WE NEED POLICE OFFICERS, NOT POLITICAL COMMISSIONERS.

With little more than 2 weeks to go until we're expected to vote for our sparkly new 'Police Commissioners' I've still seen almost nothing about them. Why we need them and exactly what they'll do remain mysteries. The only thing that appears clear is that the political parties, Labour and Conservative anyway, have hijacked the process and we are heading inexorably towards politicised police services across our once free nation.

 

In my area, I've been able to discover, purely by my own efforts, that we have 3 candidates; a Labour councillor from the nearby city, a conservative former senior RAF officer and an Asian man of indeterminate origin who's standing as an independent. None of these has any connection with my immediate area and, as far as I can tell, none has any experience of policing, crime and justice or anything else that would render them qualified to oversee a police service. If this is the pattern across the country, one fears for the future of our law enforcement.

 

I won't be voting for any of those on offer to me as I fail to see what benefits either they or their role will bring to me and the rest of the local population. One rather thinks that their impact, whoever wins, is more likely to be negative than positive, with yet another tier of expensive bureaucracy added to our already grossly overblown public administration.

 

I, and most other sane people, want to see more police on the beat, not Police Commissioners warming seats in plush offices and surrounded by hordes of fawning staff ; why does no one in authority understand this ?

SAVILE : HOW BAD CAN IT GET ?

As the Savile saga trundles on, the stories that are emerging are becoming worse and worse.

 

The BBC's 'exposé' that was eventually broadcast was bad enough with the revelations of Karin Ward followed by the realisation that she told the BBC of her experiences almost a year ago. Given these allegations, whether or not they were then considered to be wholly proven, that the corporation still continued with its laudatory programmes about Savile is incomprehensible. That the exposé went on to reveal that others in the employ of the BBC, such as Paul Gambaccini, not only knew of the rampant rumours but simply accepted Savile's behaviour as part of the local culture says more about them than about Savile; it seems clear that this kind of abuse was probably the norm in a world in which randy pop presenters were surrounded by large numbers of nubile teenage girls 

 

Since the BBC's programme was broadcast, others have made statements to the effect that not only was Savile's behaviour at least strongly suspected; Bill Oddie apparently knew and he joins Bob Langley and Martin Young who both appeared in the programme. None of them did anything about it. Today it's reported that a former governor of the BBC, Sir Roger Jones, heard of rumours more than 10 years ago and was so concerned that, in his role as Chairman of 'Children in Need', he ensured that Savile was kept very far away from any involvement in the charity. Despite what must have been very serious concerns, Jones apparently made no effort to bring them to the attention of the BBC's management because, it's said, 'he did not have evidence Savile abused children while a BBC employee'. What utter tosh is this ? The man was so worried that he wouldn't allow Savile anywhere near his charity but saw no reason to tell anyone else; am I the only person who finds this story ludicrous ?

 

With the number of possible victims of this appalling man now in the region of 300, many questions arise. Why is it that this army of victims has been so silent until now, or were they simply ignored ? It is very hard to believe that the BBC, Leeds General Hospital, Broadmoor and Stoke Mandeville Hospital all received complaints and all ignored them, or is it ? Given Savile's stratospheric public profile and fund raising activities, perhaps they all did shy away from the difficult publicity that might have resulted from taking action over any allegations.

 

The appearance of the new Director General of the BBC before a House of Commons select committee last week was another surreal moment. To say that George Entwistle's performance was pathetic is not to do him justice; it was far worse than that. The story reported on air of a 10 second conversation between him and Helen Boden before last Christmas simply fails the test of credibility; on being told that his entire Christmas schedule may need to be revised Entwistle failed to ask any questions or to follow up on the matter. Is this credible ?

 

The story now has so many facets that it's difficult to know what will be revealed next. Abuse associated with various BBC programmes - ToTP, Clunk Click, Jim'll Fix It, Savile's Travels and so on; the involvement of others with Gary Glitter high on the list and now arrested; public comments and statements made by Savile himself in his autobiography and on air; previous police investigations which failed to uncover his criminality; Fleet Street investigations that also led nowhere. Possibly worst of all, the BBC's 'pulling' of last year's Newsnight programme for reasons that appear entirely fatuous.

