I SAY, I SAY, I SAY, EXCEPT I CAN'T.

Seeing the excessively rotund Eric Pickles on television just now makes me wonder just how far 'causing offence' might stretch.

Might someone commenting on Mr Pickles' size be stopped and questioned due to being 'fatist' ? What about the lad in the pub who makes remarks about my approaching baldness or age ? Might I complain and have him detained for his offensive 'baldism' or ageism' ?

Where might such nonsense stop ? If I disagree with someone's choice of food, music, or car, in such a way that they can claim to have been offended, might I wind up in chokey ? What if I'm overheard saying that they're 'common' or 'snooty' ?

If I must be careful of what I say in case someone is of a particular religion or set of beliefs, or in case I might cause offense, is that not the end of freedom of speech ? How long before the myriad of spy cameras in our streets start listening to us, as well as just watching us ? How long before a passing comment in the high street results in arrest and imprisonment ?

How long before this lunacy is stamped out ?

I'M OFFENDED; YOU'RE A RACIST.

There are times when I really do think we live in a world that's gone completely mad.

This morning's 'Today' programme carried a story about a man who was detained at Gatwick airport because he offended someone. He wasn't rude, didn't lose his temper or storm around; he wasn't carrying a weapon and didn't have anything dubious in his luggage. He offended someone.

What he apparently did was to make a remark, on the spur of the moment, that a security guard considered to be offensive. On going through the security channel and having his belongings X-rayed, this man was required to remove a scarf from around his neck; ahead of him was a woman wearing a hijab, muslim garb that covers virtually the entire body, and to which no one had given a second thought as she passed through without comment or being required to reveal her face. The man asked, jokingly according to him, what would have happened had his scarf been round his face. That was it.

On the other side of the scanner, as he collected his belongings, he was then stopped by security staff and accused of being a racist. He was detained for an hour, questioned and effectively bullied by airport staff into apologising for his remark. He asked for the police to be called and demanded that, if he had done anything wrong, the officer arrest him. This the officer would not do but, again according to the man, the officer did tell him "that we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said".

Pardon me for being racist but WHAT !!!!!  Since when are we simply not allowed to make remarks ? This man made a remark that was a wholly justified comment on a particular situation; one passenger was allowed to pass through the security process unmolested and without showing her face while he was required to remove assorted clothing including his, obviously suspect, scarf. That a police officer subsequently told him that "some things are not to be said" beggars belief.

In an age when all manner of obscenity can be viewed on our television screens, when words such as fuck and cunt are everyday language for many and when the general amorality of our society has reached levels not experienced for hundreds of years, "some things are not to be said" ? When did Parliament abolish freedom of speech in this country ?

For heaven's sake, when will we get a grip on things ? The rise of separate 'communities' within our society is threatening to destroy it; the more we allow this the worse it will become. We cannot allow special rules for some for fear of alienating the rest and we cannot allow this kind of extremist over-sensitivity to dominate us. The much derided Enoch Powell talked of 'Rivers of Blood' and he may yet be proved right if we don't start to reverse this nonsense now.

LEAVE SYRIA TO ITS OWN DEVICES

This morning's news has revealed more stories of atrocities being carried out by the government in Syria.

This country is currently in a state of civil war, akin to what afflicted England in the 1600s, France and America in the 1700s and many others since, and yet we continue to wring our hands in horror and whine on with platitudes such as 'something must be done'. In fact, nothing, or very little, either must be done or should be done.

Cut the country off, certainly; impose sanctions and exclude them from international bodies, but let them get on with it. Western interference in Afghanistan has achieved nothing of lasting merit and Iraq will eventually fall apart again. Egypt is still a military dictatorship and it's a racing certainty that Libya will soon return to a state of chaos and / or dicatorship too.

What has happened in these assorted countries, and is still happening in most of them, is a process that much of the western world went through in the past, in some cases in the distant past. It is a process that is inevitable and necessary as nations are built in a way that will last, rather than in a way that satisfies the external politics of today. Much of North Africa and the Middle East was divided up along simple lines drawn in the sand by victorious generals and these divisions took no account of the wishes, needs or tribal loyalties of the local inhabitants. The ongoing problems in recent years owe much to these arbitrary decisions and the only way to resolve them is to let the local people work out their own solutions.

If the United Nations had any real muscle it could take a lead, but it's no more than a talking shop for a bunch of grotesquely overpaid and overvalued politcians and civil servants who all have more more regard for their own positions than for anything else. When did we last hear anyhing of note from the Secretary General ? Indeed, can anyone remember his name or where he's from ? In the absence of strong and united central authority, the UN is an expensive waste of space.

A few years ago, the US would quite possibly have sent troops in to Syria by now but that is no longer a realistic option, given the twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. They also have to be far too concerned about the rapidly escalating trouble between Iran and Israel to have much time left to worry about Syria. China won't do anything and Russia can't, Britain and France won't act without UN backing, leaving the Syrians, perhaps with a little help from their Arab neighbours, to sort things out for themselves.

It will be very unpleasant and very bloody, but so are all civil wars. Assad may well end up dead, but so did Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II, Gaddafi and many more. If the west interferes, there may be a less bloody and quicker resolution, but then the locals will be at it again in a few years. If we let them sort it out for themselves, it may take longer and be much nastier, but it will also produce a much longer lasting solution.

IS THE MIDDLE EAST ABOUT TO EXPLODE AGAIN ?

I hear that the peace-loving Israelis are thought to be on the point of invading Iran. The USA is unwilling, or unable, to stop them and we no longer matter, so the brake might well be off.

