End of the World?

Posted on by

I wasn’t sure whether or not to do a blog this Friday since, as I’m sure you’ve heard, the world, according to ancient Mayan predictions, is due to come to an end today. It seemed pointless to go to the effort of writing something for the benefit of my readers, few though you are, when  there might not be any left!

The Mayans were an extremely intelligent and advanced Central American civilization who, thousands of years ago and well before the birth of Jesus Christ, were charting the movements of the planets and calculating their effect on humanity at a time when ancient Britons were still painting their faces and throwing rocks at one another. Come to think of it, observing  the behaviour of a good many modern Britons on a typical Friday night out, not a lot of progress seems to have been made in the interim! In fairness though, at least we have had the benefit of longevity since the poor old Mayans were wiped out by the Spanish Conquistadors  in the 16th century. So they can’t have been that clever can they?
I digress; the reason why the Mayans calculated Earth’s demise to December 21st, 2012 is something to do with a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles causing the creation of a huge tsunami the like of which has never been witnessed before, or at least not since the days of Noah’s Ark!  Apparently, unless you are above a height of 2,000 metres (that’s about 700 metres higher than the highest part of Britain) or are lucky enough to have shares in a huge modern day ark, you’ve had it.
As for me, I’m currently in Tenerife, gazing out at the ocean trying to imagine a 2,000 meter tsunami heading for me and wondering how quickly I can get to my car and head for the mountains which, in this part of the Canaries, climb to 4,000 meters and thus well above the danger zone! It won’t happen though will it? Nah,  I don’t believe it and I’m sure we’ll all wake up tomorrow same as any other day……….hang on a minute, what’s that noise…………………………??

Europe – again!

Posted on by
Last Friday, French President Francois Hollande told our Prime Minister, David Cameron, that the European Union would not allow the United Kingdom to renegotiate her terms of membership of the Union and would not win what the Prime Minister had called a “new settlement” for the British.

Hollande went on to say that membership of the EU was for life and “that treaties are meant to be complied with”. This was on the same day that European leaders called for a report into how the EU can boost their joint defence and security role in the world. The ultimate plan is, of course, the creation of a European army which, along with a unified political system and common taxation equates to the creation of a completely sovereign entity, namely a European Superstate.

Prime Minister Edward Heath knew all along all that the creation of a European state was the ultimate plan when he took us into the misleadingly named European Economic Community in 1973. Two years later, in 1975, Prime Minister Harold Wilson was equally duplicitous when his government asked us to vote on whether or not we wanted to stay in that “economic” community.
 
As I’ve said before in this blog, we’ve been deceived and misled from the start and if, as seems increasingly likely, our present Government are willing to prejudice membership of the EU by attempting to renegotiate more favourable terms of membership they should receive our full encouragement.

Many of us are happy for the UK to be part of, or to remain in, an “economic” or trading community but not at the cost of national sovereignty. A shopper may well wish to purchase apples from the nice lady in the local market but he doesn’t necessarily wish to set up home with her.

There are, no doubt, many more twists and turns ahead of us in our relationship with Europe but if David Cameron cannot get what he wants at the negotiating table he should leave it to the British public. Give us a referendum Mr Cameron and we’ll show you the way.

A Tragic Telephone Call

Posted on by
The prank telephone call by two young Australian DJs, pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles, to the hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge was an idiotic caper with unforeseen tragic consequences. Unbelievably, their laughable attempts at a Royal accent were enough to fool two nurses at the King Edward VII Hospital, so that one nurse was persuaded to disclose confidential information regarding the health of the Duchess. The other nurse, who answered the phone call and passed it over to her colleague, was evidently so distressed by the subsequent uproar that she was driven to take her own life. Predictably there have been demands in both the UK and Australia for the two DJs to face the full wrath of the law but is this fair?

So-called prank calls by clowning DJs have been with us for years. Sometimes amusing, occasionally offensive but often just plain tiresome they have a certain appeal to audiences the world over. On this occasion the prank went horribly and fatally wrong and as ever, in the midst of all the outrage, there has been a clamour for retribution. The attention has largely been focussed on the DJs who in actual fact are probably  the players in this tragedy least worthy of our attention.

