STARMER et al SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE, NOT CARPING.

 As the government grapples with one of the most challenging situations to hit the world, let alone, this country, in decades, its political opponents continue to carp, whinge and complain. Whatever the government does, it isn't enough, it's too late or it's just plain wrong.

Do the likes of Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, John Ashworth, Sadiq Khan and the rest not have anything in mind but gaining political advantage ? Would they really have done things so differently, or is it just about having the benefit of hindsight ? 

Despite the rising numbers of cases in the United Kingdom, we are still a long way behind the situation in France, for instance, where newly diagnosed cases are running at THREE times the level we are currently experiencing, and France has a similar size of population; the UK is also carrying out at least as many, if not more, tests than in most other countries. In truth, the approach adopted by our government is proving more successful than that in many other countries. Why do Starmer and his merry band not recognize this  and support the government ?

Of course, it's because that would not be to their benefit. Thankfully, despite the media being full of bad luck stories and tales of woe, most people seem to understand and back the government's strategy. If that leads to stricter rules and harsher penalties, they will understand and back that too. Most people see an advantage in getting this virus beaten and are far less concerned about who might win the next election.

JOHNSON'S STRATEGY MUST BE ALLOWED TO PLAY OUT.

Exactly why Prime Minister Johnson is trying to introduce legislation which his government admits might well lead to a contravention of international law is something I have no knowledge of. However, I have no doubt that it's some sort of ploy for use in the ongoing discussions with the European Union and is designed to give the United Kingdom an additional bargaining chip.

Inevitably, representatives of the EU have thrown up their hands in horror, accompanied by assorted voices from the list of usual suspects, meaning those who have always opposed all things BREXIT. Indeed, I suspect that the likelihood of the British government ever using whatever powers it is trying to bring into being is remote and that the huge political fuss that's been blown up is mostly a storm in a tea cup, not that anyone would believe this from the media's coverage of the matter.

Particularly shocking is that assorted former Prime Ministers appear to have given up on supporting their own country and have, instead, emerged from the woodwork to criticize their current successor. Of course, none of them like Boris Johnson who is a very different character to any of them - Major, Blair, Brown and May are all long standing members of the political establishment and not one of them will be remembered in 100 years time any more than are the likes of Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law today. Their legacies make sorry reading - Major entwined the UK in the Maastricht Treaty and all but destroyed the Conservative Party; Blair had a God complex and led the country into interminable wars in the Middle East while also creating, together with Brown, a nation in which all and sundry are dependent on state largesse; Brown was also part-responsible for the appalling financial crash of 2008 and as for May, she was a control-freak who was incompetent, a devastating combination. 

All 4 of these political 'giants' (in their own minds if no where else) are Europhiles and now all 4 want to argue for Europe against the UK. Interestingly, I have yet to hear that David Cameron has made any loud public pronouncements on the latest squabble, which might suggest that he is more aware of the underlying strategy, or perhaps I've just missed whatever he's said. 

Whatever is going on, it's clear that the EU is making things as difficult as possible in the discussions over a future trade deal with the United Kingdom and surely the role of all of our representatives, current and former, should be to support our government, not try to undermine it. That some egos are simply too big to follow this simple principle is disappointing, to say the least.

RUSSIA AND CHINA NOW RULE THE ROOST.

It seems that there is a belief, even a strong belief, that the Russian government has been involved in various incidents of international interference and terrorism. The evidence for at least some of these appears to be irrefutable and yet the rest of the world has proved completely toothless in its responses.

A number of years ago, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with a deadly radioactive substance, polonium, and subsequently died a very painful death in hospital in London. More recently, 2 Russian defectors, Sergei and Julia Skripal, were poisoned with a nerve agent, novichok, in Salisbury and, although they recovered, a British woman died. Now Alexei Navalny, a political opponent of the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, has been poisoned with a similar agent and is fighting for his life in a hospital in Germany.

Alongside these appalling events, the Russian state and its operatives have also been strongly suspected of having attempted to subvert important elections in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as most probably in other countries too. 

The actions of the civilised world in response to these events have been such as expelling Russian diplomats, expelling Russia itself from pointless international gatherings and various measures targeted at specific Russians with dubious backgrounds. The problem is that none of this is of any concern to the Russian leadership, in particular to Putin who is undoubtedly the natural successor to one of the most evil men in recent history, Russia's former leader, Joseph Stalin.

While Russia goes about its subversive and murderous activities anywhere and everywhere, the Chinese government seems to be attempting to mimic the behaviour of NAZI Germany in ridding itself of a vast number of people whom it considers undesirable. The Uyghurs are an ethnic group, native to parts of China and who seem to have offended the government in Beijing. Consequently, many of them have been rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps in a remote area of China where they are being 're-educated'; reports suggest that they are actually being subjected to appalling treatment and systematically exterminated, if in less dramatic manner than that adopted by the NAZI regime. Various world leading politicians, and others, have made noises but nothing of note seems to have been done in opposition to this activity which some claim is akin to genocide.

