HAVING YOUR OPERATION ON FRIDAY IS DANGEROUS !

The British Medical Journal has discovered that patients who suffer operations in UK hospitals on a Friday have a greater chance of dying than those who have their procedures carried out earlier in the week. This conclusion is the result of research reported in the journal this week.

 

Well, poke me in the eye with a sharp stick !

 

The simple truth is, and has been ever since I first worked for the National 'Sick' Service in 1976, that many senior doctors like to take Fridays off; this might be when they see their private patients, or they might just nip off for a round of golf or a long weekend on the boat. The obvious consequence is that, whatever the hospital records might say, Mr Blogs the senior consultant didn't carry out or even supervise, Mrs Miggins' bunionectomy; it was the lad wot done it ! Mr Blogs was just the one who cut her leg off afterwards, when the gangrene had set in, but he was too late to save her.

 

The only surprise in this report is that people seem to be surprised by it. As a general rule, patients, both emergency and non-emergency, receive poorer care at weekends and over holiday periods than they do at other times; the senior and most experienced staff leave everything to their juniors, and this includes nurses and other so-called 'health professionals', as well as doctors. Those who have their operations at the end of the week will almost certainly also experience a poorer level of post-operative care than those who have their procedures carried out early in the week.

 

Doctors, supported by the most powerful trade union in the land, the British Medical Association, will often squeeze every last ounce out their contracts, refusing to work a minute beyond their hours without recompense; although nominally in charge of their departments, they do not have the open-ended contracts of senior managers, who are required to work whatever hours are necessary for the fulfilment of their roles. Doctors enjoy a vast range of additional payments and, while some truly are the wonderful people they're painted to be, many are not.

 

Until both government and people wake up to the awful truth about the NHS, nothing will change; that truth is that it isn't the 'envy of the world', in fact, it's the laughing stock and the sooner it's dismantled and rebuilt around a mixed 'part public, part private' model, the better. Only when the staff are in the direct pay of the patients will there be any real chance of improvement.

GOVERNMENT POLICY MURDERED LEE RIGBY.

The shocking murder of a soldier on the streets of Woolwich is a direct consequence of uncontrolled mass immigration coupled with a policy of allowing the development of 'communities' which are culturally and socially separate from the indigenous population of this country.

 

Over recent years, successive governments have allowed, even encouraged, a situation in which larges swathes of our major towns and cities are now populated by immigrants and their families who have nothing in common with British culture, many of whom speak no English and many of whom have entirely alien social structures.

 

People such as those who perpetrated the brutal killing on Wednesday may have been born in this country but they owe no allegiance to it. They behaved as would savages in the most uncivilised parts of the globe, attacking a man with knives and meat cleavers in a most vicious fashion. To call them human beings is to deride humanity - they are animals and should be put down as such.

 

These animals, despite living here and no doubt benefiting from the state in an assortment of ways, have grown up to hate our country and everything that it stands for. They have absorbed a cultural and social approach to life that is the antithesis of all that is British, due to living a culturally separate existence from the bulk of the population.

 

It is time for this dangerously divisive policy of allowing and encouraging the development of separate 'communities' within our national community to be stopped. There is no 'Islamic community', nor 'Bangladeshi community' nor 'Somali community'; there is the British community and that is all. Until a government has the balls to really enforce such an approach, we will continue to be a divided nation and will all have to watch our backs.

AVOIDING TAX IS GOOD, NOT EVIL.

Cameroon has his knickers in a twist over tax, again. According to him, some of the world's largest companies don't pay enough tax and, according to Margaret Hodge, chairman of the House of Commons 'Public Accounts Committee', the internet company 'Google' are 'evil', as a result of this.

When it comes to tax we all know one thing; governments will take whatever they can from us in order to throw much of it down the drain on useless schemes. To my mind, paying as little tax as we can get away with is a public good, and in no way evil. However, governments inevitably see these things very differently, particularly when they're run by multi-millionaires whose affairs are managed most carefully by squadrons of expert tax lawyers and accountants; whatever rules they introduce to stop other people from avoiding paying tax, they won't be affected.

Both Cameroon and Hodge come from wealthy backgrounds, Hodge, despite being a committed socialist, being a shareholder in her family business which is one of the largest privately owned UK companies; she is clearly very rich. Cameroon is descended from an illegitimate child of King William IV and his family has many aristocratic and wealthy connections; he, too, is far from being poor.