 

This is a story that will clearly run for some time. That the BBC, as well as the other implicated organisations, failed to notice that anything was wrong over so many years is a crime in itself. There can be little doubt that the culture at the BBC was such that Savile's behaviour, if not the norm' was at least not that unusual; others must have been involved and culpability has to go to the very top. Entwistle will no doubt claim that he was not in charge during the years of Savile's crimes but his failures over the last 12 months demonstrate that he has no business being Director General of the corporation. He has to go and he ought to be joined in the dole queue by several others; we can but hope that the other perpetrators of these egregious crimes are caught and find themselves serving very long terms in prison. We can but hope. 

BERLUSCONI : BUSINESS AS USUAL.

As the troubles of the European Union continue to create mayhem across the continent, there is news from Italy which is calculated to send shivers down the spines of anyone who believes in democracy and justice.

 

Just a day after being found guikty of tax fraud and sentenced to a year in prison, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is apparently now threatening to withdraw his political party from the coalition which is currently in charge thus bringing down the government of his country. This is, of course, the same Silvio Berlusconi who is also in court on charges relating to a variety of sexual offences that occurred during his so-called 'Bunga Bunga' parties while he was in office.

 

Is it any wonder that both Italy and Europe are in such a mess when people such as this are in positions of great power and influence ? In the UK, the Conservative Chief Whip resigned because, in essence, he swore at a policeman; one or 2 of our representatives have gone to prison, and lost their jobs, for making false expenses claims; in the past, John Profumo resigned because of an affair with a prostitute and others have sufferred similar fates after committing sexual indiscretions; Charles Kennedy resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats because he drank too much.

 

How can it be that in the UK we seem to be so sensitive while in Italy Mr Berlusconi not only hasn't resigned but is still in a position to bring down the government ? Not only is this unbelievable but it's also an indicator as to how far some countries need to progress in order to become truly democratic. Until they do, the UK would be well advised to give them, and the EU, a very wide berth indeed.

 

 

EUROPEAN UNION THIEVES WANT STILL MORE.

While our Government and those of most, if not all, of the other countries of the developed world cut back on spending in an effort to bring their economies back into financial balance, the European Union wants to increase its budget. Unsurprisingly, this demand is causing some controversy, at least in the UK.

 

True to its overwhelmingly socialist ethos, those who run the EU are only too happy to demand yet more money from their member nations. This is not simply a request for an amount equal to inflation but for another 5% on top of an already bloated budget; what the people of Greece and Spain, countries where budget cuts have been enormous, think of all of this is anyone's guess though I doubt their comments would be publishable.

 

Year after year, this entirely unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense absorbs billions of pounds and euros. Its offficials, in their thousands, live extravagant tax-free lifestyles at the expense of people who have little ability to control their excesses. Every year, without fail, they demand more money to fund their latest pet schemes and make it seem that without the increase the world will crumble around us; in truth, it is merely their own protected world that will be in danger of crumbling.

 

At a time of severe financial restraint elsewhere, why should the EU consider itself exempt from making its own contribution to savings ? How can their leaders possibly expect the people of Europe to give them even more to waste when they themselves are being squeezed  so aggressively ? If anything has ever demonstrated the way in which officials of the EU are utterly divorced from the realities affecting the rest of us, this is it.

 

David Cameron is reported to be meeting with the almost unknown President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, to discuss the UK's views on this subject and is, apparently, threatening to veto the proposed increase; such action will not prevent any increase but would limit it to around the rate of inflation at 2%. Allowing that Van Rompuy is something of a non-entity, having been put in his position largely due to his insignificance, why Cameron is bothering is a question worth asking. It seems clear that nothing of substance will be achieved and that the only person who really matters is the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, although the European Commission President, Barroso, will no doubt make plenty of mostly meaningless noise along the way.

