greater than that shown by the undoubted vast numbers of people who share her views but are terrified to express them for fear of the backlash they will then suffer. Her views are based on an interpretation of the Christian bible which she, as a committed Christian, has total faith in; they are not violent or aggressive, but are simply social and cultural in nature.

Of course, in these supposedly enlightened days, we are all expected to kowtow to every minority group, granting them rights and privileges virtually on demand. Vote hungry legislators, terrified of the noise created by pressure groups, have supported the introduction of the most ludicrous arrangements; allowing marriage between 2 men or 2 women, allowing birth certificates to be devoid of a parent of one sex or the other, creating a legalistic difference between the terms 'gender' and sex', supporting the notion that a person who's had surgery to change their physical appearance can also lay claim to the sex (or is it gender ?) of their changed body form. The list goes on.

Mrs Court's crime has been to object to this nonsense on a religious basis although surely it can, and should, be rejected on the grounds of common sense. Yes, there are some people who are born with indeterminate chromosomal arrangements but these are few and far between; the rest of us are what we are - male or female, whatever medical or surgical interventions we undergo. End of.

I have no issue with 2 men or 2 women entering into a legal contract to be a couple, but for them to be 'married' in church is utterly ludicrous. For a child to have 2 men or 2 women named as their parents is equally nonsensical and for muscular men, who prefer to call themselves female, to be allowed to compete in women's sporting events is nothing short of insane.

Mrs Court has expressed such views and been vilified for it.  Now she is back at the centre of more opprobrium as it's rumoured that she is to be granted Australia's highest honour, "Companion of the Order of Australia". Inevitably, the usual loud noises are emanating from the usual places and Mrs Court may yet be denied her honour for the simple reason that her views do not find favour with the fads and fancies of today's "Woke" brigade.

Mrs Court's predicament is little different to that of others whose beliefs now fail to find favour with some elements of modern society. The recent attacks on monuments to those of previous generations, who are now deemed to have held unacceptable views, are another example of this same lack of tolerance that is displayed by those who demand that that they should be not just tolerated but almost deified for their differences. Interestingly, while the demonstrators demand the removal of statues, and renaming of buildings and streets in their own image, I've heard no one suggesting that the vast fortunes often endowed by such offenders, Cecil Rhodes springs rapidly to mind, be returned to his family. Perhaps those who benefitted greatly from Oxford's 'Rhodes' Scholarships' would now like to repay the cost of their time at the university, in recognition of their own acceptance that Rhodes' fortune was accrued from practices which are, today, considered unacceptable. Not much chance of that, I think.

The moral of the story is quite simple. Agree with us, that is those who are 'Woke' and making the loudest noise, or be condemned as being bigoted, racist, homophobic or any of a dozen other terms of vilification. Essentially, it's no different to the approach of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all those other tyrants of history. We already have a variety of 'thought crimes', how long before conviction carries a prison sentence ?

What a terrifying world we live in.

TRUMP FAILS TO BRING ABOUT MOB RULE.

In an appalling act of anti-democratic bile, Donald Trump encouraged his 'supporters' to march on the Capitol, the heart of United States government, in Washington. Inevitably, it was not just his fanatical 'supporters' who marched but also hordes of others who join in with any attack on democratic institutions. The result was mayhem and 4 people killed.

In ancient Rome, it was well known that 'the mob' (not be confused with "The Mob") was a powerful force; whoever controlled 'the mob' controlled Rome. In more recent times 'the mob' has been deployed in various countries and by various claimants for power, dictators and the like, usually with bad outcomes. Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany, Mao Tse-Tung in China, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and many more. While the outcome of Trump's attempts to rouse the mob pail into insignificance besides these masters of revolutionary action, they are nonetheless a shocking indictment of the man.

Whether or not there were any irregularities in a tiny proportion of the votes cast in November's Presidential election is not the point. From the outset, Trump whined on about fraud and having the election 'stolen' from him; he has never produced any evidence to support his claims and courts and legislators across the country have rejected his attempts to use legal process to further them. Having failed by legal means, Trump tried to coerce officials and when this also failed, he did what every would-be dictator throughout history has done and called upon 'the mob' to back him'.

Thankfully, Trump's mob proved to be rather less effective than some in the past and even the most senior members of his own Republican Party have now deserted him. Any plans he may have had for making a dramatic return in 2024, whether personally or through a family proxy, must now lie in tatters. The Republican Party will never go near him or his family again and attempting to gain office as an Independent, regardless of wealth, is virtually impossible. 