 

Neither Cameroon nor Hodge has ever had to work for a living and both find it very convenient to conflate the concepts of 'avoidance' and evasion' when it comes to tax; they've eagerly latched onto the newly created concept of 'aggressive avoidance' and both seem determined to muddy the waters to such an extent that the man in the street will have no idea that there's actually any difference between these 3 quite different actions.

 

Before going on, let's just be clear that whether or not tax is paid, the money doesn't disappear. If tax is paid, then governments get hold of it and use it for whatever purpose suits their current political aims; this will almost certainly include the employment of hordes of faceless bureaucrats carrying out pointless and worthless tasks in pursuit of political ambitions, and with no real chance of success. It will quite likely include wasting billions of pounds on information technology which never works or fulfils its purpose and will certainly include spending huge sums on enquiries and consultations about anything and everything. Lawyers, of whom many are MPs, make money and the rest of us pay.

 

If tax is not paid, then the money is available for either individuals or companies to spend and invest as they see fit. Individuals with more money in their pockets are inclined to spend it on new cars, home appliances and so on, the increased demand boosting economic growth. Companies may actually distribute some of any such money as dividends to shareholders who, in turn, spend it as individuals, or they may invest in new premises, plant or projects, boosting employment and the economy. Far from being a negative feature, not paying tax is almost certainly better for the economy than paying it. It creates real jobs that are needed, not make believe jobs that simply keep the unemployment figures down.

 

When it comes to the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, this is very simple. Evasion is against the law as it entails lies and deceit; the taxpayer deliberately falsifies their figures in order to defraud the authorities and this is clearly wrong. Avoidance, on the other hand, is perfectly legal and entails working to the letter of the law in one's tax affairs; governments have, in fact, introduced many avoidance measures over the years including personal allowances, ISAs, SIPPs, tax-free National Savings certificates and so on. Companies can benefit from a variety of special schemes and allowances designed to help them expand and most of these involve some form of escape from taxation. These assorted approaches have been introduced because governments have understood the need for people and companies to be able to have control of, and benefit from, as much of their own resources as possible. Sadly, the current economic crisis has caused them to think again and they're now looking for ways to deprive us all of as much of our own money as they can.

 

In creating the concept of 'aggressive avoidance' government has now tried to move the goalposts and to make it appear that avoidance and evasion are really the same thing. While it is true that some taxpayers may well employ specialists to dissect every line of tax legislation in order to discover previously unknown loopholes, this is still perfectly legal and no court in this country would disagree. If legislation is poorly constructed, it cannot be right for the victim to be held guilty when they exploit this fact. Governments may well try to argue that it is wrong, even immoral or, as Mrs Hodge says, 'evil', to work to the letter rather than the spirit of the law but this is nonsense; the law is the law and is not adjustable to suit the whim of anyone who dislikes its application.

 

If Cameroon, Hodge and their pals are so sure of the rectitude of their position, why don't they join forces and enact new legislation to outlaw tax avoidance ? The simple answer is because they know it wouldn't gain acceptance and would create more problems than it's worth. Instead, they bleat on about 'aggressive avoidance' and berate and vilify large corporations which are acting quite legally. In this whole sorry saga, it is not the companies who are at fault, it is the politicians who bring themselves into disrepute.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BILL CONSUMMATED BY COMMONS.

Why on earth is David Cameron so wedded to the concept of marriage between homosexuals ?

 

This is not a policy that has appeared in the manifesto of any political party, nor has it been included in any 'Queen's Speech'; the bill currently making its way, not without difficulty, through Parliament has not been properly debated and is not supported by a large section of the Conservative party, in fact, it only passed the latest hurdles thanks to the support of Liberal and Labour MPs.

 

Marriage between people of the opposite sex is something that has occurred, in one form or another, for as long s there is recorded human history; it has usually been associated with religious rites and is something that, until 1836, was overseen in the UK by church authorities only. Since that time, the concept of 'civil marriage' has been available and all marriages have been sanctioned by the state through a system of local registrars. Nonetheless, marriage in the UK has remained an arrangement between a man and a woman and the basis of every marriage has continued to be in accordance with, though not necessarily officially blessed by, the rules of one religion or another.