 

To my simple mind the EU has one primary objective and that is to survive unchallenged; its leaders desire nothing more than to retain their privileged status come what may. The peoples of Europe should not only resist this, they should positively rebel. It is time for this bloated organisation to be cut down to size, to be made properly accountable to the people that they claim to represent and subjected to proper financial control. This is what Cameron should be telling "Rumpy-Pumpy" today, and the UK alternative to acceptance should be a referendum on total withdrawal from this insanity.

 

While their is little chance of Cameron having the bottle to really 'have a go', he will probably come back claiming some sort of victory, if not today then within the next few weeks. Whether it will be enough is a different matter. 

WHO WANTS POLICE COMMISSIONERS ?

I've heard today that I should receive a leaflet in the post telling me all about the elections for 'Police and Crime Commissioners' which are due to take place on 15th November. I can't wait !

 

Thus far, I have been told, purely through the media, that these unnecessary jobs are to be created and that we, the people, will have the joy of voting for them. I have no idea whose names have been put forward in my area nor, indeed, even what 'my area' is. I do know, again through the media, that those applying for the taxpayer funded jobs include a whole managerie of former Members of Parliament and other political hangers-on; in other words, the whole process has been hijacked by the political elite who see this as just another way to sponge off of the man in the street.

 

Exactly what these individuals will do that will benefit us is a mystery. Why we should be 'politicising' our police in this way is a mystery. Why we need yet another layer of political bureaucracy is a mystery. Why we should be inventing this expensive nonsense at a time of financial stringency is a mystery. The only thing that is not a mystery is the fact that few people are truly aware of what is going on and even fewer actually care.

 

*IF* I was ever to want a Crime Commissioner, I would not want anyone who had a prior career in politics. I would want someone who understood crime, the policing of it, and our society. The likes of John Prescott, who was putting himself forward somewhere or other, would not even make my 'long list' of possible candidates.

 

I look forward, with muted interest, to receiving my leaflet and discovering who my candidates are. I will consider the options most carefully and then, when it comes to the time to vote, I will make my mark with equal care :

 

NONE OF THE ABOVE, NOR ANYONE ELSE, THANKYOU !

CAMERON TO STOP US DRINKING WINE.

There was a time when the Conservative Party supported the free market and, in particular, people often defined as 'middle class'; no more, it would seem.

 

Today's newspaper carries the news that the Government, a coalition of interfering do-gooders, is to launch its Alcohol Strategy next week. This is theoretically aimed at preventing the abuses perpetrated by the hordes of young yobs who rampage around our streets on Fridays and Saturdays, having loaded themselves up with cheap alcohol before venturing out and subsequently drinking more until they can no longer stand, they vomit and cause a genuine nuisance to everyone else around them. Some of them end up in hospital having made themselves so ill that it takes the skills of doctors to save their lives.

 

Few would argue that addressing this generally disgusting and anti-social behaviour is necessary and a good thing, but there are ways and means. It seems that the 'coalition of the incompetent' is to use a sledge hammer which will affect everyone who drinks, rather than hitting the problem itself. The chances must be that their actions will do little to resolve the issue but will do much to annoy a large section of the population.

 

The plan is, so I've read today, to introduce a minimum price for alcohol of 40 pence per unit and also to ban supermarkets from offering discount deals, specifically for bulk purchases of wine. None of this would, of course, affect Dave, Nick and their pals but it may well affect a very large number of very ordinary people who like a glass of wine with their meals. If I drank wine regularly, which I used to do, I would buy my supplies in bulk, perhaps 6 or 12 bottles at a time. Up to now, many supermarkets have offered discounts for such purchases but under the coalition's plans this would no longer be allowed. I have never gone rampaging around the streets or caused a public nuisance but I, and people like me, are to be hammered by this insane Government's inability to act rationally and by the squawkings of the fanatics in the 'Health Lobby'.

 

I'm more than capable of making my own decisions about such matters - why should I be penalised because of the behaviour of ignorant yobs barely a third of my age ? If the imbeciles in power really want to deal with this issue, why don't they take direct action against the morons who set out at the weekend to get drunk and create mayhem ? Why aren't these people targeted by the police, arrested, charged and punished ? Why aren't those who end up in their local casualty department charged for their treatments, in the same way that injured motorists and their passengers can be ? Why aren't the bars and clubs which cater for these people, ignoring the laws governing the sale of alcohol to those who are already drunk and equally ignoring the sale and use of an assortment of illegal drugs, closed down ?

