ABORTION ON DEMAND IS WRONG

Is abortion truly a 'human right' ?

The recent ruling of the US Supreme Court overruling the 1963 'Roe v Wade' judgement has been met with horror and not a little aggression by the so-called 'pro-choice' lobby. At the same time, the 'pro-life' lobby are ecstatic. Why is this ?

It seems to me that the 'pro-choice' side see abortion as being little more than an alternative to contraception in many cases, a way for those too careless or stupid to avoid conception in the first place to deal with the rsult of their actions. In some states it seems that this can apply even up to the days before a child would otherwis be delievered, something which seems little short of judicial murder. Of course, there are cases in which a pregnancy may result from criminal circumstances - incest, rape, or whatever, and also those in which it is clear that the foetus may be severely compromised - and such have to be protected against, but how many abortions relate to such instances out of the many thousands carried out every year ?

On the 'pro-life' side, the supposed rights of the foetus are promoted over and above all other considerations; is this reasonable ? In my view, it is not. A foetus is not viable until it has developed to at least 21 weeks, according to the latest medical science. That said, it may be that scientists in the future may develop artificial wombs - might it then be possible to find a way to protect and grow a foetus from a much earlier stage ? If such happens, at what age would a viable life be determined to truly begin ? In my view, this is akin 'to dancing on the head of a pin'.

We are in danger of venturing into the realm of the 'because I can, I must' science'. Such science often denies nature and even reality. If a child was to be grown in an artificial womb, what relationship would it have to its mother, or father ? Would it actually be truly human, or simply the product of a laboratory experiment ? I know that such questions are well beyond the current debate but this may well be where that debate will lead.

Quite simplistically, to use abortion as little more than a means of abortion is unacceptable; If a woman is too stupid, careless or plain lazy to use the assorted methods of contraception available before engaging in sexual activity, more fool her. That said, in past generations the father would have been tracked down and made to bear his share of the responsibility; today we have far better methods to identify such individuals - why do we not use them and ensure that they, not the woman or the state, share the costs and responsibilities of what was a joint action ?

To my simple mind, our world has become far too worried about calling a spade a spade and laying responsibilty where it belongs. Our masters seem to be more worried about causing offence to vociferous minorities than in doing what is right and supporting the largely silent, usually massive, majority. maen and women are responsible for their actions and have to accept responsibilty for them. If their actions result in a pregnancy, they must accept that too and not expect to be bailed out with some sort of all-inclusive, back-up insurance policy. Men can use condoms, women should insist on them, or use the Pill, diaphragm or coil; or perhaps they should all just be more self controlled and less libididinous.

Many years ago, a girl friend of mine became pregant because of our, or my stupidity. She didn't want the baby and had an abortion for which I paid. It was wrong. More recently, a young friend was stupid and became pregnant after a brief affair - she also had an abortion, again it was wrong. Both abortions were about convenience rather than anything else. Both were wrong and were a way of avoiding responsibilty for irresponsible acts. 

Abortion isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but the freedom to access it on demand, in an age when there are so many ways to avoid pregnany in the first place, is.

BEN STOKES - COMETH THE HOUR ..........

A couple of months ago I suggested, quite strongly, that appointing Ben Stokes as the captain of the England cricket team, in succession to Joe Root, would be a big mistake. I suggested that what was needed was an outsider rather than another 'one of the boys' - it may well be that I was wrong.

The recent performances of the England team have been little short of revelatory as they've adopted a far more aggressive, and successful, approach than has been seen for many a long year. Of course, the new coac, Brendon McCullum, must have played a big part in this change of attitude but just watching Stokes on the field shows that he's also been a major influence. While Root always seemed to be in pain and rarely appeared to be in real control, rarely engaged with his players on the pitch, Stokes is all action. he moves around with speed and determination, he is clearly in control and gives the appearance of a man who is very happy in his role.

So far, Ben Stokes has very much looked the part. All he has to do now is to continue in the same vein for another 3 or 4 years and make sure that his team performs in similar fashion against stronger sides than the New Zealanders who, in all honesty, have frequently looked bereft of ideas and little match for this rejuvenated England team. If he can do that, then I'll happily accept that I was wrong and he really is the right man for the job.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - DYSFUNCTIONAL IN THE EXTREME.

The United States of America must surely be the most dysfunctional and sick society the human race has ever seen. Yet again, there's been a massacre at a school, this time of primary school children in Texas, but it could just as easily have been at any school anywhere in the country.

But it's not only the shooting itself which marks the USA out as such an appalling place. This is a nation in which many still seem to believe they're living in the old "Wild West", and see carrying guns around as being a normal and acceptable thing to do. Where else in the world do the population habitually, and legally, walk around their streets with lethal weapons ? The arguments put forward about "Rights" and that its is people and not guns which kill, are specious and nonsensical. In order to bring the country into the real world of the 21st century, rather than having it languish in an imagined world in which Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid continue to hold sway, the ubiquity of guns has to end. Fat chance of that happening any time soon, though, so the killings will continue and the armed police will continue to shoot first and ask questions later, just in case.

