CHARLIE HEBDO STRIKES AGAIN !

It's reported that a school teacher in somewhere in Yorkshire showed a cartoon to a class as part of a lesson. The consequence of this apparently simple and inoffensive act has been the suspension of teh teacher, mass protests outside the school and grovelling apologies from all and sundry.

The 'problem' is that the cartoon was one of Muhammad and Muslims consider such behaviour to be blasphemous and offensive. Forget that this is England, a nominally Christian country in which cartoons, satire, irony and the rest have always been part of everyday life, now we have to mind our "ps & qs" in case we upset some minority group or other.

As yet, I've heard no one stand up for free speech or state that discussion of religious, or irreligious, matters, with illustrations if required, is perfectly acceptable and even desirable in our schools. No one complains if images of Christ, Buddha or various Indian deities are shown, what is so special about Muhammad ? Others can be lampooned, criticised, even vilified, but not, it seems, Muhammad. 

In essence, the 'problem' is not that a cartoon was shown but that this country now has populations of immigrants whose whole ethos is alien. Our political leaders have allowed, even encouraged, the creation of entire areas where migrant populations dominate and where their imported laws and customs hold sway over the pre-existing culture.

The reaction of the school and some other authority figures has been shameful. It is true that some have avoided overt criticism of the school and have concentrated more on the shocking, intimidatory mob protesting outside; it's reported that the teacher is now in hiding in fear of their life. This is the real problem, that people in this country can be put in such terror by the actions of howling mobs that claim offence, persecution or some other supposed crime against them.

What on earth has happened to our nation ?

BRISTOL VIOLENCE SHOULD BE TREATED AS TREASON.

It makes no difference.

Whatever the initial cause, violent anarchist groups will take over any protest or demonstration and use it to further their own ends - Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, anti-slavery rallies or protests against proposed government legislation - all end in violent chaos.

The appalling scenes in Bristol yesterday had nothing to do with whatever the initial protest was about but were the result of the most criminal behaviour by the usual mob of thugs who always attend such demonstrations. They couldn't care less about the original cause, all they want to do is destroy our society.

The animals who were responsible for causing serious injuries to several police officers and for a wide range of criminal damage need to be hunted down like the dogs they are. Once caught, they should be dealt with in the most draconian manner possible - if it was up to me they'd be charged with treason as that is what it was, actions of violence against the State.

Sadly, I doubt that anyone will be caught or charged or treated with anything other than kid gloves. Just like those who deface or destroy public monuments, they'll get away with it and be fired up for their next opportunity to cause mayhem.

What a pathetic state our once great nation is in.

BBC DISCRIMINATES AGAINST OLD LICENCE PAYERS.

I've recently read that the good old BBC has decided not to continue with the quiz programme "Eggheads" as it doesn't appeal to a young enough audience. I imagine they believe it's mainly watched by retired professors and the like, not by their beloved and much preferred 16-24 contingent.

Similarly, the remake of "All Creatures Great and Small" was offered to the Beeb, but rejected for the same reason, that it would not appeal to a younger generation. Consequently, the programme is now being shown on Channel 5 and "Eggheads" is to make the same move. Representatives of Channel 5 have been reported as saying that they feel it is right to ensure that older people are provided for just as much as their children.

To me, this all seems back to front. Surely it is the BBC which should be making sure that all sections of the population are served and not Channel 5 that should be picking up the pieces from the BBC's excessive 'wokeness'. Additionally, the majority of licence fee payers are older people, not members of the 16-24 generation, so how can it be right that those paying the licence are to be sacrificed in order to satisfy the supposed needs of those who do not ? We are also told that this younger generation does not value 'linear output', preferring to pick and choose what to watch on an ad hoc online basis, so why should the BBC pander to it when it comes to the normal television that the rest of us watch ?

The BBC has already been dumbed down to a point at which I and, I'm sure, many other's no longer bother with most of its dreadful output. Its desire to satisfy every minority group with a claimed grievance, shocking reliance on thousands of hours of repeats and addiction to the mind-numbing banality of soaps such as "EastEnders" and "Casualty" contrasts dramatically with its programming in days gone by. It's claimed that a small scale experiment carried out a few years ago demonstrated that people who criticise the BBC quickly discovered how valuable it once once they were deprived of its company for a few days, although this experiment covered only 70 households and there's no detail as to how representative they were of the general population. One wonders what a similar exercise on a larger scale would find today.

We can only hope that the arrival of a new Director General, Tim Davie, who probably arrived after the key decisions on "All Creatures" and "Eggheads" were made, will coincide with a more inclusive approach. After all, inclusivity seems to be one of the main watch words when it comes to every other sector of society - women, disabled, black, minority, homosexual, lesbian blah, blah - so surely older people of all varieties cannot be discriminated against either.

ASTRAZENECA & UK TO BLAME FOR VACCINE MESS, NOT THE EU ! ?

Once again, the European Union is trying to divert attention from its own shocking failings by throwing mud around and making a series of ludicrous and contradictory statements.