 

David Cameron may be a member of the Conservative Party but he is no Tory. He is a middle of the road liberal who believes that he has a duty to interfere in the lives of the rest of us, telling us what to do at every turn because he and his friends know best. However, he doesn't have the strength of character to actually tell the truth about such things and finds it much easier to attack a broad sweep of the population than to target issues directly. In doing so, he hopes to hide his actions and dilute the response; in fact he simply makes an even greater part of the population fed up with him.

 

Cameron is a disaster. The Coalition is a mess. The sooner we get rid of it the better, though it looks as though we will have to wait until 2015 unless the real Liberals decide to walk out sooner. Let's hope they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MITCHELL BOWS TO PRESSURE AT LAST.

It seems that I was wrong in my assessment that Andrew Mitchell, the Tory Chief Whip would survive the furore over his use of foul and derogatory language to a police officer at the gates of Downing Street.

 

Mitchell has now resigned following weeks of almost constant pressure which has done nothing but harm to his party and his leader. That the man should have resigned, or been sacked, almost immediately after the original incident seems to me to be clear; whatever he did or didn't say, the potential for the matter to be used as a cudgel with which to batter the government was obvious. Had Cameron been a tougher and more decisive leader, Mitchell's head would have rolled within hours.

 

Now that he's gone after such a protracted fight, Labour will claim a great victory for democrarcy and common folk while the Prime Minister's authority has been dented yet again. All-in-all, a real coup for the opposition.

EU LOOKS FOR EVER CLOSER UNION, AGAIN.

As the EU stumbles from crisis to crisis, the German Chancellor has reportedly called for the so-called 'Economics Commissioner' to be given explicit powers to veto the national budgets of member states should they go beyond limits set by the Union. This call has come a matter of hours before leaders of the 20 something member nations are due to converge for a summit meeting which is expected to focus on the proposed introduction of a banking union.

 

Given the EU's woeful management of its own budget and constant demands for more money to be granted to it, one wonders how anyone can consider such developments to be justified. However, from the perspective of Mrs Merkel, there may be some logic as Germany would clearly gain more power over the states that her country is currently financing, and this would probably go down quite well with elections due in Germany next year. For most of the rest, this looks like the beginning of the end. Should Merkel's plan succeed, a United States of Europe would not be far behind.

 

No doubt the UK and a few others may object to these initiatives but there must be a likelihood that those members which are in the deepest trouble plus the smaller nations which simply rely on German patronage may well accede. For countries like Greece and Spain, it will be a choice of accepting much greater external control over their affairs and the eventual forfeiting of their nationhood or bankruptcy and consignment to the economic scrapheap. While neither is very palatable, a choice will have to be made.

 

An aged aunt of mine who was married to an Austrian for many years has repeatedly told me that her husband had a little saying. Germany had lost 2 world wars but it would not lose the third; a German-dominated USE would be a decisive victory, indeed, in the economic war which has been fought ever since 1945.

CAMERON GETS IT WRONG ON ENERGY.

David Cameron, the man whom some believe is running the country but whom others consider to be an incompetent muddler, seems to have got himself into another mess.

 

Yesterday, Cmeron made an announcement about energy prices, stating that energy suppliers wouldbe forced to offer all of their residential customers the lowest available tariff. Today, as questions have been asked about this pledge, it's become clear that this was another example of our PM attempting to make up a policy 'on the hoof'; sadly for him, the policy hasn't yet been developed by the relevant ministry and even if it had been, it is rapidly becoming apparent that such a policy would have so many unintended consequences and difficulties that it would be unworkable.

 

We all know that the energy companies have little real competition, have such a maze of tariffs that it's virtually impossible to decide which is best at any particular time and that they operate as an effective cartel, something which is already illegal in this country. The companies' single aim is to screw their customers for as much as they can get away with and successive governments have done nothing to change this to any degree.

