WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CHRISTMAS ?

I read that the Pope, Benedict XVI, has made a number of comemnts regarding the commercialisation of Christmas and has urged his followers to think more of the original meaning of the festival than of the modern-day interpretation.

Leaving aside the fact that the current date of Christmas is actually that of the old Roman festival of the Winter Solstice and has nothing to do with the date of the birth of Jesus Christ, I have to say that I agree with the Pope. If I was a Roman Catholic this would, perhaps, be unsurprising, but I'm actually an atheist. However, I'm also fed up to the back teeth with the way in which Christmas has become nothing more than an opportunity for commercial exploitation, increasingly ridiculous extravagance and gluttony. The vast majority of people in Britain seem to give no thought whatsoever to the religious aspects of Christmas, but they do decorate their homes, inside and out, in gaudy styles, spend incredible amounts of money on entertainment and presents, especially for their children, and eat and drink to gross excess.

I am no killjoy and no Scrooge. I have no objection to a bit of partying and enjoyment, but the way in which Christmas has been subverted in recent years is horrendous. Parents spend money they don't have on presents that their children demand; no longer are children happy to accept whatever can really be afforded, but they must have the assorted trappings of modern pre-adult life. Christmas begins in our shops at an earlier date almost every year; towns are decorated in early November and Christmas stock appears in the shops no later and often earlier. In the days immediately before the Christmas holiday, our towns and cities are almost impossible to move in freely, as insane hordes rush around buying last minute gifts and enough food to feed the 5,000 100 times over. If anyone can give me a sensible answer to all this nonsense, I'm willing to listen.

Christmas has become, in the developed countries, a time of straightforward extravagance on an idiotic scale. It is nothing more than an opportunity for retailers, and others with something to sell, to foist enormous amounts of tat on a gullible and pliant public, who are equally wrapped up in their own self-indulgence.

The Pope is right, in essence, although I have no sympathy with his religious viewpoint. Whether or not his call to the masses will be heard is another matter.

WELL DONE THE YANKS - IRAQ IN TURMOIL AGAIN.

Now that the US has finally withdrawn its forces from Iraq, we are supposed to believe that the war there has ended successfully, that dictatorship has ended as has the so-called insurgency, and all is sweetness and light.

What a load of old tosh. As was always going to be the case, all that has happened is that the western powers who moved in have now decided that they've spent enough and there is no more real benefit to be gained, for themselves, by staying there. The final exit of the American forces has simply opened the door for more violence and, ultimately, a new dictatorship. Today it's been a spate of bombings with many killed and injured; tomorrow it could well be all-out civil war.

The interevention in Iraq was wrong, as has been the intervention in Afghanistan. Neither will result in any long-term improvements for the peoples of these benighted countries. Most worrying, however, is wondering where the US, Britain and a few others, will now be looking for the training of their forces; Syria must be the favourite, but will prove yet another disaster. Not that our politicians will worry about that. 

EUROZONE MESS DEEPENS STILL FURTHER.

Last week, David Cameron vetoed a Eurozone 'rescue package' and was roundly condemned by other major European leaders. Since then, the proposed package seems to have hit the buffers and the French are about to have their own credit rating downgraded. Cameron's action in keeping the UK out of the Euro-mess, has been totally vindicated.

In the wake of all of this, the French, our traditional cross-channel adversaries, have set about trying to lay the blame for everything at the door of the UK. Apparently, we are the ones responsible for the impending failure of the rescue plan and it isn't the French credit rating that should be downgraded but ours.

What this contretemps has demonstrated, once and for all, is that the French hate the British; they always have done and always will do. Nothing would please them more than to see the UK economy, and the UK itself, collapse. Sadly for them, it looks as though they are destined to be the ones on the receiving end yet again and, this time, the British will not be riding to their rescue. This time, they have to rely on another of their old enemies, Germany. Currently, it's reported that Mrs Merkel is anxiously trying to organise another summit meeting soon after Christmas, at which the UK will be present, though not allowed to vote on rescue proposals for the Euro. What such a meeting will achieve is anyone's guess, though it's unlikely to achieve much of real substance.

The real issue is what Germany will eventually do when they realise there is no simple fix; when they accept that the problem is at least as much political as economic. Will they allow their own economy, and Government, to be dragged down by the crisis afflicting the Eurozone, or will they eventually realise that they have to protect themselves from it ? I would bet that, in the final analysis, they will take the latter course and find a solution that saves them from catastrophe. What shape this action will take is another question but it seems there are really only two options; either Germany withdraws from the Euro, possibly along with France and a few of the economically stronger nations, or the same group remains in the Eurozone and the rest withdraw. Either way, Germany will be a winner and the rest will, at best, tread water.