In their wildest nightmares they could never, for a moment, have considered or foreseen that their juvenile behaviour might lead to somebody’s suicide and, in all honesty, who could? No, the real cause of the tragedy lies elsewhere. Firstly, these DJs have producers and bosses who decide on what goes out or doesn’t go out on air. Even more significantly it has been reported that this particular broadcast was vetted and passed fit for broadcast by the radio station’s lawyers. So how can the DJs be held responsible? If you give your 5 year old child a carving knife and he carves up your furniture is the child to blame or is it you, the supervising and consenting adult?

Secondly, following the theme of responsibility, who is responsible for the employment of staff at the hospital? Who made the decision to appoint the poor nurse, an Indian immigrant with possibly not the greatest command of the English language, as telephonist in a hospital famous for treating members of the Royal Family and other well-known public figures. Such patients need considerably more protection and security than us ordinary folk and common sense would indicate the need to employ staff of the highest quality. It was surely foreseeable that a hospital such as this was always likely to attract prank or crank calls so therefore the appointment of intelligent, confident, no-nonsense staff to properly screen and vet telephone calls should have been a top priority.

The higher levels of management at the hospital most certainly need to be held to account and questioned in detail as to why their high profile patients were not provided with adequate protection and screening. They and the radio station’s management (and lawyers) are the main culprits in this case, not the hapless DJs.

In Defence of the Indefensible

Posted on by

On Sunday we saw all that is finest in English football when we were treated to a wonderful spectacle in a full blooded Manchester derby where no quarter was asked for or given and the excitement and passion was unrelenting from start to finish. As a neutral it didn’t particularly bother me who won but what a shame that such a splendid advertisement for the game was overshadowed by the behaviour of some so-called fans.

.

As the game reached its climax the excitement was clearly too much for some feeble minded cretins amongst the Manchester City ranks who threw coins at the celebrating Manchester United players causing a nasty, bloody cut next to the eye of a United player. Another idiot invaded the pitch in an attempt to cause further mayhem only to be stopped by Manchester City’s goalkeeper.
Manchester City, as the host club, will probably be punished for these incidents and their fans, most of whom are as decent as any of us, will be vilified. Is this fair, because, make no mistake, these incidents could have occurred in almost any ground in the country. Every club has an unsavoury element amongst its following and what happened at Manchester City could just as easily have occurred at Chelsea, Liverpool, West Ham or Manchester United.
I’ve been a football fan for nearly 50 years and I have been witness, particularly in the 70s and 80s to some of the worst excesses of football fans’ behaviour. Of course, it’s not as bad now as it was then but violence and the threat of violence is never far away in many football stadiums. If you don’t believe me just watch a televised game when a player is taking a corner in front of a great phalanx of opposition fans. You will see the player, often as not, being subjected to a barrage of insults, general abuse and obscene hand gestures. Look at the faces of some of the fans and all you can see is anger, vitriol and bile. They are so contorted with rage that you can almost feel their hatred.
That, for some people is football and I don’t think we can ever eradicate such behaviour. Football is a tribal game, it is almost primeval in its intensity and at its best it is a great release of passion, pent-up frustration and at times an explosion of happiness – how do you feel when your team scores a goal? It is a shame that some “fans” behave the way they do but a thug is a thug no matter who he supports and no matter the colour of his shirt. All we can do is attempt to keep the lid firmly down by proper policing and control and hope that their behaviour doesn’t spoil the game for the rest of us. Don’t blame Manchester City for what occurred yesterday, it just happened to be their turn that’s all. Next week it will be somebody else’s.

Snow Chaos

Posted on by

Well, it’s that time of year again, the first snowfall of winter and our roads are blocked, our trains cease to function and flights are cancelled as our airports shudder to a halt, paralysed, evidently by less than two inches  of snow. It happens every year and every year it seems that our public services and transport systems are taken by surprise. Why?