 

Gas and electricity, water and telecommunications, railways and so on are all guilty of similar approaches. Their customers have been consistently robbed for decades, while our political masters have fiddled. Cameron's announcement yesterday may have been well meant but it was also naive and stupid, not the type of rubbish we should expect from the leader of the country. Perhaps it's time he went and he might consider taking his arrogant chief whip with him.

EU CHAOS LEADS TO NOBEL PRIZE !

For some reason known only to themselves, the Nobel Committee has decided to award this year's Peace Prize to the European Union.

 

The Peace Prize has always been the most contentious award, often given for vague and doubtful socialist reasons to people more connected with war, aggression and conflict than with peace. More recent awards have become ever more strange, with the award to Barack Obama a couple of years ago, before he'd been in office long enough to achieve anything, being a particularly odd occurrence.

 

Even given what has gone before, the award to the European Union has to be one of the most ridiculous of all. Apparently the Prize Committee has said that the EU has helped to transform Europe "from a continent of war to a continent of peace". Clearly, in their isolated ivory tower, the Committee has failed to notice the chaos currently within Europe, largely brought about by the actions of the same European Union. The member states of the EU, and particularly those unfortunate enough to have chosen to use the disastrous 'Euro' currency, are now facing their biggest crisis for decades, with recession and social unrest threatening to tear the whole organisation apart.

 

While it may be true that the creation of the EU came about as a consequence of WW2 and a desire to try to ensure that there would never be another European war, the reality is that the current increasingly centralised structure of the EU is more likely to lead to another war than to prevent one. At least some member states are at each other's throats and there is constant dissension between almost all. How this can have led the Peace Prize Committee to arrive at its decision has to be one of the greatest mysteries of all time.

VOTES AT 16 ? WHY NOT FROM BIRTH ?

The nonsense about giving children the vote has reared its ugly head again and there seems to be some signifiant chance that this actually become a reality. Apparently, Alex Salmond is close to gaining agreement that the referendum on Scottish independence will be opened to 16 year olds, without the matter being discussed in Parliament; any such move would, inevitably, lead to almost irresistible pressure for a general change. That it would be a ridiculous extension of the franchise seems to pass many politicians by, in such desperate a search for support as they are.

 

While those who are born into rich and influential families and attend the countries 'posh' schools may well be educated to understand the ways of the political world, it is my experience that the vast majority of today's 16 year olds are still children, in every sense of the word. Their general behaviour is infantile and their interest in the wider world largely non-existent. They are governed by fshion and seem inseparably linked to their 'i-Phones' and other such devoices. They spend their days in endless and pointless exchanges of text messages and Facebook posts; they are undisciplined and disruptive. Worst of all, many have a level of education far below that of their parents and grandparents.

 

When children left school at 14 and had to find work, they were forced to enter into the adult world and grew up very quickly. Today's generation of children remains at school or in college or university until they are aged at least 18 and often until 21 and older. They have no experience of the realities of the adult world, being protected at every stage from any interference from those who would seek to teach them any manners or discipline. Today's school leavers may be more physically mature than those of earlier decades but they are psychologically far inferior, with this inferiority extending for many well into their 20s. 

 

The oft-expressed argument that this or that group has not had a chance to 'have their say' on this or that issue doesn't hold water. Our world is always governed according to rules laid down by an earlier generation and this argument, at its extreme, would lead us to give the vote to ever younger children until such time as all new-borns are also on the register. Every generation, in its turn, has the opportunity to change whatever laws it wishes, or introduce new ones, but only once they have achieved a proper degree of understanding of the world around them. To give them the power without the knowledge to use it would be irresponsible to say the least.

 

The teenagers of my experience have little or no interest in politics and even less understanding. It has been stated that few in the 18 to 24 age group vote now, so what would be the point of extending the franchise to those aged 16 and 17 ? Presumably those who favour this are driven by an expectation that a majority of those who do vote would be on their side, so it is unsurprising that it is the socialist wing which is most enthusiastic; young people are generally thought to be more left wing in their views. However, any increased support for the left would surely be diluted by the reduction in the overall turnout, which would fall as a result of the general apathy of teenagers. The legitimacy of governments and councils would be further eroded, something by which serious politicians would be worried and of which the population at large should be terrified.