Sarkozy is clearly one of the walking dead; Merkel knows that her position is weakening by the day. No other leader in Europe, other than our own dear 'Dave' has a status to compare with these two and, indeed, how many Presidents or Prime Ministers could anyone in the street actually name ? It occurs to me that, in the end, it may be that the saviour of Europe will be as before; the UK will ride to the rescue but on its own terms, not theirs. Cameron may end up in a much more powerful position than anyone could possibly have imagined just a few days ago.

WHO WILL SAVE US FROM POLITICIANS ?

As the politicians in the Eurozone countries, and much of the rest of the western world, try to paper over the massive chasms in their economies that they themselves, and their predecessors, have created, one wonders what is the point of politicians at all.

Today, 2 more stories of political incompetence have come to light. Firstly, Home Secretary, Theresa May, has been forced to make a statement about the shocking goings-on in the UK Border Agency. Specifically, the Agency stopped checking many foreigners coming to this country last year, meaning that an unknown number, quite probably in the tens of thousands, entered the UK without any proper immigration check. Of course, Ms May is blaming the entire episode on officers of the Agency and several have already been suspended, but the reality is that this is a state run organisation that has failed completely in its duty. Can the politicians truly exempt themselves from any blame ?

The second story to come out today involves another huge government Agency, HM Revenue and Customs. This monstrous organisation has, apparently, been found to have been entering into dubious and underhand arrangements with some of our largest companies, leading to enormous reductions in their assessed tax liabilities. It seems that while the ordinary man in the street is routinely harrassed and threatened by the bullyboys of the Revenue, large corporations can have cosy little chats and get their liabilities largely written off.

Politicians are always very quick to distance themselves from shocking revelations such as these. Despite the fact that it is the politicians who set all the rules, when things go wrong they use every possible arguement to ensure that the blame is placed elsewhere. The truth is that politicians are pathologically incapable of keeping their hands off of anything and everything that they see as being of interest, but most of them lack the skills needed to understand the true complexities of the systems concerned, to design new systems or to run ---- anything.

These people dabble in everything and end up making a mess, which they then leave to others to clear up. In extreme cases, they make an extreme mess which really can't be cleared up, as they've done with the economies of most of the major western nations and, in particular, with the Euro. In the end, they all walk away having become very wealthy, while the ordinary people, you and me, are left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills.

ARCHBISHOP OUT OF ORDER, AGAIN.

Once again, the 'Bearded Wonder' that is the Archbishop of Canterbury has felt it right to enter discussion on a matter well beyond his remit.

This time, he's reported to be in support of the so-called 'Tobin Tax', an opportunist tax to be applied to all financial transactions between banks and other institutions. In truth, of course, this would be a further imposition on investors and shareholders and is simply a mechanism for governments to screw a few more pounds out of their already hard-stretched populations.

What expertise the Archbishop has to enable him to speak out on such matters is a mystery to all. As Andrew Neil has said on today's 'Daily Politics' programme, if he'd known that the Archbishop was an expert on financial issues he'd have consulted him on these, rather than thinking of him as the man to speak to on religious matters. Perhaps now that he's shown his true expertise, we can expect the Archbishop to be called in to advise the Treasury on future budget plans.

Tragically, the Archbishop is a relatively young man and we may well have to put up with him being in office for a good few years yet, quite probably to at least 2020 which will make him the second longest serving incumbent since the early days of Queen Victoria. We can only hope that someone steps heavily on him very soon as, otherwise, we can no doubt expect to hear his learned opinions on everything from pensions to schools, the NHS to railways and, no doubt, membership of the European Union to Scottish indepence. Nothing at all, of course, of any significance on religious matters. 

As King Henry II was famously reported as having said, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest ?"

EUROZONE STUMBLES ON AS GREEKS DROP THE BALL.

Less than a week ago I wrote that the solution to the latest Eurozone crisis might well last no more than 2 or 3 weeks, but I didn't reckon on the Greek Prime Minister throwing all the balls into the air with his announcement that the deal reached last week would be put to a referendum of the Greek people.

The Greek people are not a happy bunch, despite the fact that they've been enjoying a lifestyle in recent years that's way beyond their ability to pay for it and that a substantial part of the cost of putting things right was now going to be picked up by other European Union member countries. For some reason, the Greeks think that it's all very unfair for them to have to be 'put upon' in this way and the initial reaction to Mr Papandreou's statement is to expect them to vote the Greek equivalent of 'Up Yours', when it comes to the referendum in December or January.