Why is it that winter snowfall is such a shock? Why is it that this country suffers more disruption and cancelled flights than Sweden, for example, a country which regularly has snowfalls of several feet over a period of four to five months?  Yet, bar the odd blip, they manage to keep things moving along quite nicely and airport closures and flight cancellations are something of a rarity for the Swedes.
I hate knocking this country, I really do, but why on earth can’t our transport system perform better than it does? Compared to many countries we, in the UK, are very lucky with our climate. I know we’ve had some recent floods, which were certainly dreadful  for those affected, but we don’t have the hurricanes, tornadoes and other extremes of weather suffered by many other nations who, in spite of those extremes, still manage to get on with daily life without excessive disruption.
It can’t be that hard to get it right, can it? Surely, it’s just a matter of planning and preparation, preparing for the inevitable changes in weather that the seasons bring and stockpiling enough salt and sand together with the equipment and manpower to deliver it. Common sense tells you that snow falls in winter and sometimes that snow can be quite heavy, it’s just a shame that common sense isn’t that common after all as far as our public authorities are concerned.

Airline Weight Penalty

Posted on by
Last week it was reported that Delta, one of the biggest airlines in the USA, are being sued because they refused to allow a 30 stone woman to board one of their aircraft. Delta have since claimed that they did try to allow the woman to board but she was so fat, sorry, obese, that she was physically unable to take her seat.

It got me thinking. I fly a lot and much of that is long haul and, as anybody who regularly takes flights of six or more hours knows only too well, comfort is not always easy to find particularly if, like me, you fly cattle class, there I go again, sorry, economy! If you are lucky enough to have nobody or somebody of slim build sat in the seat next to you then, in the absence of screaming infants (another scourge!), the journey will probably pass pleasantly enough with no harm done.

On occasion however, I have sat next to somebody of a larger build and have spent most of the time pushed up against the wall of the cabin or the person on my other side, consuming my meal and refreshments at a 60 degree angle and, once the ordeal has ended, have emerged from the aircraft with my head resting limply against my shoulder.

Airlines need to do something about this, particularly since obesity is quite clearly a worldwide problem (at least in the West) with this country apparently leading the fatty charts. Two things stand out to me. Firstly, nobody should be denied the right to board an aircraft on account of their body shape or size but if they are clearly too big to sit on a normal seat (without crushing the poor b***er next to them) they should have to pay for two seats or alternatively a special large seat should be available at double the cost of a single seat.

Secondly, all airlines, but particularly budget airlines, are now getting very keen to whittle down the weight of hand luggage and if you are carrying a bag weighing 11kg instead of 10kg you will be compelled to check it in as hold luggage usually for an extra £30 or so. This really does irritate me, particularly when I see someone twice my size taking on their 9kg bag without a problem. Clearly, in the interests of safety, airlines have to carefully monitor the weight of the load carried by their aircraft but wouldn’t it be fairer to base their charges on the combined weight of each passenger and his or her luggage? Of course it would but there’s fat chance of it happening!

Freedom and Responsibility

Posted on by
At last,  Lord Justice Leveson has finally delivered his much awaited report into press regulation following the phone hacking scandal and the disgraceful behaviour of various journalists many of whom were employed by or associated with Rupert Murdoch’s News International. The scandal led, last year, to the closing down of Murdoch’s News of the World and I doubt many responsible journalists mourned its passing.

It seems to me that “responsible” is the key word in all of this, a word that seems almost archaic so rarely is it evidenced  in modern life. Responsibility for one’s behaviour or actions is an alien concept to many and certainly those journalists who hounded those victims of crime and other figures in the public eye (I dislike the use of the word “celebrity”) have much to answer for. It’s all well and good claiming the right to freedom of the press but with all rights there is an equal duty of responsibly. There are two sides to every coin.

Many people feel that the press has singularly failed to regulate itself effectively and it’s hard to disagree with that viewpoint. However, the question is should the press be regulated by Parliament with all that that entails? Is any further regulation required where victims of press intrusion have the ability to sue for libel and seek redress in the courts? In extreme cases, victims could rely on the protection of criminal law but if the CPS decided not to prosecute then the victim would have to fund a private prosecution. Unfortunately, in the absence of legal aid, the cost of court action would be prohibitive to all but the wealthy and so some protection is clearly necessary for the vast majority of the public.

Lord Leveson has proposed a new regulatory watchdog to monitor the press and whilst it may appear to be a compromise and a half way house it is probably the right thing to do. The press has undoubtedly failed  to regulate itself effectively and something had to be done to protect the innocent. So long as a proper balance is maintained between press freedom and responsibility then there should be no need for Parliamentary or Government interference. We can only wait and see.