Far from being remembered as the man who 'drained the swamp', Trump will go down in US history as the worst President of all, a man whose ego and arrogance threatened the very fabric of the nation's democracy. For their own good, the Republicans must distance themselves very quickly and very far from Trump and his Presidency. They must look to find a candidate for 2024 who will reflect the values of American society while also respecting its democracy and traditions; otherwise it will be President Kamala Harris in 2024, by a landslide, and probably in 2028 too.

At the moment, the Republicans have been roundly rejected by the electorate, courtesy of Donald Trump, and it looks as though President Joe Biden will have a free hand to do almost anything he likes, at least for the next couple of years. The 'Grand Old Party' has only itself to blame for the mess it's now in; only it can revive its fortunes.

UNITED STATES OF EUROPE ALWAYS WAS A BAD IDEA.

Donald Trump is a rich man who bought the US Presidency. To that extent, he is now no different to many who've gone before him. In his behaviour as President he has been very different.

Whatever anyone may have thought of his policies and approach, and putting political views aside, Trump has devalued the Presidency and US democracy by his behaviour since the November 2020 election. Whatever the shortcomings of the US electoral system, it's their system and all parties sign up to it BEFORE it's put into action. Any President who believes that it's really flawed and needs to be fixed has the option of making the necessary changes to electoral law BEFORE any election is held. NOT AFTER.

However much Trump may be worth financially, his political sense is around zero. Politically he's an ingénue. Sadly, whatever good he may have potentially done during his time in office has been more than cancelled by his utter  political incompetence and failure to accept the result of the perfectly legal electoral process.

If President-elect Biden has any sense, he will act to ensure that such post-electoral nonsense cannot occur in the future. Of course, the federal system in effect in the United States of America may prevent him from doing this as his powers in such matters are limited.

How fortunate that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland no longer has to deal with the nightmare prospect of being part of a federal United States of Europe and a perpetual German Kaiser in a dress. 

WILL TONY BLAIR NEVER GO AWAY ?

Will Tony Blair never realise that no one cares what he thinks and bugger off ?

In the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic, Blair has had nothing helpful or useful to say but, nonetheless, insisted on sharing his egotistical wisdom with the rest of we poor mortals. Today, he's emerged from his political grave to tell us that the UK government must up its game and deliver 5 million vaccinations a week in order to avoid another national lockdown; apparently the current plan for 1 million, rising to 2 million isn't adequate and "if he was Prime Minister" today, he'd be doing things very differently.

How easy it is to sit on the sidelines, criticise and suggest alternative strategies when he has no power and no responsibility, when he has no control over the actual production of the vaccine doses. In like manner, I could no doubt claim that if I was Prime Minister, we'd be vaccinating the whole population of the UK by the end of January, indeed, why stop there ? Let's make it the total population of the world - easy if I was Prime Minister. Not so easy in a real world in which vaccine production is limited, and will remain limited, by factors such as the availability of suitable laboratories, appropriate staff, relevant testing facilities, sterile media and packaging, adequate distribution, appropriate vaccination facilities and staff, to mention but a few. Then, of course, we have to remember that the laboratories currently engaged on vaccine production have orders from much of the world and not just the UK. Blair happily ignores all such matters when he shares his wisdom with us today, as he did in the past.

The fact is that Blair is NOT prime Minister and hasn't been for 12 years. When he was Prime Minister he supported Gordon Brown's creation of a client state, with millions dependant on ever more generous government hand-outs and with banks encouraged to offer loans with little evidence that the security offered was adequate; the result from such a world-wide and utterly misguided approach was the financial crisis of 2008 from which the world had barely recovered before COVID struck. Despite this monumental failure of his own policy, Blair now expects us to believe that he has it right on this occasion.

Well, for this member of the general public, Blair always was a man far stronger in style than substance. He's a man who climbed over all comers in his pursuit of the top job, while actually having none of the necessary attributes other than a winning smile. His behaviour over the Iraq war and his laughable strutting beside then US President George W Bush, showed him up for what he was. His ambition to continue to influence British, European and even World affairs continues unabated - thankfully, no one really seems to be listening to this jumped up little twerp any more.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Postscript :

And now Blair's latest wild eyed successor, SIR Keir Starmer, is demanding that we suffer a National Lockdown, to be imposed within the next 24 hours.