Why Mr Papandreou has, effectively, reneged on the agreement reached last week is anyone's guess. His announcement certainly seems to have come as a complete surprise to all and sundry and stock markets have nose-dived as a result. Is he playing a game designed to screw a few extra drachmas out of Brussels ? Is he simply trying to save his own political skin ahead of a confidence vote due on Friday ? Whatever the reasoning, the view of most pundits seems to be that he may well lose Friday's vote, thus precipitating a general election. The announcement of a referendum on the proposed solution to the Greek debt crisis, while unsettling to say the least, is probably no more so than would be the collapse of the Greek government and so Papandreou really had very little to lose, but quite a lot to gain, at least in the short term.

What will happen next is in the lap of the Gods, almost literally so in the case of Greece, the home of Mount Olympus. Will Papandreou survive ? If he does, which way will the Greek people vote in the referendum ? If he doesn't, will there be a referendum at all ? Should the people vote against the proposed deal, it seems quite likely that Greece will then have to leave the Eurozone, possibly to be followed by others such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. If they vote for the deal, or don't get the chance to vote, the Eurozone will likely hold together for a few more months, until the next crisis, unless the fall-out from the current meleé proves too much for Italy to withstand, as already seems a possibility.

What fun times these are.

EUROZONE CRISIS AVERTED ....... FOR NOW.

While the leaders of the Eurozone countries pat themselves on their collective backs for having resolved their problems, it's worth rowing back a bit and thinking.

It seems that the agreement that's been reached is somewhat nebulous and consists more of words than deeds. Vast numbers have been discussed and apparently committed to, but with little or no indication as to where most of the money is to come from. The write down of Greek national debt, theoretically to be borne by an array of banks will, in reality be borne by savers and shareholders in the affected banks, but the huge sums to be made available as a safeguard against any future national disasters have no stated place of origin. President Sarkozy has reportedly said that perhaps the Chinese will invest but, if they do, this will be for their own self interest and not for any European good. The Chinese already own enormous amounts of US debt and any investment in Europe will do no more than increase their influence in western economies. Is this really what Europe wants ?

That said, what are the alternatives ? European governments have been profligate for decades; they've run up huge debts while also encouraging their banks to lend silly amounts to people who have no realistic chance of ever repaying the money. The consequence is that the western world, collectively, has far more debt than it can manage without outside help or internal collapse. The 'deal' reached by European leaders last night has been dressed up to appear like a genuine solution but it's more likely to turn out to be a sticking plaster, designed to placate the financial world for a short time, while a more long term resolution can be worked out.

Nonetheless, the world's financial markets seem to have been pleased with the outcome, at least for the time being, though how long it will be before they change their tune is anyones' guess. My guess, for what it's worth, is that sentiment may well begin to change within 2 or 3 weeks and could easily reverse altogether within the same number of months.

EUROSCEPTIC MPs RIGHT, BUT AT THE WRONG TIME.

Last night's House of Common's vote on whether or not there should be a referendum on the subject of the UK's membership of the European Union sent a pretty sombre message to the leaders of the Conservative party.

This issue has rumbled on ever since the fateful day in 1973 when we joined, having been cynically lied to by the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, as to the purpose and intended future direction of the Union. Year after year, 'Europe' has created more of its own institutions on the inevitable path towards its ultimate goal of a 'United States of Europe'. Year after year, these same European institutions have produced 'Directives' telling all of the member countries what do to; the UK government has dutifully accepted these Directives and we know have unlimited immigration for other member countries and are forced to comply with European requirements on working hours, a horrendous range of health and safety issues, nebulous rules on 'human rights' and so on. The one bright spot for this country is that, after the nightmare of the European Exchange Rate mechanism (ERM), we chose not to join in with the lunacy that is the Euro.

Over the years, many of those people who care about this issue have become increasingly sceptical about our membership of the European Union as it is currently constituted. Last night's vote was simply the most 

recent demonstration of this scepticism but, frankly, was badly timed. With the Union in almost total chaos over the utter failure of the Euro-project, there is, surprisingly a far more important matter at hand and that is the survival of our major trading partner.

I don't want us to be in the European Union. It is a socialist organisation with a centrist philosophy that will eventually rule every single aspect of our lives, if we let it. It will create a 'United States of Europe' which will have to meet the 'lowest common denominator' if if is to have any chance of success, and that inevitably means that resources will be spread ever more widely and enyone who currently has anything will almost certainly find that it's taken away. This is an appalling prospect and one that we have to resist as strongly as we can.