Politically Correct Child Care

Posted on by
The story, published over the weekend, about the Rotherham couple who have had their foster children taken away from them because of their membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) almost beggars belief. I say “almost” because, where our politically correct bureaucrats are concerned, nothing should surprise us any longer.

Even so, this particular story represents modern day political correctness at its most invidious. The couple concerned, foster parents for the last 8 years and thoroughly respectable and decent by all accounts have had their latest charges (three children aged under the age of 10) removed from them because the little dictators at Rotherham Council Politburo (sorry, Social Services) don’t like the fact that the parents are members of a political party deemed by the Council to be “racist” (a euphemism for anything right of centre).

So what? What on earth have somebody’s political beliefs got to do with their ability to look after children? Are you only fit to look after children if your political views are left of centre? Is there any evidence to show that these particular foster parents have in some way neglected or abused the children under their care and control? There appears to be no such evidence and the Labour controlled Rotherham Council, caring not one jot about the welfare of the children concerned, are simply politicizing child care.

Local authority Social Services should concentrate purely and simply on child welfare and particularly on the prevention of child abuse, an area where, let’s face it, they have not exactly performed with distinction over the last few years. This sort of totalitarian behaviour is more redolent of Stalinist Russia than modern England and I would bet £10 to a penny that if the foster parents were paid up members of the Communist Party the comrades in Rotherham wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.

I hope the Government appreciates the national outrage that this incident has provoked and takes appropriate action against the Council’s employees responsible for it. A strong message needs to be sent out to councils, bureaucrats and civil servants everywhere that we live in a democracy and, as such, our freedoms of speech, belief and association are sacrosanct and will be protected at all costs.

Pawns in a Deadly Game

Posted on by

Another exchange of rocket fire, another flattening of a frontier town, another period of killing and, finally (following the usual voicing of concern by the UN) another ceasefire. To be followed in a short while, no doubt, by a repeat performance. Such is the reality of life in the Middle East.

The latest ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas ruling party of Gaza, announced a couple of days ago, is yet another in a near constant struggle following the creation of the new state of Israel, and subsequent displacement of Palestinians, back in 1948. No matter who is to blame, and whatever the views of many western politicians, the problem is deep-rooted, extremely complicated and is unlikely to be solved without a great deal of compromise and sacrifice from all concerned.

The tragedy of Israel and Palestine is that, as always in struggles for power and control, the victims are the same. Those who suffer most are never the politicians, the religious leaders, the generals and the men of power. No, the people who shed their blood and who lose their homes and meagre possessions are the poor, the weak , the vulnerable and (such an irony) those who want peace the most, the women, the children and the fathers and husbands working hard to support them.

Jew, Arab or Christian, it makes no difference. Most people in the world wish only to be left alone to get on with making the best of what, for many, is a short and often difficult time on this planet. The tragedy is that, for many, it is a wish that will never come true. They remain pawns locked in a deadly power game over which they have no control.

Money Talks

Posted on by

Is money the only thing that matters in sport these days? I don’t mean football, of course;  the Premier League sold its soul to the devil (aka Sky TV) years ago. No, I was thinking about other sports such as cricket and rugby union, specifically the latter.

On Saturday, England played rugby (a debatable term as you will know if you saw the game!) against Australia and unless you were fortunate enough to have a ticket for Twickenham you would have had to watch the game on Sky. Like many people, I don’t have Sky and so, to watch a game that I’ve loved for most of my life, I had to forsake the comfort of my own home and find a local pub. It wasn’t a great problem however and although I enjoyed a few beers and a good laugh with some friends that’s not the point.

I seem to remember reading some time ago, after the last rugby world cup probably, that the English RFU were trying to increase interest in the game and attract more followers. Well, allowing the sport to be removed from terrestrial television is not going to help that is it? Not everybody wants to watch rugby in the pub and what about those too young to drink, the future of the game? I guess raking in some extra income from Murdoch just proved a more enticing option to the guardians of the game.

Talking of money, presumably that is the only reason why England discarded their traditional white shirts to play in purple against the Aussies. It can’t have been to avoid a colour clash since white is hardly going to clash with green and gold. No, the reason quite obviously is that the RFU, once more, wanted to cash in on their asset and create some extra revenue from shirt sales. Just like football. There could be no sadder indictment.