Starmer can't lose on this one. If the government ignores him, as it should, and COVID numbers continue to rise, he can claim that he was right and that victims of the virus have the government to blame, regardless of any carefree and selfish actions of their own. If numbers don't rise any further and even begin to fall, he can claim that he was simply taking the cautious and sensible approach. Given that the chances are that excessive mixing over Christmas and the New Year has yet to be picked up by the latest statistics, Starmer will probably be shown to be on the right side of the numbers in the next 3 or 4 weeks, though for purely political reasons. The latest restrictions will almost certainly mean that numbers are falling rapidly by the beginning of February, National Lockdown or not.

What is needed is consistency, not political point scoring. Where Boris Johnson's government have so far failed is in consistency; their messages have often been less than clear and, while trying to adopt a positive bent, they have often been overly optimistic. Consequently, they have found themselves under pressure to change tack on numerous occasions, pressure to which they have ultimately had no alternative but to yield.

The latest issue, prior to Starmer's demands of today, have involved the opening, or otherwise, of schools after the Christmas break. Gavin Williamson, surely a dead man walking in his role as Secretary of State for Education, has been a disaster in his presentation of government policy on all matters to do with schools and is now under attack from councils and unions. For Johnson to resolve the current crisis and regain some control, he has no choice but to replace Williamson; if he does not, he will find himself under yet more pressure that may prove terminal.

Johnson must regain control and be seen to have done so. Williamson must go and the question of an immediate National Lockdown be dealt with. Otherwise, we are more than likely to have a new Prime Minister by the autumn, and quite possibly not a Conservative one.

TELEVISION EVEN WORSE THAN USUAL

Am I alone in believing that television offerings over the Christmas period have been even worse than usual ?

The usual repeats of classical favourites from Morecambe and Wise to Ben Hur may appeal to those few who have never before seen them but to anyone old enough to have seen the originals, now several dozen times, they are no longer the attraction they once were. Indeed, that such programmes continue to be re-broadcast year after year surely only serves to demonstrate how poor more modern programming has become.

This year, the Queen's Christmas Message has been the most watched programme in the UK with a little over 8 million reported viewers; long gone are the days when Her Majesty commanded at least twice that number of adherents, while Morecambe and Wise came close to 3 times as many. While it has to be admitted that times have changed along with viewing habits, does no one at the now hundreds of television channels not realise that their diet of cheap thrills, 'reality shows' and repeats appeals to a smaller audience every year ? Do none of them consider that there might be an alternative ?

Much of modern television seems to be aimed at children - is this an attempt to use the old Jesuit approach of "give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - while modern comedy is almost entirely aimed at an audience of children and others of a puerile mind set, with an emphasis on crudity and bodily functions. Modern drama is aimed at those who favour crudity, nudity, overt displays of sexual activity and foul language in preference to solid storylines, real acting and proper scripts. Modern documentaries are top heavy with the most recent left wing fad, be it issues of supposed equality, discrimination, racial injustice. gender, or God knows what else. Is it any surprise that the majority of the population have turned away from mainstream television ?

I find myself hunting through hundreds of channels in search of something to watch and almost inevitably end up watching something I recorded previously, often weeks, months or even years ago. As someone who has paid his television licence dutifully and without fail for many decades, I find it galling that my likes are now superceded by vast quantities of animated tripe served up to satisfy hordes of children whose parents should be taking the trouble to entertain them rather than dumping them in front of a television and telling them to watch and shut up.

This year's offerings seem to have been even more limited. Yes, we've had the usual 'great' films - Ben Hur, Spartacus, It's a Wonderful Life (all of which I love but have seen many times), etc., but what else has there been? The simple answer is "Very little". With so many of us effectively housebound and isolated, could those to whom we pay licence fees and subscriptions not have come up with something better, at least for this most difficult of years ? Could Sky and the like not have foregone some small part of their massive profits to provide something more attractive and greater appeal ? Could not the BBC have done something to advance the cause of real television rather than broadcasting nothing but their usual offering of repeats of Morecambe and Wise, the same old films, assorted cookery programmes and the drivel that is claimed to be 'reality' ? Have I watched the BBC over the last 2 days ? I think not, at all, which is a shocking indictment when I would once have watched nothing else.