However, now is not the time. If the Eurozone countries fail to reach an adequate agreement on solving their financial mess, all the countries of the Union, and many others, will suffer, some of them quite horribly. The UK will not be immune to this and we may well suffer more than most. At such a time, to be debating whether or not we should have a referendum on our continued membership of the Union is nonsensical. The problem for David Cameron is that a substantial proportion of the Conservative party doesn't share this view and sees our membership, or not, as the most important issue at hand. Cameron can well do without this as he tries to ensure that his, and our, position is properly represented and listened to in the various European forums currently engaged in high-level discussions. His position has surely been seriously weakened by the rebellion of so many of his own party and this can only be to the detriment of the UK.

The MPs who rebelled last night were right but at the wrong time. We must try to ensure that the Eurozone resolves its difficulties quickly and permanently and without unhelpful distractions. Only then should we start the process of looking critically at our continued membership of this political club that can never succeed and will always be an unwarranted drain on our limited resources.

WHAT IS A TRILLION, ANYWAY ?

Eurozone leaders meet to discuss how to resolve their ongoing financial crisis and the commentators throw around numbers that are simply mind-boggling - not mere billions any more, but we are now into trillions of Euros, pounds, dollars, or anything else you care to mention. Does any of it make sense or even really matter ?

What we have is a crisis caused by governments and economists. Forget all the ire aimed at 'bankers', other than the entirely incompetent ones like Fred Goodwin and Eric Daniels, they've done no more than apply the rules that applied to their businesses, rules that were set by governments. Additionally, they responded to the pleas of their governments to lend, lend, lend, as much as possible so as to 'stimulate the economy', in pursuit of an economic theory that has now been shown to have been rather flawed, to ever greater growth. That they didn't really have the money to lend and that most of the loans were unsupported by sound business cases was of minor importance.

In the Eurozone, we have the scenario outlined above multipled by a factor of billions as a result of the utterly impossible Euro project. Anyone with a brain cell knew that trying to cram together many nations with disparate economies under a single currency was doomed to failure, and so it has proven. Perhaps those that chose this path actually did so knowing that it would fail and that they would then have an opportunity to propose even closer union as the only logical step - this has only just occurred to me as an option but it makes terrifying sense.

Thinking more about this, it's bloody obvious that the original perpetrators of the Euro knew full-well that 'stage 1' was doomed to failure; they also knew that the only realistic solution to that failure was a 'stage 2' that involved even greater union between the member nations. What they didn't, and couldn't include in their calculations, was the financial crisis that has occurred quite independently of the inevitable Euro mess. When both crises are put together, the result is a total melt-down of the Euro, which is exactly what has happened.

It is now being reported that the Eurozone leaders have been discussing a potential change to the European Treaty as part of the resolution to their problems, something that should automatically lead to a referendum in this country; being a cynic, I wonder if this is a manufactured move designed to 'head off' Monday's debate and vote in the house of Commons. Of course, DC has said that any change would be in our interest, no doubt another attempt at a Monday bypass; one also wonders whether his words may be a precursor to an attempt to say that a referendum is unnecessary as we won't be affected by any consequent change.

We all know what a bunch of prevaricating and disingenous crooks and liars our politicians are. We also know that whatever they come up with, it's us, the people, who will pay. Is it any coincidence that the country currently doing best in Europe is Belgium, and they've been without an effective government for months.

To answer my original question, "Yes, it does make sense, even if the numbers are beyond our comprehension and it matters far more than the vast majority realise or even care."

FORGET GADDAFI; TIME TO WORRY ABOUT TOMORROW..

One has to wonder why the western world is expending so much energy worrying about the exact circumstances of the death of Colonel Gaddafi.

This brutal, and wholly insane, dictator surely got his just deserts, delivered with far greater efficiency than any western nation would have achieved - arrest, charge, trial lasting years and, quite probably, the accused dying before a judgement was reached or sentence could be carried out. Gaddafi's end may have been unpleasant to western eyes but was no more than simple justice in the eyes of the millions whom he terrorised over more than 4 decades.

Could it be that the western nations are somewhat queasy because of their own ambiguous relationships with the deceased colonel ? After all, he was alternately 'western darling', 'personification of evil' and 'reformed villain to be courted', before finally becoming the most hunted tyrant on earth. When we remember that it's only a few short years since Tony Blair kissed and hugged him in the desert, it's perhaps not surprising that at least some western leaders feel the need to raise an eyebrow at the manner of the colonel's departure from this life but, frankly, they should keep quiet.