Rather ridiculously, it's first target is AstraZeneca, the company whose COVID-19 vaccine is currently suspended from use by France, Germany and several other EU member countries, the complaint being that it has failed to deliver on its contractual commitments. How can anyone take this seriously when there are reported to be stockpiles of this vaccine lying around in various EU cities, untrusted and unused ? Either the EU wants, trusts and will use this vaccine or it will not; it cannot claim that supplies are inadequate while also refusing to use them. 

Inevitably, alongside AstraZeneca, the United Kingdom is also in the EU's wonky sights. According to the EU, part of the reason for the limited supplies from AstraZeneca is a ban on vaccine exports to the EU implemented by the UK government, something which the UK government vehemently denies. Pushing on regardless, the EU is now threatening to impose its own ban on the export of vaccines to the UK in revenge. Part of its argument appears to be that its own incompetence in all matters to do with COVID vaccines should be ignored and, instead, the supply of vaccines should be regulated so as to ensure that countries which have managed matters well and are well advance in their vaccination programmes - that is, the UK - should now have their supplies restricted to allow the slow, bureaucratic and incompetent rest - that is, the EU - to catch up. What poppycock !

That all of this is nothing but political 'smoke and mirrors' intended to create an entirely false picture should be obvious; that it is the European Union taking aim at a country which dared to leave its orbit, equally so. The turmoil at the heart of the European Union is palpable and the sooner this ugly, overbearing and moribund organisation collapses, the better for all of us.

EU CLOTS PLAY DANGEROUS POLITICAL GAME.

The actions of various European Union member countries in suspending use of the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine appear to have caused consternation everywhere. Claims that the vaccine is potentially dangerous, causing recipients to suffer life threatening blood clots, have been made although the evidence is scant if not non-existent.

The medicines' regulator in the UK, a country in which many millions have now received this particular vaccine without ill-effect, can find no evidence of danger. The World Health Organisation has discovered no cause for alarm and it's reported that even Europe's own regulator doesn't believe there is any issue to resolve. Experts on the use of vaccines have said that there is always a risk of blood clots arising in any population but that the claimed incidence amongst those in Europe who've had this particular 'jab' is actually lower than amongst the general population. 

So what is going on ?

Firstly, the EU has an ongoing dispute with AstraZeneca over vaccine supply and is unhappy about the speed of delivery; in typical EU style, its leaders refuse to accept that its own late ordering has contributed to its problems and, instead, want to lay the blame at the door of AstraZeneca. They have even gone so far as to propose banning the export of vaccines from the EU in order to safeguard their own supplies, a move roundly condemned by the rest of the world.

Secondly, a direct consequence of the EU's own failure to act quickly last year and a corollary of the first point, they have found themselves short of supplies and slow to get their own vaccination programmes up to speed. Politically, this has been disastrous for them, with people rightly angry that they cannot get the protection they need. Additionally, Germany and France are both approaching important elections, those for the Bundestag in September of this year and for the French Presidency early next. Angela Merkel's CDU party is in trouble in the former and Emmanuel Macron is not everyone's choice for the latter - both have reasons to try to divert attention from their own, and the EU's, failings. Italy is always in both political and financial crisis and the EU as a whole is in an almighty mess, financially and otherwise.

And so we have the latest row over vaccines. What better way to avoid blame and to save the people from further harm than to find some problem with the AstraZeneca vaccine. As well as demonstrating that they are protecting their populations from a dangerous vaccine, they can also cover up supply shortages by simply stopping vaccination programmes for apparently good medical reasons. Even further, they get to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine produced by their current bête-noire, and to damage them. It just adds to the EU's joy that the this vaccine is produced by a part-British company and is linked to a major British university.

No doubt the EU's medicines' regulator will eventually state that their are no dangers, other than in NOT having the vaccine, and the vaccination programmes will restart but, by then, there will have been a degree of stock piling. Everything will look much better as the numbers vaccinated climb rapidly. What this tells us is that politicians will do absolutely anything in order to gain favour with their voters, regardless of truth, benefit, or disbenefit, to those same voters.

This is political truth laid bare.

MURRAY WALKER - GREATEST OF THEM ALL.

Few broadcasters achieve the status of National Icon. 

John Snagg for the 'Boat Race', Max Robertson for Wimbledon, Brian Johnston and John Arlott as the voices of cricket, Peter O'Sullevan for horse racing, Eddie Waring and Bill McLaren for their iconic contributions to the 2 codes of Rugby, Kenneth Wolstenholme and John Motson for their very different approaches to association football, are among that few.

But transcending all of these great figures stands Murray Walker, the doyen of motor racing. For more than 50 years, Walker was the voice of motor sport and, in particular, of Formula One racing from the 1960s until into the 21st century. His enthusiasm was infectious. His partnerships with James Hunt and Martin Brundle worked wonderfully well. Even his occasional 'Murrayisms' added to the overall atmosphere and enjoyment of watching motor sport on television. 