 

We can only hope that sanity eventually prevails

JIMMY SAVILLE; A LESSON TO BE LEARNT

I never did like Jimmy Saville and I always found his 'touchy-feely' behaviour on his television programmes a bit nauseating, but I did not think of him as a serial child molester and rapist. The recent revelations about his activities over a period of more than 40 years have, therefore, come as something of a surprise.

 

While surprise is obviously one feeling, shock, disgust and disbelief follow swiftly. How on earth did this man manage to carry on his perverted behaviour without anyone in positions of authority knowing ? Why did none of his victims complain decades ago, when they were first assaulted ? Who else in his circle was acting in a similar fashion ? 

 

The police have said that that they have now received many allegations against Saville and are pursuing 120 lines of investigation. They have also suggested that others, presumably figures in the same entertainment world inhabited by Saville, may also be implicated. Whatever horrors are eventually uncovered, this story should serve to remind us all to be on our guard against complacency when it comes to flamboyant and apparently caring and generous people. 

BENEFITS CUTS SHOULD TARGET IDLE AND PROFLIGATE

David Cameron and his glove puppet, George Osborne, have been making comments about the need for more spending cuts and the welfare budget seems certain to be attacked again, along with 'the rich'.

 

Neither Cameron nor Osborne ever identifies who is included in the nebulous realm of 'the rich' but it is much clearer whom they have in their sights regarding cuts in welfare spending. It is the scroungers who have never worked, young people who don't want to continue living with their parents but can't actually afford to move out without assistance, and those who are jobless but still produce hordes of children. I say "It's about time".

 

The benefits system, including the egregious 'tax credits' invented by that arch incompetent, Gordon Brown, positively encourages people to keep their working hours to a minimum or to avoid work altogether. My own investigations on behalf of friends has taught me, to my utter astonishment, that for anyone on a relatively low wage there is no point in working more than the minimum hours necessary to qualify for tax credits; working longer results in immediate reductions in housing and council tax benefits which take away almost all of the extra income, and the following year's tax credits are reduced in order to reduce the individual's total income to roughly what it was before all of the extra efforts were made. In consequence, my friends work only the hours needed to qualify for tax credits even though more hours are available; why work for the money if the state will give it to you for doing nothing ? The answer is simple - if the hours are available, you don't get the benefits.

 

For the rest, why should the country pay for many younger people to have a home of their own when there's no reason for them not to live with their parents as every past generation was obliged to do ? That it's inconvenient or restrictive is irrelevant; let them find a job, save some money rather than spending it on cigarettes, alcohol and generally having a good time, and then find a home of their own which they can pay for. Only then, once they are settled is it time for children; the whole notion of girls producing children whom they cannot support without massive state intervention should be anathma to any civilized society and yet it seems to be the norm in the United Kingdom of today.

 

That this lunacy exists is a shocking indictment of the system invented by the Labour government under Blair and Brown and it must be dismantled. Our society has become bloated and lazy, living on a vast range of state benefits that we cannot afford; it is time that things changed and Messrs Cameron and Osborne must change them if they are to have any chance of saving our nation from ultimate catastrophe.

RPI CHANGE PROVES OLD ADAGE

It's been reported today that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has started a consultation on potential changes to the calculation of the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

 

The Government has already changed the measure which it uses for the uprating of a range of benefits and pensions, largely in an attempt to reduce the apparent rate of inflation and consequently to reduce Government spending. This latest reassessment of the RPI is another attempt to do the same, as the probable outcome is to produce a new-style RPI which increases more slowly than does the current measure.

 

For a simple person such as myself, inflation is, surely, inflation. To have different measures and different methods of calculation is nonsense. Some chap on the radio has just 'explained' that there are many problems with the calculation of what might be called real inflation and the ONS is merely trying to find a better formula to use.