Gaddafi is dead and will be mourned by very few; what we have to worry about now is the future. History suggests that whatever comes after him is unlikely to be particularly benign and is quite likely to spiral towards another military dictatorship before too long; if the Libyan people manage to avoid such a fate they'll be setting a new benchmark for developing countries.

G.O.D TWISTS THE KNIFE IN FOX'S ENTRAILS.

The Cabinet Secretary's report on the Liam Fox affair seems to leave no room for doubt. Despite his protestations, Fox has been found guilty to such an extent that any future roles in government must be considered highly unlikely, at least over the next few years. While the report apparently clears Fox of making any personal profit from his dealings with Mr Werrity, it makes it clear that the former Secretary of State for Defence broke the 'Ministerial Code' as well as ignoring the advice of his officials and continuing to behave in a way prejudicial to his post. The report was, in fact, so damning that the Cabinet Office repeatedly delayed its publication while they tried to work out how to respond to it in a way that would prove least harmful to the Government itself.

As I have written previously, Fox is one of those unbelievably arrogant people who, having reached a position of great power and authority, seem to think themselves so far above the rest of us that they can do whatever they like without fear of ever being called to account. People like this are singularly unsuited for high office and yet they seem to attain it, and then hang on for dear life when it all goes wrong. In the end, they do nothing but harm to themselves and their careers, their office and, in cases involving politicians, their parties.

The old adage of 'All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' continues to be true and its truth is continually reinforced by the likes of Mr Fox and his chums. 

CORNERED FOX HAD NOWHERE ELSE TO RUN.

Finally, and not before time, Liam Fox has resigned. That he hung on so long says a huge amount for the arrogance and total lack of any sense of morality that is so prevalent in modern day politicians.

Whether Fox really resigned or was sacked, he had to go. For a minister in such an important position to be guilty of, at the very least, 'poor judgement', is wholly unacceptable and he should have gone as soon as the details of his actions began to emerge; given the apparently dubious nature of Mr Werrity's business affairs and relationship with Fox, it's surely questionable whether Fox should have been appointed in the first place.

Whatever the truths in all this, we've hopefully seen the last, at least for some years, of the incompetent Mr Fox, for which we should all be grateful.

PACK CLOSES IN ON FOX.

As the furore over Liam Fox rumbles on, Government and Tory politicians do their level best to divert attention. Today, it's reported that Chris Grayling, that fishiest of Tory ministers, is supporting the continuation of Fox's career by saying that he thought the days when the private lives of politicians were considered of relevance to their professional activities were long gone. He might wish !

Comments like this show just how wriggly our politicians are. I really couldn't care what Fox, or Grayling or any of the rest of them do behind closed doors and with the lights on, off, dimmed or turned to some extreme part of the spectrum, except when it impacts on their public roles. If Fox has been abusing his public position by involving a close personal friend in matters of state in which he has no place, that bothers me; if he has compounded the problem by being disingenuous about the situation, that bothers me even more. If Fox has been in a sexual relationship with someone, and then lied in order to cover it up, that would bother me, not because of the relationship but because of the lied. Fox has admitted to 'serious errors of judgement' and, in a Secretary of State for Defence', that horrifies me.

In a case like this, simply saying 'Sorry' is not enough. Any of Fox's friends and colleagues who claim that it is are clearly living in a very different world from the rest of we poor mortals, whose feet would not have touched the floor as we were thrown out on our ears by outraged bosses for any similar offences. Fox has to go, and the sooner the better.

FOX THERE FOR THE KILL.

Now I read that Liam Fox has apologised for 'errors of judgement' in mixing his professional and personal lives.

Being a doctor, Fox must have had drilled into him the importance of never doing such a thing. As a politician, he must surely be aware of the necessity of never allowing such a thing to happen.

Do we really want, as Secretary of State for Defence, a man who has ignored such basic essentials of his training and background ? Can we afford to have such a man as a senior minister or even as a Member of Parliament ? What does his acknowledged behaviour say about his intelligence and understanding of the responsibilities of his position ? It's either extreme arrogance or stupidity, both of which are unacceptable.

If he isn't sacked, what will that say about his boss ?

FOX CAUGHT IN THE HEAD-LIGHTS.

Yet another political figure has been caught with his trousers down, metaphorically speaking. This time it's Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, but in real life a doctor. Why didn't he keep with the occupation that the country paid a fortune to train him in ?