 

Now Cameroon and his Eton buddies are intent on changing all of this. They say it is because they're so enthusiastic about the concept of marriage that they want everyone to be able to enjoy its benefits, so that, clearly, cannot be the real reason for their mania. Spreading 'equality theory' seems far more likely a reason but in doing this, they're actually giving homosexuals (and I include lesbians with this all-encompassing word) greater rights than are enjoyed by heterosexuals; additionally, in order to bring about 'homosexual marriage' they're having to redefine the whole concept of marriage, consummation and divorce. What is 'consummation' within a homosexual marriage ? What are the grounds for divorce ? Will heterosexual couples be granted the same rights as homosexuals in these respects ? How will homosexuality be determined or will any same-sex couple be able to 'marry' with no questions asked ? If so, will single heterosexual people marry some friend simply in order to avoid, perfectly legally, inheritance tax when their time comes ?

 

The more one digs into this quagmire, the more problems arise and the more one has to question Cameroon's motives. Is he under pressure as a result of some schoolboy indiscretion ? Is he being unduly cajoled by the cadre of homosexuals in Parliament, of whom there seem to be more every time one looks ? Does he simply want to destroy the Conservative party and turn it into another 'middle-of-the-road' home for wishy-washy social democrats ? (Don't forget that 'Middle of the Road' was a pop group many moons ago, which gave us one of the most banal of all pop songs 'Chirpy, chirpy, cheep, cheep' - do we really want more of that ?)

 

Whatever the reasons for this mad policy, he will win very few, if any, votes by this measure and will almost certainly lose a great deal. Many grassroots Conservatives have already expressed great unhappiness at this leftie policy which runs wholly counter to their political and religious beliefs, and many have already defected to the only political home left for them - Ukip. Many more may well follow.

 

The latest opinion polls show Ukip running almost neck-and-neck with the Conservatives and informed voices are increasingly convinced that Ukip will come out top in next year's European elections. If that happens, and the Conservatives come third as is quite possible, what price then a Conservative victory in the 2015 General Election ? What price Cameroon still being party leader by that time ?

CAMERON'S 'ETON MESS' CARRIES ON REGARDLESS.

The Conservative party seems determined to rip itself apart.

 

Not content with ignoring the majority of its membership by its pursuit of the ludicrous notion of 'gay marriage', someone in the Tory hierarchy has now been quoted as having referred to activists who are unhappy about the UK's membership of the EU as being 'mad, swivel-eyed loons'. Of course, the quote has been denied but we all know that official denial is the ultimate proof of truth.

 

There can be little doubt that the party mandarins are losing all connection with their grassroots and that formerly loyal party members are leaving in droves, many joining Ukip instead. The pursuit of marriage between homosexuals can hardly be seen as a major political issue and yet Cameroon and his pals at No 10 have taken this on as if it were a matter of supreme importance, to the chagrin of much of their party. On Europe, Cameroon says much but has, so far, done little and must be fairly sure that his latest gimmick, a private member's bill backed by the party, will ultimately fail to make progress. When the latest news from Europe is of a crazy scheme to regulate the way in which olive oil can be served in restaurants as from 1st January 2014, how can anyone believe that continued membership makes any sense ? And don't forget that the supposed budget cut achieved by Cameroon is still being disputed by others in the European hierarchy, though this is hardly mentioned in the British media.

 

Cameroon has surrounded himself with a group of old school pals, a real 'Eton Mess', and this lot are so out of touch with the real world in which 99.9% of us live that not one of them can be considered to be a true 'representative of the people'. They are petty dictators, determined to implement their own ideas regardless of what ordinary people think; perhaps the ordinary people are just beginning to wake up and take notice and, perhaps, the ordinary people may just be about to take back some control of their lives.

 

Perhaps.

CHILDREN FAILED AGAIN BY POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES.

The criminal case involving abuse of many young girls in Oxfordshire calls into question, yet again, the worth of 'social services' departments across the country, as well as much of what our police do.

 

Once more, social workers stood idly by while children in their care were systematically abused, girls ranging from 11 to 15 being fed drugs, trafficked and raped by a gang of Asian men over a period of 8 years. Not all of the girls concerned were in the care of Oxfordshire social services but the fact that some were surely demonstrates how shockingly useless such departments are.

 

It seems that no one will lose their job over this disgrace although both the head of Oxfordshire County Council and the Chief Constable of  the Thames Valley police force have been doing massive amounts of apologising and hand-wringing in the media over the last 24 hours. They assure us, as such people always do at such times, that they have learned lessons and will do their utmost to ensure that similar situations do not arise again in the future.