At the same time, this nation is the most self-obsessed and vain on our planet while also sporting a vast number of grotesquely obese individuals. Financial inequality is huge, with the rich and famous living lives which are incomprehensible to most; worse is that the rich and famous are often even more self-obsessed and self-serving than the wider population - think only of Depp & Heard or the Duke & Duchess of Montecito and the message is loud and clear. American culture, if 'culture' is what it can be called has infected the rest of the world to such an extent that we are now all caught up in the abomination of 'fast food', ultra-glamourized, ultra-violent, crude and frequently highly offensive film and television while the people who star in, and make vast fortunes from, such rubbish can often be found lecturing the world on the evils of whatever is the latest fad, be it climate change, feeding Africa's starving millions, movements such as 'Black Lives Matter', or anything else. 

In the United Kingdom we have recently been doing much navel gazing about our past and have been beating ourselves about the ears for our supposed shocking Imperial history. Is this not ridiculous, when our country actually spread civilisation around the world and brought an end to slavery almost 200 years ago, while the USA continued to treat its coloured population as little more than slaves into the 1950s and still sees them as second class citizens across much of its extent today. This also comes on the back of the virtual genocide of the indigenous population - the "Red Indians" - which is rarely mentioned.

The USA talks of itself as being the world's leader when it comes to democracy and human rights. In reality it is the home of self-obsession, brutality and violence, crudity, obesity and hypocrisy. In a country which parades its Christian beliefs for all to see, its adherence to true Biblical tenets is almost non-existent. Its jingoism is manifest at every turn and its inability to find a real leader who isn't either a septuagenarian or member of a powerful politcial or financial dynasty is a shocking indictment of its people, a people who are horribly divided by class, colour, celebrity, religion and wealth. 

What a country. How proud its population must be.

ROONEY & VARDY - DOES ANYONE WITH A BRAIN REALLY CARE ?

Who on Earth are Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy ?

If they hadn't married two high profile footballers, neither would ever have been heard of. As it is, they're just two horribly spoiled, stupidly rich, talentless morons. 

The only people who give a damn about what one of them said or did to the other are similarly idiotic, pathetic people who live their lives through the celebrity of others. 

So why is the media so obsessed with the so-called "Wagatha Christie" case ? Why are news bulletins and newspapers, which ought to be concentrating on actual news, spending so much time and effort reporting on this tripe ? If the cretins who populate the likes of 'Facebook', 'Twitter', 'Instagram' and the rest of the brain dead world of 'social media' want to waste their lives lapping up every last drop of bile being poured out by the two pathetic women, let them, but don't inflict the utter rubbish on me.

The sooner these ridiculous creatures return to their world of idle luxury, surrounded by their like-minded 'friends' and shut away from the real world, the better. 

HAMILTON THE WHINGER

Lewis Hamilton must be one of the most self obessessed, egotistical people on this planet. 

Having had by far the best car, he's won numerous Grand Prix races and world championships; many see this as being proof that he's the best driver there's ever been. However, he's now coming a fairly poor second to his 'rookie' team mate, George Russell, and he doesn't like it. In the past, he was beaten to a world title by his then team mate, Nico Rosberg, which he also didn't like and accused his team bosses at Mercedes of favouring their fellow German and giving him better treatment. Now, as he fails to beat Russell, he's blaming it on his team's failure to apply the right strategy.

This is a man who, in the past, has complained when his team have advised him of what strategy is best and also when they haven't, but only when things haven't worked out in his favour. He's whinged when they've left decisions up to him and when they haven't; he's ignored their advice and then whinged that they didn't tell him what he should do with sufficient certainty.

The truth is that Hamilton will blame anyone and everyone for his failures, except himself, of course. That he's now being beaten by a newcomer to the team and relative newcomer to the sport irks him; that it may demonstrate that he's not actually the greatest driver ever in Formula 1 racing irks him still more. This is a man who thrives on attention and adulation, who has made a point of being a celebrity and has disported himself accordingly. That all of this may be collapsing around him is unbearable.

Perhaps it's time for this arroagnt and annoying man to take a leaf out of the book of some of his predecessors, none of whom have felt it necessary to adopt a high profile celebrity lifestyle. No previous Formula 1 champion has adorned themself with jewelley or taken overtly political stances, as Hamilton has done. 

There's talk that he may be considering retiring from the sport. Let's hope it's not just talk and he's soon gone.

ANOTHER EUROVISION, MORE NOISE.

And so the Eurovision Song Contest was true to its traditional political approach. The appalling noise from Ukraine won, while the UK's awful entry came second, surely due to the UK being seen as Ukraine's most vocal supporter in its battle with Russia.

While songs from the past by groups such as ABBA, Brotherhood of Man and Buck's Fizz are still remembered and played, and entries from the likes of Cliff Richard, Lulu, Sandie Shore and many others still bring at least a smile of recognition to the faces of even older listeners, last night's two top entries will surely be forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history before the year is out, only ever to reappear when the BBC does its occasional trawal through that very dustbin. In short, both entries almost defy belief.