Some modern 'progressives' love to refer to things and services as being 'broken'; they will tell us minions that the immigration system, Home Office, benefits system or whatever else is broken or 'not fit for purpose'; how about adding that the BBC and overall broadcasting services in this country are on that list and even lead it ?

LEWIS HAMILTON - GREAT CHAMPION OR JUST A CAR DRIVER ?

 To be clear.

When Lewis Hamilton first appeared on the scene, I was a great supporter. He was a breath of fresh air and a tremendous talent, promising to be an attraction for years to come. Sadly, his subsequent behaviour has turned me away from him.

Yes, he has now won multiple world championships but then he has been driving what has undoubtedly been the best car of the last 6 or 7 years; the way in which George Russell, a reserve driver who has never before even led a race, so easily led and kept his lead until misfortune overtook him in Bahrain, came so close to winning suggests that Hamilton's achievements may be at least as due to car as to man. 

Today, Hamilton was a distant third in Abu Dhabi, the last race of a disjointed 2020 season in which he has again been crowned champion, as has his team. However, rather than be magnanimous in defeat, Hamilton has preferred to dwell upon his lack of full fitness, due to his experience with the COVID-19 virus, than acknowledge that he was well and truly beaten. Would Fangio or Moss, Senna or Prost, ever have blamed defeat on illness ? Instead, Hamilton parades his success and wealth in an almost offensive manor, while feigning humility; neither Michael Schumacher nor Sebastian Vettel, his most recent and closest rivals for accolades, has behaved in such a way.

Wouldn't it be great to see a race with Hamilton in a Williams and Russell in a Mercedes. then we would see whether Hamilton really is the superstar that he believes himself to be, or whether he's just a good driver in an exceptional car. One wonders what a Fangio, Moss, Clark or Senna would have done in this generation and where Hamilton would have fitted in. I suspect he would have been well down the grid from the true dare-devils of the track. 

Nonetheless, 'Arise Sir Lewis' is inevitable, as is a further devaluing of the honours' system.

DOES BORIS HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY "NO DEAL" ?

The evidence suggests that the UK and EU will eventually cobble together some sort of 'deal', with both sides claiming 'victory'. The truth will be that whatever is agreed will be to the satisfaction of neither party and will be so full of holes as to be open to infinite future challenges.

When Boris Johnson first set a 'final deadline' it seemed an unlikely target. The 'absolutely final deadline' of today (Sunday 13th December) was clearly nothing but yet another political gambit that both sides have now ignored.

It is equally clear that unless the UK agrees, in some way or other, to abiding by EU regulations and accepting that EU trawlers will continue to have unfettered access to British waters, there will be no deal. Given that these are 2 red lines on which the EU will not give way, the outcome seems clear.

Despite all of the rhetoric, the Johnson government will most probably find a fudge that is an effective surrender. Oh yes, it will be dressed up in such a way as to be presented as a victory but it will, in truth, be an agreement which gives everlasting power to the EU and reduces the UK to the level of a client state. Forget the claimed notions of sovereignty, we will be in hock to the EU, really meaning Germany and France, forever.

Of course, Boris may surprise us all and finally tell the EU that it is 'No Deal', but does anyone really believe that is going to happen ? My vote in future elections hangs in the balance - will Boris prove that he has the balls to earn it or will he cave in, just as so many of the liberal elite have done so often in the past ?

How many millions will be having similar thoughts ? How many millions might be looking for a new standard bearer in January ? Oh, unless of course the 'negotiations' are somehow carried on for a further indeterminate period, which is the obvious third option, God help us. The EU would like nothing more than to drag this issue out for another 3 or 4 years in the hope that either the British will become so fed up that they give up, or that a new government in 2024 calls a halt to the whole Brexit idea.

Anyone who thought that the 2016 referendum was the end of this saga was sadly mistaken. This is a true 'make or break' moment for those who truly believe in the democratic process. To make it personal, my last 2 cars have been German and I've recently been under pressure from a dealer to buy another; quite simply, unless there is a realistic deal that truly recognizes UK sovereignty, my next car will not be German, French, Italian or even Swedish. It will be Japanese, Korean, Malaysian or even American. That will be a good £30k plus that will not go to an EU nation or its UK outlets. Yes, that means that UK employees could miss out but then perhaps they should be considering for whom they work. 

Boris, show some true mettle, otherwise you and your party are history.