 

How many times can the public be fed this drivel before they realise that it is nothing but meaningless platitudes and empty rhetoric ? This is not the first time we've had such a case and it won't be the last. Just as with the Jimmy Savile investigation, the authorities have been proven to be useless. While their staff attend endless courses on diversity, equality and stereotyping, the truth is that nothing changes. Police and social workers look for the easy options, the 'quick bust' or easy to resolve bit of domestic violence; when things become more complicated and they're confronted with major organised activities, they are impotent.

 

For anyone who doubts that our society is not just broken but beyond repair, they need only read the newspapers, listen to the news and consider how little of what is said by those in authority means anything or is ever enacted. Thames Valley police are, apparently, conducting a detailed review of this latest scandal and a report will be prepared NEXT YEAR ! Presumably, Oxfordshire social services will be doing something similar. By the time these reports are produced, the appalling events that prompted them will be fading into the distant past and nothing meaningful will ever result. There'll be more hand-wringing and plenty of drum-beating, new systems put in place and lots of promises that everything is now better. Ha, ha.

 

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

TORY DISARRAY PLAYS INTO HANDS OF FARAGE AND Ukip.

Following on from the scare delivered by Ukip in the recent council elections, the Conservative party is now running around like the proverbial headless chicken.

 

While Nigel Farage can't stop smiling, David Cameroon and his pals are in an almighty funk, simply not knowing how to respond to the Ukip challenge. Indeed, they seem to believe that 'more of the same' is all that's needed and various senior party figures have trotted out to give us all the usual hogwash - Theresa May failed dismally on radio 4 a few days ago and Grant Shapps fails miserably every time he appears. How this man was ever considered to be the best choice for Party Chairman has to be one of the mysteries of the age. The only one I've seen so far who makes any sense and talks coherently is Michael Gove, someone to whom I do not particularly warm. On today's 'Andrew Marr Show', he gave straightforward answers to straightforward questions and came across very well; for the first time, I saw him as a possible future leader of the Conservative party, perhaps sooner rather than later. 

 

Of course, with all this Tory mayhem, Labour has plenty to get its teeth into, except that it, too, is failing to make any headway. They continue to trot out the same tired old socialist claptrap and continue to try to pick holes in Government policies while offering no real policies or alternatives themselves. Interestingly, when I write that they are attacking Government policies, I really mean Conservative ones, as attacks on the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition are few and far between, presumably due to considerations about future coalition possibilities as well as the increasing irrelevance of that party.

 

Next week, a group of Conservative MPs will try to obtain a debate on the 'Queen's Speech' that will centre on the issue of our membership of the European Union; the intention will be to take the debate to a vote which will, effectively, be a vote about the continuation of that membership. It's a measure of the disarray in which the party now finds itself that all Tory ministers are being 'advised' to abstain from voting even though it is party policy to hold a referendum on our continuing membership sometime after the next general election; backbench MPs will be allowed a free vote. The expectation is that at least 100 Tory MPs will vote for a motion which effectively calls into question our continued membership, arguing for a referendum before the end of this Parliament. While the Liberals will vote, en masse, against any such measure, the Labour party may find itself divided though most will probably discard any personal views and vote whichever way their whips tell them to.

 

Whatever happens, the Tories will be shown as being irrevocably split over the issue of Europe. Historically, such a split has been catastrophic news for the party and there's no reason to believe it won't be again. I can see Nigel Farage grinning from ear to ear and, unlike the 'Cheshire Cat', he shows no signs of fading away. 

QUEEN GETS TOUGH ON IMMIGRANTS !

The 'Queen's Speech', unlike the 'King's Speech', was an event of great theatricality but with no real purpose or result. While King George VI struggled manfully to get his own words out, Queen Elizabeth had little difficulty in mouthing the usual rubbish provided for her by successive governments over a period of 60 years.

 

One has to wonder what Her Majesty thinks of the drivel and endless platitudes that her Prime Ministers force her to read out and put her name to. As a rule, much of it announces measures to curb our freedoms still further, much is about 'saving us from ourselves' and the rest is about purely political issues designed to help whoever is in power today to win the next election.

 

This year's speech was little different but did include a novel idea - individuals in the community such as landlords and GPs will now be required to carry out the role of 'immigration police', checking the origins of everyone with whom they come into contact and reporting those they believe to be illegal immigrants to the authorities. How this will work, if it can be made to do so, hasn't been explained.