Fox is someone I've never really warmed to and who comes across as a typically oily politician. His recent misdeameanours are likely to spell the end of his ministerial career, for now, but no doubt he'll be back as soon as his mates think we've all forgotten what all the fuss was about. How different from the world of half a century ago, when John Profumo vanished from political life and spent the rest of his time doing good deeds. If only today's self-serving and grotesquely obsequious 'public servants' would do the same.

No chance there, then.

POLITICAL NONSENSE AND WE ALL PAY !

Most of the recent news is so ludicrously banal, or just plain stupid, as to be not worthy of any significant comment.

Today, an assortment of senior Metropolitan Police Service officers have ben cleared of any wrong doing with regard to the 'phone hacking scandals, even though some have already been forced to resign from their positions due to the accusations.

The resignations were politically required and had nothing to do with any failings of the incumbents. I hope that the victims will extract every last halfpenny out of the self-serving politicos who were ultimately responsible for their self-sacrifice and arrival on the dole. The only trouble is that WE, THE PEOPLE, have to pay for all the compensation they'll eventually get because the only money that the government has is OURS.

RIOTERS MUST BE QUELLED AT ALL COST.

It seems that my initial comments about the current round of rioting and vanadalism were somewhat wide of the mark. As more and more sub-humans have ventured onto the streets of our cities, creating scenes not witnessed for decades, if ever, it's now clear that the police actually do need the more active support of government if they are to restore order.

With rioting and looting spreading to Bristol, Birmingham and Liverpool, there can be no doubt that more forceful measures are needed. The gangs of youths that have been rampaging around the streets, terrorising residents and shop-owners, looting and destroying properties and attacking the police, appear to be motivated by a desire to cause as much trouble as they can in the pursuit of what they probably see as 'a bit of fun'. Hiding behind a blanket of supposed 'disaffection' with the rest of our society, they are uneducated, jobless and rootless; these animals should be rounded up and incarcerated on some off-shore island, where they can do whatever they like, without affecting the rest of us. They have no place in civilized society.

There's been much talk this morning about what additional measures can be introduced in the battle to reclaim our streets and major cities from the rioters - water-canon, the army, rubber bullets. I say bring on all three and give the forces of law and order free rein to do whatever is necessary to rid us of this pestilential scourge in our midst.

NEITHER 'BULLS' NOR 'BEARS', BUT OSTRICHES AND CHICKENS.

The meltdown currently being experienced on world stock markets is causing much hand wringing and very little real action.

Governments hold meetings while the people watch their savings and pensions vanish down the drain. In Europe, the lunatics who invented the 'Euro' stick their heads in the sand, ostrich-like, and refuse even to contemplate the dismantling of their pet project, even though this is the only long-term solution to the difficulties they are now experiencing. Instead, the European Central Bank has committed itself to buying up vast amounts of worthless Italian and Spanish government bonds, the consequences of which action will eventually be visited on the people of Europe, but not before enough time has passed for those responsible to be long gone. In the UK, it looks increasingly likely that the Bank of England will issue yet more paper through it's scheme of 'quantitative easing', a programme that will inevitably lead to uncontrollable inflation in the future, making us all much poorer but, again, not before the current incumbents of office has departed and can no longer be held accountable. As for the USA, their borrowing is continuing to grow and their economy is clearly not in a healthy state; with a Presidential election due next year, the risk of political paralysis is real and markets will become increasingly jittery as a result. Added to all of the other factors, there seems little likelihood of there being much good news in financial circles for at least the next 18 months. The old stock market adage of 'sell in May and go away' should, perhaps, be amended to 'sell now and come back in 2013' and even that may be far too soon.

The problem is that no one is willing to take the action that is really needed for fear of the dire electoral consequences. We have all been living beyond our means for decades and now the chickens are finally coming home to roost; the final evil day of reckoning is upon us and all we can do is batten down the hatches and hope. In the meantime, the Chinese must be laughing their socks off. 

DID ANYONE READ THE RIOT ACT ?

The disgraceful events that began in Tottenham and subsequently spread to other parts of London over the weekend have led to the usual breast-beating, recriminations and panic amongst the political elite.

Labour MPs have been quick to use the events as a means to attack the police, obliquely of course, and the government. The Home Secretary has felt compelled to rush back from holiday in order to hold talks with senior police officers, and others are busy blaming anyone and everyone in whatever way suits their own special interests.

The truth is that the rioting and looting was carried out by yobs and criminals who will exploit any opportunity to behave in ways that the majority of our society finds repugnant; these people have no excuse for their actions and the nonsense spouted by their apologists is nauseating. Whatever the supposed stimulus, their behaviour was that of sub-human mobs and should be roundly condemned.