 

One wonders why the new formula will be any more accurate than the old. We all know that certain costs are roaring ahead - petrol, fares, food, etc. -  and for the ONS, which is simply an agency of the Government, to try to con us into believeing that inflation is lower than we know it to be is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

The old adage about 'lies, damned lies and statistics' has never been more appropriate and no Government has ever been more duplicitous in its actions.

ABORTION : MINISTERS MISS THE POINT.

Today's spat about the time limit for carrying out abortions really is a bit of the old, old nonsense revisited.

 

Years ago, when contraception was poorly understood and abortion was simply a) illegal and b) not medically sensible, women often went  to someone in a backstreet who carried out a variety of dubious and dangerous procedures in order to get rid of the unwanted foetus. It was commonplace for women to spend much of the time between their late teens and early 40s in a state of pregnancy, many children being miscarried, others dying during childbirth or in infancy, and the mothers themselves often losing their own lives at a young age.

 

In today's Britain, contraception is not only freely available but is promoted to small children as the way not only to avoid pregnancy but also to prevent the passage of an assortment of nasty diseases. Abortion has been available virtually on demand for more than 40 years with the current time limit being set at 24 weeks, although a few babies have been known to survive from a still earlier stage of development.

 

Despite the free availabilty of contraception and the endless sex education lessons given to our children, vast numbers of women still manage to become pregnant every year and then demand an abortion to rid them of the nuisance. The state pays for a large number of these, usually claiming that the procedure is necessary for the health of the mother or because the foetus has some form of abnormality, although the truth is probably that many of these claims are are of debatable validity.

 

We now have 2 government ministers making comments to the efect that the time limit for abortion should be reduced, one saying to 12 weeks and the other to 20. Apparently, the Prime Minister is also in favour of a reduction, though only referring vaguely to a 'small reduction', whatever that might mean. Inevitably, various 'pro-abortion' groups have immediately complained that any new restrictions will impinge on womens' rights, though they never mention the rights of the unborn child.

 

To my mind abortion is always wrong unless there is one of three specific reasons for it; either the foetus has a severe abnormality, the mother's life is at risk or the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. One of the reasons currently relied upon in many cases, that the mother's mental health may be harmed by allowing the pregnancy to continue, is a nonsense and should be discarded forthwith.

 

These views are not driven by any religious beliefs nor by any particular belief in the sanctity of life; they are a result of nothing more than the application of a bit of simple logic. Given the amount of resources committed to making contraceptives and sex education freely available to all, there is surely no reason why any woman should ever become pregnant when she doesn't want to, barring rape or incest. That the nation squanders untold millions of pounds on carrying out hundreds of thousands of abortions every year is a disgrace. Nationwide, around 50% of all abortions are carried out on women under the age of 25 and something like 25% of women under the age of 25 who have one abortion will have at least another one before that age, another shocking statistic; the vast majority of these abortions are carried out within the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy, suggesting that the principal reason for the termination has nothing to do with foetal abnormality or the mother's health, but is most likely to be a 'lifestyle choice'.

 

The comments of the various government figures are irrelevant to the real issue. Abortion should not be seen as a form of contraception; time limits should have little or nothing to do with it. Genuine medical issues or the circumstances of the conception should be all that matters.

MILIBAND HAS NOTHING NEW TO SAY.

Ed Miliband's speech to the Labour Party Conference seems to have been more of the same old socialist claptrap dressed up in pious language.

 

While telling the audience how much he believed in 'one nation', he also made it clear that the party's policy under his leadership would be to soak those who had anything in order to squander it on yet more wasteful government spending. An assortment of ideas to help the supposed poor and young while ignoring the real problems of our society were trotted out with no mention that it was a period of Labour government, of which Miliband was a senior member, which had brought us to this sorry state in the first place. Everything was the fault of the current failed administration, even though it's only been in place for a little over 2 years.

 

Apparently the speech went down well in Labour circles and has been considered to be one of Miliband's best performances since he assumed leadership of his party. That may well be so, but heaven help us if it convinces anyone to vote again for a party, and a leader, which left our country on the point of financial meltdown.