Stripping away the flashy sets, flashy outfits and flashing lights what was left other than NOISE ? Any resemblance to music was purely coincidental, quite possibly accidental, as it was all about the show rather than the words or music. Not that this was anything unusual, for Eurovision has evolved over the years form a competition designed to select the best song to one designed to select a performance which catches the eye, modified by the application of political or nationalistic preferences. In other words it now turns out tripe.

"Boom Bang-a-Bang", "Waterloo", "Puppet on a String", "Making your Mind Up", "All kinds of Everything", "Save your kisses for Me" and a few others all had staying power. More recent entries have almost all vanished from sight. 

Thank God for small mercies.

WILL CRICKET'S MANDARINS EVER GET IT RIGHT ?

Onve again, those who control English cricket have got it wrong. Having rid themselves of 'Managing Director' Giles and coach Silverwood, followed by the resignation of captain Root, all following a dismal period of Test Match failure, one might have hoped for some realism. Perhaps a real Managing Director, a real coach and a captain in the mould of Illingworth, Brearley or Vaughan. Sadly, the early signs are that it's "business as usual".

While the positions of coach and captain remain up for grabs, the top job, the one which will be responsible for appointing the others, has been given to Robert Key, a former player who was, to be fair, a decent batsman, though never quite good enough to nail down a permanent place in the England team as such. That said, the same applied to Brearley although his abilities as a manager and captain were outstanding, which probably cannot be said of Key. In fact, Brearley has the best record of any England captian who played more than 30 matches in that role, followed by Illingworth and Vaughan, then Strauss, May, Dexter and Hussain, bfore Root arrives in the list. 

While Root is undoubtedly a very good batsman, a very useful spin bowler and a fine fielder, he was no great captain. He did oversee a record number of 27 victories, but he also captained in 25 defeats, also a record. His demeanour on the field was frequently one of frustrated onlooker rather than of a captain in control of events. He was far too much "one of the lads" and a "mate" to the rest of the team, and far too rarely the man truly in charge. When it came to laying down the law to the likes of Anderson, Broad and Stokes, did he dare ? How often did he really control events, rather than being controlled by them ? To what extent do England's current problems result from his reluctance to bat at the number 3 position and to rely on a battery of seam bowlers, with himself as the principal spin bowling support ? 

As for the hierarchy which appointed a gaggle of old boys, from Giles at the top to Silverwood and Root, it's the same old story. Let's keep things "in house", let's not "rock the boat", indeed, let's "go with the obvious choice". In terms of the captaincy, Root was the obvious choice, in schoolboy terms, as he was the best batsman in the team so had to be captain, too. That may work in a team of  15 year olds but such an approach at the very highest level is nonsensical. Captaincy of a group of highly talented, highly motivated and often highly egotistical individuals requires rather more than being the best batsman; it needs real leadership ability.

Perhaps Key has the necessary ability to lead English cricket to a better future but he has no track record of any such qualities. In fact, it's suggested that he is seen as being a welcome appointment by the bulk of England's cricketing elite as he's an approachable and friendly face. He's never been seen as being someone who would do anything to "upset the apple cart", which is exctly the shake up English domestic cricket needs. The effective destruction of the county championship, the only 'real' cricket still played, must be reversed, the shocking financial reliance on ever shorter versions of limited overs cricket also. Is it truly beyond the wit of the 'powers that be' to revitalise the championship, to make it what it was in previous years, when crowds flocked in their tens of thousands ? Does it really have to be abandoned and exiled to the outer reaches of the frozen and dark days of late March and early October ? 

As Managing Director of Cricket, Key will be responsible for dealing with such matters as well as for appointing the next coach and captain of the England Test team; as one of the cricketing elite, another insider who's a "pal" to the current team and entirely unthreatening to the next generation, what chance is there that he'll do anything other than "go with the flow" and appoint Ben Stokes as the next captain or, if Stokes has the sense to turn the job down, the likes of Stuart Broad as an interim until either Stokes changes his mind or another "obvious" candidate appears ? As for the abominable mess that is the domestic cricketing calendar, what will he do other than listen to the voices of the accountants who will tell him that he tinkers at his, and English cricket's, peril ? (btw, I'm an accountant who knows better, and a cricket fan who first went to Lord's in 1962, long befor the current crop of 'experts' were born)

What is needed is real leadership and the courage to look outside of the "obvious". The England team needs real management and leadership, not the pal-ship of one of the current bunch who are all far too closely knit to ever take real control. It's like one of a group of drinking buddies taking over as landlord of their local pub - can it really work ?

I have no idea who the potential candidates might be but I am sure that an effective England captain will only be found from outside of the current extended squads. I doubt that there is a Brearley or Illingworth out there, too many counties have used their captaincy as a a lure for foreign one year imports, but there must be someone. It's the job of Robert Key and whomever he appoints as the next coach, to find that person. If he does that, he'll have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. If he doesn't, he'll just be another of the failures of the English cricketing establishment.

I have my hopes, but they're not high.