Why the Home Secretary should have to curtail her holiday is a mystery. London has an elected Mayor who is responsible for the Metropolitan Police; surely, if any political figure needs to be involved, it is he, though I fail to see why there needs to be political involvement at all. This was a law and order issue and the Metropolitan force should be left alone to deal with it; having suffered so much turmoil in recent weeks already, the last thing they need is more politicians with vested interests stomping around in their size 9s.

FIFA : ETHICS RULE, OK ?

What a surprise ! FIFA, that organisation so wedded to open and honest behaviour, has determined that its former Vice President, Mohamed Bin-Hammam, is guilty of bribery and has banned him from football for life. Given that he is 62 years old, the ban is hardly likley to affect his playing career, though it may stop him from drawing on the vast wealth and patronage that is gained annually by officials of various national footballing bodies.

Bin-Hammam was involved in the controversial bid for the 2022 World Cup from his own minute state of Qatar. The findings of FIFA's Ethics Committe' must surely call into question the validity of both that bid and the voting that was associated with it. Separately, there is a report that the now ex-FIFA representative and Vice President, Jack Warner, handed a caseful of cash to various of his Caribbean colleagues in an effort to bribe them to vote in favour of the Qatari bid; whether or not this is true, coupled with the decision over Bin-Hammam, can the decision to hold the 2022 event in Qatar possibly stand ?

Knowing FIFA, anything is possible. It's more than likely that neither Warner nor Bin-Hammam is guilty of anything that would stand up in a properly consitituted court of law but, in the kangaroo environment of a FIFA court, they have both been covered in sufficient **** to ensure that FIFA emerges as the good guy while they are both condemned as villains. It's also more than possible that voting for the 2022 World Cup will be revisited as no one, other than Qatar, really wants it to be there; given the controversy, this would be a perfect cover for FIFA to look elsewhere without appearing to have been in the wrong, itself, in the first place.

What is most noticeable is the total absence of FIFA's President from the news in the last 3 or 4 weeks; might he be keeping a low profile and hoping that none of this **** sticks to him ? Overall, an entirely corrupt organisation has simply shown itself to be every bit as corrupt as everyone knows it to be, though no one of any power seems really prepared to say so.

BAN KI-MOON : THE INVISIBLE MAN.

The United Nations has re-elected its Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, for a second five year term. Frankly, I wasn't yet aware that he'd served his first term, so little impact has he made on the world stage; yes, I've heard of him and know what position he holds, but he's hardly hit the headlines as a world leading figure.

As a South Korean, this man is little more than a puppet of the USA. His re-election is little more than an affirmation of the continuing influence of the USA over the UN; the USA sees itself as being far more important and significant than the UN and puts up with its existence for political reasons only. In truth, the USA will always do whatever it likes, regardless of what the UN might think or say.

The idea of the UN was a good one, though it was, in reality, a mechanism to enable the western world to control the rest, particularly the Russians. It has developed into a largely impotent organisation, though it now has three major players, with the Chinese joining the USA and Russia as the ones all the rest have to listen to. As with so many world-encompassing organisations, it provides a talking-shop for politicians and civil servants but rarely achieves anything of value.

Mr Ban (or is it Ki-Moon ?) is simply the latest in a long line of largely pointless, impotent and gutless holders of his post, although t always looks good on the CV. Today, he continues to serve the interests of the nations which really run things, the US, Russia and China; in 5 years he will be replaced by another US puppet, unless the Chinese decide otherwise.

EURO-BOLLOCKS

As expected, the Euro-Zone countries have conjured up an agreement to ensure that the Greek economy does not collapse, at least this week.

When the idea of the Euro was first floated, I thought it was ridiculous; when it actually came into existence, I was with those who saw it as simply a political manoeuvre in the drive to create a single European state and one that simply could not work. Today, I am with those who still see it as such, but also now see it as a total failure, a disaster that the governments so intimately involved cannot afford to recognize.

Today, European governments are congratulating themselves on their success in resolving the recent crisis. They are merrily burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the future consequences of the current mess; yes, they have staved off immediate catastrophe but the real achievement is to push back the day of reckoning for a few months or, perhaps, a year or two.

Greece still cannot pay its debts, any more than can Ireland; Prtugal, Spain and Italy are all in trouble as well, all in part due to their involvement in the Euro-zone. At some point, the chickens will come home to roost and, given that Germany cannot afford to carry the burden of all of these economies for ever, the rest of the Euro-zone will eventually start to feel the effects. Worse than this, those EU countries not using the Euro will also bear substantial costs, and that includes the UK.