Apparently, the Israelis see Iran as a serious threat, particularly as they are thought to be close to developing nuclear weapons; the Israelis, of course, don't have such weapons as they abide by the various international agreements that limit them, officially, that is. Unofficially, the Israelis have nuclear weapons and are probably the most warlike and blatantly aggressive people on planet earth. Sadly and due to the atrocities committed during the second world war, they seem to be almost bullet-proof when it comes to international pressure or criticism.

Should these lunatics actually start a yet another war in the middle east, what on earth will happen ? Will the US or UK feel obliged to join in ? Will the UN condemn the entire venture while being its usual toothless self ? What will Russia and China do ?

Worst of all, will we still be here and safe in our beds a month later ?

COME ON THE MILITANT SECULARISTS !

Baronness Warsi, co-Chairman of the Conservative Party, is worried about Christianity. Despite being a muslim, the Baronness has taken it upon herself to start lecturing the peoples of Europe about the extent to which Christainity is, in her belief, being marginalised, side-lined and downgraded in our societies. She blames this on a rampant surge in 'militant secularistion'.

Is she totally bonkers ? Does she not understand that amongst educated and developed people, religion has an inevitably decreasing value and following ? One of the major problems in the world today is militant religion, not militant secularism; it is mad muslims who have tried to blow things up in recent years, not mad atheists. It is ultra-orthodox jewry that has been behind the appalling treatment of the Palestinian arabs, not radical agnostics, and it's Shia muslims who've been fighting Sunni muslims in assorted places without any help from any secularists.

Religion should be practised at home or in church and not in the overtly public sphere. Religion has no place in government nor in law-making, and politicians, such as the Baronness, should avoid discussing religion like the plague. In the modern world in which we have been able to debunk most, if not all, of the old myths and legends, secularism is the only sensible option. If people want to believe in one or more gods, that's up to them, but such beliefs should have no place in the civil affairs of nations.

Baronness Warsi is so wrong, it's shocking. That she holds a senior position in our Government is terrifying.

ps. It seems that Cameron is all in favour of this nonsense as well - is there any hope for the sane amongst us ?

NHS IN TURMOIL - AGAIN.

God help us.

Yet another NHS reorganization is, apparently, in trouble as Tory grassroots spread all manner of disruptive stories. That said, the proposed changes will, undoubtedy, need undoing by the next Government whoever they may be, and will result in even more disruption.

When will these morons learn ? Every Government in recent history has deemed it necessary to reorganize the NHS for no other reason than 'it seemed like a good idea at the time'. Every reorganization has subsequently been undone and then re-done; no wonder the NHS is a disaster area and the service it provides is pathetic compared with overseas competitors, when once it was the market leader.

Governments need to adopt a new philosophy :

Leave managing the NHS to people who know about management

Leave treating patients to people who know about treating patients

Don't mix the two together

STOP BUGGERING THE WHOLE THING UP !

HUHNE HAS TO GO, GUILTY OR NOT.

It seems that the Lib-Dem Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, is to be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, following a lengthy investigation by Essex police into questions about the origin and fate of penalty points incurred for a driving offence in 2003. It also appears that an immediate consequence of this will be his departure from the Government.

Whether or not Mr Huhne is actually 'guilty as charged' will be determined, in due course, by the courts though there will no doubt be much expression of views in the media well before any verdict is returned. What is already happening is a discussion as to whether or not it is right that he should lose his Cabinet post before he has been tried, let alone found guilty.

I have never particularly warmed to Mr Huhne but I see no reason to vilify him or to treat him unjustly. However, as a Minister of the Crown he is responsible for the making and implementation of laws that affect all of us every single day. Many of these laws will have nothing to do with his direct departmental responsibilities but could relate to offences arising from everyday life, such as those relating to motoring, the sphere in which his offence is claimed to have occurred.

I have just watched the former Lib-Dem MP Lembit Opik, a man more famous for his personal actions than any political achievements, express some indignation at the likely departure of Mr Huhne from the Cabinet, saying that no other organisation would be allowed to sack an employee simply because they had been charged with an offence. As well as this being a simplistic view and, I think, not supported by fact, surely it is inconceivable that a man even accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice can remain as one of our law makers. If nothing else, preparing a defence to a charge that could result in imprisonment would certainly prove a serious distraction from his Governmental duties.

Huhne has to leave the Cabinet, there is no alternative. If he is found guilty, he may well go to prison; if he is acquitted, he will be eligible for a return to Government or, of course, he may decide to pursue other avenues. That is all for the future; right now, it is time to say bye-bye.

NO MORE 'SIR' FRED.

The furore over the withdrawal of Fred Goodwin's knighthood really is ludicrous.

This man was given an honour, for services to the banking industry, in 2004. Subsequently, his leadership of the Royal Bank of Scotland group caused the bank to collapse, with catastrophic consequences for many of its employees and investors, and requiring the Government to inject a vast amount of money in order to prevent its total insolvency. 

Clearly, the knighthood awarded in 2004 was utterly undeserved and probably owed more to political manoeuverings than to any actual  achievements of Mr Goodwin. Given Goodwin's later disastrous performance, it  seems to me inexplicable that he was allowed to retain his huge pension and has not found himself behind bars; the loss of his knighthood seems a small price to pay for his arrogance, incompetence and greed.

Is Goodwin a scapegoat ? Possibly, but who cares ? He destroyed a huge financial institution and ruined many, many lives. His fate should be a warning to all those other plutocrats who run our largest business organisations, often with very little concern for anything other than their own position, power and wealth.