 

For decades, the NHS has been expected to identify those who are not eligible for free care and to charge them accordingly. Hospitals have established vast and complicated procedures that have, by and large, been a pointless waste of money. Even if chargeable individuals have been identified and billed, they usually disappear without trace after being discharged; little money is ever forthcoming. Inexplicably, this government seems to be oblivious to this and has said that they will introduce new measures to ensure that short-term migrants will pay for their NHS care; furthermore, landlords will have to check the 'immigration status' of potential tenants though, again, how they will do this hasn't been set out. Most astonishing of all, illegal immigrants will not be allowed to have driving licences; pardon me, but are they saying that such people are allowed to hold driving licences at the moment ? Surely one fundamental feature of being an 'illegal immigrant' must be that the state does not know who they are; are they not outside of the 'system' and, hence, automatically denied such things ?

 

In truth, none of this will work and it's clear that all the rhetoric about being tough on immigration and illegal immigrants is no more than an attempt to con people into voting Conservative at the next general election. Neither this government nor any other likely one has any intention of doing anything that will really deal with the issues that face our country. Vastly excessive immigration and the creation of largely separate 'immigrant communities' is but one, though a major one, of these issues, but there is no chance whatsoever of our leaders dealing with it; it's all far too political and difficult and they have their futures as overpaid international ambassadors and statesmen to think about.

 

If I believed in a God, I'd be saying 'God, help us !', but I don't and I'm afraid we're on our own.

BBC CONTINUES TO FALL APART.

What is it about politicians that makes them unable to be honest and forthright about just about anything ?

 

Today, an admittedly ex-politician though a very senior one, tried his damnedest to avoid answering questions about the disgusting behaviour of a former BBC presenter, Stuart Hall. We know, because he's admitted it, that Hall was a serial abuser of young girls in days gone by and it's now suggested, not unreasonably, that other BBC staff must have known what was going on; it's even been suggested that some may have helped to facilitate Hall's behaviour.

 

Under questioning from Jeremy Vine, not exactly a rotweiler at the job, Patten looked so uncomfortable that one has to wonder how he's ever held down a 'top job'. As chairman of the Beeb, his standard response was that the claims were appalling and and would be addressed by Dame Janet Smith's ongoing enquiry; Dame Janet is, apparently, reviewing the BBC's culture and practices following the Saville scandal.

 

Patten played the typical politician, saying nothing that could be used against him; he said nothing definite about anything, leaving everything to Dame Janet and her enquiry. This is what used to be referred to as 'kicking a problem into the long grass'; when Dame Janet's enquiry will eventually report is anyone's guess and to what extent it will have considered, or even been able to consider, the historic issues of abuse at the BBC is in the air.

 

The BBC is an organisation which was once the true envy of the world, being the one great broadcaster which spread news around the globe in an entirely apolitical way. Today it's an inward looking, left-leaning organisation which has been found to have fallen very short of any standards of decency over a protracted period. The manner in which it embraced the culture of the 1960s and 1970s has caused it to become a hotbed of the most shocking and disgusting excesses of those periods, with so many involved that the behaviour of a few was simply ignored by everyone else. Today, its one priority is to try to rescue itself from its failings and it will obfuscate and dissemble for all it's worth to that end.

 

Saville and Hall are almost certainly the tip of a very large iceberg. Remembering the way in which various presenters of programmes such as 'Top of the Pops' habitually surrounded themselves with hordes of young girls is, itself, worrying; that Hall was not connected with this programme suggests that the evil was spread much more widely, and independent television is unlikely to be innocent either.

 

How many more revelations will there be ?

NEWSPAPERS HOUND DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Some time ago, a man was arrested by police on suspicion that he may have been involved in the disappearance and murder of a young woman in Bristol. The newspapers and other media went to town and had him tried, convicted and sentenced on their front pages within moments, although the man was eventually released without charge, having been determined to have had no part in the crime.

 

Today's papers are in serious danger of repeating this disaster by covering, in great depth, a story concerning a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. This man has been arrested on suspicion of rape and sexual assault though he's also been released on police bail, suggesting that any evidence is less than robust. Nonetheless, his career as a politician may well be over and, if he's ultimately determined to be innocent of any offences, it will be purely because of the manic behaviour of the press.