It must also not be forgotten that the Chinese state exercises the tightest possible control over its people, often through technological means, and that its technology industry, in common with all Chinese industry, is also state controlled. Having become a major producer of many computer components and with effective marketing of its own products, companies such as Huawei now have access to, and potential control of, large parts of western infrastructure, as well as many millions of personal computers, tables, 'phones and so on. How have we been so stupid as to hand over such power with so little thought ?

As with the case in Russia, China currently has its most powerful leader for many years, General Secretary Xi Jinping, wielding greater authority than any Chinese leader since the dark days of Mao Zedong and his 'cultural revolution' that saw millions murdered. Also as with Russia, the civilised world has been largely toothless in its response to the atrocities in China, and is additionally in utter confusion about how to counter the technological control potentially available to this massive and anti-democratic state.

In reality, international diplomacy is all about fancy gatherings with important sounding names in exotic places; little of note is ever really discussed and, if anything contentious is raised, those whose behaviour is being questioned simply veto any actions against them. Thus the major powers, or those backed by any of them, are impervious to meaningful sanctions. The United Nations and its myriad of satellites absorbs vast quantities of money while delivering nothing of any real value - all decisions are reduced to the lowest common denominator, thus acceptable to all but achieving nothing of any note. Then they all sit down to an expensive dinner, paid for by us, and chat about the weather., their families, favourite sports or anything else that is utterly irrelevant.

Will the people of the world never realise that political organisations such as the UN, UNESCO, WHO, FAO, IAEA, IMF, World Bank,  (and the rest), NATO, the EU and so many more are designed to served those who profit from them who, themselves, are time-serving politicians, often ones who have come to the end of the road in their own countries. They have no desire to rock the boat as the first to be tossed over the side will be themselves. Consequently, the murderous activities of Putin, Xi Jinping and their counterparts in other places continue unabated and unpunished except for the rarest of cases where it's decided to bring some small fry to justice for overwhelmingly political reasons.

Politicians huff and puff and ask for our votes every few years, usually after they've thrown us a few crumbs of encouragement, but little ever changes. Then they elect, or appoint, their pals to high offices in international organisations to ensure that nothing changes there either. Life goes on, with the elite running things, enjoying the high life and getting rich, while the rest of us are expected to do as we're told and accept whatever comes along. Heaven forbid that anyone should ever risk upsetting the delicate balance of power that keeps the house of cards from crashing down. 

RULE BRITANNIA !!

Boris Johnson is absolutely right when he says that the British should stop being embarrassed about our past. The truth is that we should actually embrace it and laud it, for if it was not for the British much of the world would still be largely uninhabited jungle and the majority of its people would still be heathens, savages, headhunters and cannibals.

Perhaps that's a bit extreme, but then the constant stream of anti-British vitriol which has been spewing from the media and assorted left wing sources in recent times demands a response. Did the British take Christianity and education to much of the world ? Certainly. Was it the British, admittedly along with others, who 'discovered' the Americas, Africa and Australasia and introduced the inhabitants of these lands to new ways that have led to vastly improved lives ? Of course. 

I do not say that this has been achieved without some negatives along the way. There was the slave trade, near annihilation of indigenous peoples, brutality, war and much more, but this is all part of the same historical story. Without the negatives there would have been no positives. Should modern sensitivities now preclude celebration of our nation's past, as those who have tried to remove much loved items from the "Last Night of The Proms" would wish ? 

History cannot and must not be rewritten; that way is the way of the dictatorships of countries such as the Soviet Union and China, not to mention NAZI Germany. Tearing down statues and changing the names of buildings and streets because some 'take offence', is itself, offensive. Cecil Rhodes may not have been a very nice man, to some modern eyes, but his vast wealth has been used to achieve great good. Do those who want his statue removed from Oriel College in Oxford also propose returning the legacy that he left ?

Our nation's history is a chequered one, with both highs and lows, good and bad, but it is our history and, warts and all, it should be celebrated as such. There may be lessons to learn and explanations to be offered but to attempt to ban elements of it or to limit discussion to one narrow point of view cannot be allowed. Yes, we must admit that it was not all perfect, far from it in fact, but neither was it all bad. 

Remember the bad and learn from it, but celebrate the good, loudly and from the roof tops. Britain is a "Land of Hope and Glory", Jerusalem has been built in "England's Green and Pleasant Land" and Britons certainly "Never, Never, Never Shall Be Slaves" !

HARPER'S LAW MAKES NO SENSE AND WOULD BE UNJUST.

Let's imagine a situation.

I, a pensioner, pop into my local bank. I discover that another customer has had a heart attack and is being treated by a paramedic, having first been attended to by a nurse who'd been using the cash machine. A police officer, having seen the paramedic enter, had also come in to find out what was going on.

Moments later, 3 nasty oiks turn up, brandishing knives and guns and demand that the various cashiers hand over all the money in their tills. Of course, the police officer interferes with their plans and he is assisted by the paramedic, nurse and myself, who join together in confronting the would-be robbers. One of us is killed as a result.

According to the suggested "Harper's Law" if it's the police officer, nurse or paramedic who dies, the miscreant would receive a more harsh sentence than if it was me. That is not justice and demonstrates a fatal flaw in the notion that certain professions should have greater protection under the law than the rest of society.