Despite experiencing the 1960s, '70s and '80s when so many drivers died, Murray never became blasé about such losses, frequently recalling both his sadness at the deaths and the brilliance of those generations; he was a man who truly loved his sport and all of those who risked their lives to partake in it. When  drivers crashed, Murray felt it and his audience felt his anguish and grief. When the great Ayrton Senna crashed at Imola in 1994, Murray'ss fears for one of the greatest of all drivers were tangible and his ultimate grief at discovering that Senna had died was palpable. When his great commentary box partner and friend, James Hunt, died so unexpectedly in 1993, Murray was in tears.  When Johnny Herbert won the British Grand Prix at Silverstone in 1995, Murray's pride and joy led to him being too emotional to continue his commentary.

Even after his retirement in 2001, Murray still made occasional appearances and every one was a joy. That he has now left us for good is sad but we should be buoyed by the knowledge that many of his old commentaries remain alive on film and will no doubt be broadcast from time to time. He is gone but far from forgotten.

Rest in Peace, Murray, greatest of all sports' broadcasters. 

MURDER IS RARE : MURDER OF WOMEN EVEN RARER

While the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard was an appalling crime, we have yet to find out any of the underlying details. Was she targeted or just unlucky ? Did she have any previous connection with her murderer ? Was the man accused actually the murderer ? What was the motive ?

Given the huge volume of unknowns, the reaction of some members of the public, almost entirely of the 'female activist' variety, has been utterly unbelievable, even idiotic. Indeed, the way in which some people have reacted to every high profile such incident in recent times has become morbid and ridiculous in the extreme. Flowers left in huge rotting piles for local authorities to eventually clear away, candle lit vigils, protest marches and other displays of supposed public grief, often no more than opportunities for those with specific political aims to gain publicity for their causes.

Murder is rare. In the year to March 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) there were 695 homicides in England and Wales, a figure which includes the 39 illegal would-be immigrants who were found in a lorry at Grays in Essex. The numbers can be broken down to 506 murders of men, an increase from 422 in 2019, and 188 of women, a reduction from 225 in the previous year. The total can be expressed as being under 12 murders per million of population, hardly an epidemic and surely not worthy of the ludicrous reaction and, of course, men are 3 times more likely to be murdered than women.

Although most of the victims of homicide were white, there were 105 murders amongst the black population, a rate of just under 50 per million of population, and 120 in other minority ethnic groups. Overall, 142 of the victims were in the 16-24 age group and 275 were killed by a sharp instrument such as a knife.

Women are considerably more likely to be the victims of domestic violence, with nearly half of all adult female victims being killed in such occurrences, the number being 81 in the year to March 2020. However, this was the lowest number recorded since the relevant data was  first collected in 1977 and does not support the outlandish claims of feminist campaigners such as the Labour Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips, whose implications regarding the murders of women at the hands of men simply do not stand scrutiny; indeed, they are little short of outright lies.

While interviewing Phillips on his Sunday morning programme, Andrew Marr allowed her to make claims unchallenged and simply accepted her overall premise. Even when the National Statistician appeared, Marr's questioning continued along the same lines and there was no attempt to bring any balance to the situation. We were told that there is huge under-reporting of crimes against women but there was no consideration as to whether the same applied to men. Indeed, does anyone in authority actually care about  unwelcome homosexual approaches, female bosses targeting male employees, punch-ups between men or even situations in which men are the humiliated victims of domestic abuse ? The answer seems to be no. In order to become a cause célèbre, victims need to be female or black.

The abduction and murder of Sarah Everard is a very rare event and yet we have the media conniving in the creation of a culture of fear amongst women. Women have been accosted on the streets by broadcasters determined to find anyone who claims to be frightened for their life in the light of the murder and yet seem to have made no effort to be balanced in their reporting. When we know more, it is quite likely that we will discover that Sarah Everard was not the victim of a random attack and that these now terrified women actually have nothing to be terrified about.

If anyone should be worried, it's the men, mostly white men, who are 3 times more likely to be the victims of murder and are much more likely to be murdered by friends, acquaintances or absolute strangers outside of the home. In reality, women are much more safe when outside than are their male counterparts, who are 4 times more likely to be killed while going about their daily, or nightly, business.

Despite the media headlines and claims of crazed feminists, men are not evil any more than are women. There are good and bad in both sexes and both have their share of very nasty people. Perhaps there are more really bad men than women, which is no doubt a consequence of genetic differences, but the modern drive to manufacture an entirely imagined environment in which women are victims and men the evil perpetrators of all manner of shocking crimes against them is simply wrong. We are assailed by wholly unsubstantiated claims that are simply accepted by media and politicians alike, with little apparent scrutiny but lots of subsequent intrusive and frequently insane legislation. 

If men don't wake up and start fighting back, very soon, they will soon find themselves having to prove their innocence, rather than their female accusers needing to prove their guilt.