 

Lord Leveson's recommendations and the Government's proposals for regulating the press have been largely condemned by the self-same press; they claim that 'freedom of the press' is a fundamental element of any democracy and that they should be allowed to regulate themselves, which they can do in a highly responsible fasion. Sadly, this latest piece of headline-hunting journalism by almost every newspaper shows, very strongly, that they cannot.

 

Our newspapers are out of control, desperately seeking headlines that will make them money. Something needs to be done and it can't be done by themselves; that leaves some form of independent regulation as the only option and the sooner it's put in place, the better.

Ukip TRIUMPHANT !

The remarkable performance of Ukip in county council elections held last Thursday serves to demonstrate only too clearly the degree of disaffection with politics felt by people of all views and in all parts of the country. While gaining almost a quarter of all votes cast, Ukip captured only about 6% of the seats on offer, indicating that their support was spread across the country rather than being concentrated in particular areas as is the case with the three 'main' parties.

 

Unfortunately, the universal nature of Ukip's appeal is also a drag on their ability to achieve very much. Although they are an irritant to the others, particularly to the Tories but also to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, for them to become a party of real power they have to increase their share of the vote still further, certainly to more than 30%; only then would whole councils and even Parliamentary seats come their way.

 

Of course, next year's European elections are run under a different system and it is more than possible that Ukip will top the poll then and that they will gain a few more MEPs, but they are still unlikely to outnumber their opponents when it comes to representation from these islands. All that voters can do is take heart from this week's results, convince their neighbours to 'see the light' and push on.

 

That the other main parties are at least a little worried by the spectre of Ukip has been evident for some time though their leaders seem to have no idea as to how to combat it other than trotting out the same tired old phrases. The Cameroonians insist on talking about 'hard-working people', a catch-phrase that alienates whole swathes of the population - job-seekers, the sick and the retired. Worse still is when they refer to 'hard-working families', which leaves out anyone who happens to be single or not to have children; whoever dreamt up this piece of political cant needs putting down. Listening to Theresa May on the radio this morning was pretty embarrassing, as she stumbled around trying to tell the people what they wanted to hear but without actually saying anything.

 

Labour, too, has found a new phrase, a piece of Orwellian 'newspeak' that defies understanding; Miliband's 'One Nation Labour' is so meaningless, as it was when the Tories used an almost identical phrase, as to be laughable. Labour has but one purpose, that being to soak anyone who has anything in order for the state to waste the proceeds on whatever ludicrous social schemes it can invent. To try to claim that they have the good of the whole nation at heart is risible; one only has to listen to the ravings of the likes of Denis Skinner or any one of the assorted Trades Union leaders to know the extent of their hatred for what they see as the 'ruling classes'. 'One Nation', my eye.

 

As for the Liberal Democrats, their poll rating is rapidly disappearing off of the chart even if they still have areas of strength. Nationwide, they are seen as an increasingly pointless party and their performance in the South Shields by-election, in which they finished behind the BNP and only just beat the candidate from the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', must be one of the worst results ever for a major party. If Ukip are, in Cameroon's words, a party of closet racists, the Liberal Democrats are most certainly a party of closet socialists and perhaps people are beginning to realise this. Their love for all things European, nuclear disarmament and everything 'green', has also put them at odds with the real world in which we live and they are suffering for it.

 

For Ukip, it is easy as they aren't in power. For Nigel Farage to say what should be done is much easier than actually doing it but he does, at least, say the right things and appears to have a much better understanding of people than do Cameroon, Milipede and Clogg. He doesn't talk down to us and doesn't spout meaningless platitudes; he doesn't resort to gimmicks, unless his 'downing' of an occasional pint is one. His party, undoubtedly, were the real winners of the council elections and also came second in the by-election in the left wing stronghold of South Shields, demonstrating an ability to take votes from left as well as right.

 

This was round one and Ukip won on points; in round two, next year's European elections, they need to step up the pace and start getting their punches through to the body. If they can do that, anything's possible in round three, the 2015 General Election.

STUART HALL ADMITS OFFENCES; ROACHE CHARGED.

Stuart Hall's admission that he committed sexual assaults against 13 young girls, aged 9 to 17, while working at the BBC must raise yet more concern about the appalling culture which existed at the corporation over a period of several decades. Following on from the revelations about the behaviour of Jimmy Saville and allegations against several other well-known figures, Hall's admission provides definitive evidence that something was seriously wrong in an organisation in which it seems that many knew of this type of activity but no one acted.