The correct way to deal with criminals is to give them penalties and sentences that offer genuine punishment and deterrence. The current practice of releasing offenders part-way through prison sentences makes headline stories of seemingly harsh penalties - 30 years, life etc., - misleading and often meaningless. Placing supposed rehabilitation above retribution may make sense in some cases but it does not in more serious ones. The nonsense of 'victim impact statements' is nothing but a sop to the 'woke' generation and those who love their 'day in court'. None of it is necessary and none of it should be part of our legal process.

Assault is assault, murder is murder. The sentences handed down to offenders should be appropriate to the offence, regardless of the societal standing of the victim. A vicious assault on an elderly person during a robbery is surely no different to an assault on a police officer in the performance of their duties - or should we also have a "Pensioners' Law", providing for harsher sentences for those found guilty of crimes against the elderly ?

It is nonsensical to try to segment society for the purposes of determining criminal severity and sentencing. Once it starts, where does it end ?

JIMMY ANDERSON : VERY GOOD BUT NO G.O.A.T.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Anderson has been a great performer for England's cricket team over the last 15 or more years, but the claims that he is the "greatest of all time" is the usual nonsense spouted by those who are blinded by a need to laud the achievements of current players over those of former years. Sadly, the assorted pundits on the Sky cricket channel, only one of whom was born before 1968, are so blinded.

Anderson is close to becoming the first fast bowler to take 600 wickets in test matches, a notable achievement, but what is ignored is that he has also played many more matches than any other bowler of his type. In fact, his nearest rival in this respect is his usual bowling partner, Stuart Broad, who is some dozen or more matches behind, while no one else is within 25 matches; the great Australian fast bowler, Glen McGrath, played more than 30 matches fewer but managed to be within 35 or Anderson's total of wickets, suggesting that there is more to being the greatest of all time than simply the number of wickets taken.

Bowlers abilities can be measured in various ways - wickets taken, runs conceded, 'strike rate', meaning the regularity of their wicket taking, but all may be dependent on the number of balls bowled. McGrath, for instance, took a wicket every 52 balls, Anderson's average in this respect is every 56 balls. McGrath conceded 0.42 runs per ball, while Anderson'c record is 0.48, and McGrath's average runs per wicket was 21.64 while Anderson's is 26.83. On a combination of these measures, McGrath beats Anderson, as do numerous others, including former English fast bowlers Trueman, Bedser, Statham, Willis and Snow; even these illustrious predecessors are well adrift of the best performers, the West Indian trio of Marshall, Garner and Ambrose.

Anderson is good, even very good, and his longevity is a credit to both him and those who have looked after him over the years, but to claim that he is the "greatest of all time" is just idiotic. Times change, conditions change and there actually was cricket before Sky became involved. Trueman, for instance, not only took his 307 test match wickets more efficiently than Anderson, he also played regular county cricket and amassed a career record of over 2,300 wickets; Anderson plays little other than test matches and one day games, and has around 1,350 wickets to his name in all formats, even though he has played for a similar number of years.

Media pundits really do need to be more careful in their proclamations of brilliance and their use of superlatives. Routinely describing events as being incredible, fantastic, phenomenal, and the rest, simply demonstrates a lack of language skills; constant references to players as being 'great' similarly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for, or knowledge of, the history of the game. 

CHANNEL DEATH IS DOWN TO THE FRENCH, NOT THE UK.

I am sick to death of hearing about the hordes of migrants attempting to gain entry into the UK from assorted places in France. The latest news, a hard luck story about a teenager whose body has been found on a French beach, has been reported by the media as if our government has almost total responsibility for both the death and the boy's supposed plight, without any reference to the responsibilities of the French, the boy's own country and all of the places through which he must have passed on his way to the English Channel. 

Am I being hard hearted and uncaring ? No way ! On his journey across Europe, this boy had opportunities galore to ask for asylum in umpteen countries, and yet he failed to do so. Once in France, he became their responsibility but that country basically ignored him and left him to continue his attempt to get to the UK, wholly illegally. Under international law, the boy had no right to request asylum anywhere other than in the first 'safe' country to which his flight took him; having arrived in France, it was the responsibility of the French government to look after him, accommodate him and provide him with sanctuary. But of course, they did not, seeing a far better option of letting him try to reach the UK, where he would be a drain on our resources rather than theirs.

That the boy has died is sad, even tragic for his family, but it is nothing whatsoever to do with this country or its government. He had no right to come here and the responsibility for his death lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the French. Why oh why does our media insist on using such stories as nothing but a cudgel with which to beat OUR government ? The answer to that question is, of course, obvious.

Our leftie-liberal media hates the "evil Tories" and will do anything, use anything to try to denigrate them. Surely it is time that our government fought back and made clear that all migrants intercepted trying to cross the channel will be returned to France, irrespective of age, sex, colour, nationality or any other damned characteristic that might be used to justify their attempt to enter the UK. 

Britain is far more crowded than France and is, to all intents and purposes, full. The NO ENTRY signs should be put up and rigorously policed.