 

Additionally, Bill Roache, a man whose entire acting life seems to have been devoted to playing one character in a 'soap' has now been charged with 2 counts of rape, both offences being committed at the same 15 year old in 1967. Whether or not these charges are eventually proven, the CPS clearly believes that there is sufficient evidence to ask a jury to consider it and the old adage 'there's no smoke without fire' may well be relevant.

 

Both Hall and Saville were, apparently, well respected figures at the BBC where they both worked for many years; others who've been implicated have also had connections to the BBC though not exclusively so, as is demonstrated by the case of Roache. What is common to all is that they were 'celebrities' and people with a degree of power over their victims; after all, who would have believed some silly teenager's cry of 'Rape !' against Saville ? He was too well known to be thought of as a sex-offender, as was Hall and as, no doubt, are at least some of the others.

 

The culture at the BBC was clearly shocking, but so it probably was at other media organisations. Drink, drugs and sex were the name of the game and order of the day and, in the permissive years that sprang from the 1960s, there have always been hordes of naive young people queuing up to get involved. That there were also hordes of older men queuing up to exploit them, with no one bothering to find out out what was going on, is the real disgrace.

 

Hall, who is 83 and, perhaps, unlucky to have been caught before he died, ought to spend his remaining days behind bars, however many they are. If Roache, who's 81, is found guilty his sentence should be the same. As for the rest of those already arrested and / or questioned by the police, they are mostly older men of the same ilk and, if offences are proven, none of them should ever see the light of day again.

 

All that remains is to find out who were the people who knew, but did nothing. They have a great deal to answer for.

AID TO SOUTH AFRICA TO STOP AT LAST.

For some reason known only to politicians and civil servants, the UK government has been giving millions of pounds in overseas aid to South Africa. Now, that aid is to stop, though not until 2015, and the South African government is pretty miffed that it will lose the current £19 million, claiming that they were not properly consulted and that the loss of the money will have "far-reaching implications"

 

Why the UK government should have had to 'consult' the South African lot before making a decision regarding its own finances is beyond me. If I decide to stop a subscription to a charity, I don't expect to have to consult them first; the consequences of my actions are for them to deal with. In the case of South Africa, the UK's contribution is, indeed, no more than a charitable donation, the use of which could well be open to question. In addition, South Africa has the some of the largest reserves of gold, diamonds and other precious minerals in the world - why on earth should it need a piddling £19 million in aid from the UK ?

 

The truth is that South Africa, in common with most other countries on that continent, is a nation in crisis; its politicians and governments are corrupt and it's riven by tribal divisions. It makes no difference what natural resources these countries have nor how much foreign aid is pumped in, the lot of their common people will continue to be dreadful. There is no easy answer to their problems, but stopping overseas aid is probably more positive than negative; if only other countries would do the same, these backward nations may just realise that they need to stand on their own two feet at last.

KNOX, KERCHER AND MURDER IN PERUGIA.

The appearance of Amanda Knox on television, professing her innocence of the brutal murder Meredith Kercher while also advertising a book which will undoubtedly make her many millions of dollars, is one of the more grotesque things to have appeared on our screens in recent years.

 

Knox was originally convicted of the November 2007 murder and spent 4 years in an Italian prison before being released when judges in the Italian Court of Appeal decided that there was insufficient hard evidence to support a conviction. Since then, the case has been reviewed by the Italian Supreme Court which has overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and ruled that the appeal should be re-heard.

 

During all of this, the Knox family has used every means at its disposal to proclaim their daughter's innocence, appearing in the media and on television whenever possible. From their point of view, Amanda Knox is an ill-treated innocent. The victim's family, on the other hand, have been almost unheard, maintaining a dignified silence. Unsurprisingly, American opinion is squarely behind Knox, while British opinion tends towards the Kerchers; apparently, in Italy the general view is that Knox and her co-accused are as guilty as hell.

 

Whatever the truth, the snivelling performance of Knox on our television screens and the fortune she will be making from her book which, incidently, is said to bring nothing new to the story, say little for her or her family. Knox seems to have used the situation to her own financial advantage and the murder of her erstwhile friend has become little more than an adjunct to a much broader story.

 

We have yet to learn when the appeal will be re-heard but we can be sure it will be headline news with Knox making capital from it regardless of the outcome.