The clear result will be that we will all become significantly poorer. Stock markets will rise, but inflation will negate any profits; indeed, inflation will negate any financial gains made by ordinary private individuals in usually accessible, and safe, investments. In due course, the costs of failure have to be borne; the Euro is a nonsense dreamt up by politicians pursuing their own, largely hidden, agendas, and it is doomed to failure. The trouble is that the costs will be borne not by the responsible politicians but by the poor people who never understood what they were being dragged into in the first place. The European Union was created as a mechanism designed to prevent another European war but, in reality, it is much more likely to cause one than not. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the idea of a united Europe may well have made sense; in 2010 it still makes sense that European countries work closely together in a variety of ways, but trying to tie highly disparate economies together in a fiscal and monetary strait-jacket is a policy for total mayhem, which is what we have.

The Greek economy has, effectively, failed; Ireland is in the same boat and Portugal is not far behind. Spain and Italy are tottering on the brink and Germany is currently bearing most of the pressure. Eventually, the German people will cry 'Enough !', and then watch out.

PHONE HACKING : WHO WILL RESIGN NEXT ?

The more I hear and read of the 'phone-hacking' saga, the more I despair.

Ignoring all the sordid details, what is most depressing is to have confirmation that our press are so willing to subvert any semblance of morality for a good story, that our police are apparently so corrupt as to happily sell information to the aforementioned press and, worst of all, that our political masters are 'in-bed' with the leading figures of the same press.

Many of us have probably had a pretty low opinion of all 3 institutuions for many years, however, to receive such damning confirmation of our worst fears is hardly welcome news. What we now have is a news organisation in terminal decline, a police service in turmoil and a Prime Minister so damaged as to be impotent.

News International is surely dead in the water. It's very recently departed chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, has been arrested today, following in the footsteps of the Prime Minister's other friend, Andy Coulson, as well as several other News of the World executives and reporters; it can only be a matter of time before the police come calling on James Murdoch, son of the organisation's patriarch. The scandal seems likely to spread to the US where the Murdoch empire is based and, if wrong-doing is found there, the literal wrath of God will be visited upon it. Not only will the British end of Rupert Murdoch's operations be under threat, but so will his entire life's work. Whether or not any of those currently implicated in wrong-doing will eventually be tried, found guilty and imprisoned is another matter, however, the damage has already been done.

As for the police, the scandal has, today, cost Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commisoner, his job. Sir Paul made the fatal mistake of hiring a former News of the World employee, Neil Wallis, to be his adviser and he now sees this as a possible impediment to the ongoing investigation. In resigning, Sir Paul will, no doubt, be taking early retirement on a large pension, a significant cushion to the blow of having to give up his job, though he could still find himself embroiled in the ongoing saga. There can be little doubt that some police officers have had various degrees of involvement with the press over many years, not all of it legal, and any proper investigation is likely to produce an awful lot of dirty washing. Sir Paul will almost certainly find himself giving evidence in the future, as will many of his former colleagues.

When we come to the political involvement in all of this, we have to wonder just how far our 'wannabe' leaders have sunk in order to gain power. We all now know that the Murdochs and their upper echelons have been wined and dined by a succession of Prime Ministers and party leaders; we also know that the now suspect Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks are close friends of the family of the current Prime Minister, David Cameron. Cameron has, in fact, continued to try to justify the closeness of his contacts with these, and other, media contacts in the face of mounting criticism. Some of this criticism has been justified and some has been simple political cant; the maniacal tirade from Gordon Brown last week was an example of a man trying to regain some credibility while having no idea of how to go about it. At the same time, the appallingly 'holier-than-thou' attitudes of many other leading figures has been nauseating, and I do not confine my remarks to politicians; many journalists are just as culpable.

As Prime Minister, Cameron has been, at best, mediocre. Since the emergence of this media scandal, he has been seriously weakened and his House of Commons performances have been poor; lacklustre though he is, Ed Milliband has had the upper hand in recent exchanges and has taken the lead over the 'phone-hacking issue. Cameron has, at no point, taken control of the storm that surrounds him; he has, in fact, fed it through his continuing and inexplicable support for Andy Coulson. What this has done is to call into question his judgement, something which, for a Prime Minister, is all-important; the grey suits in the Tory party must now be on alert, wondering if they will soon need to be looking for a successor.

Where will all of this end ? It's anyones' guess but there seems sure to be some changes in media ownership, a lot of hand-wringing in the Met, and some serious rethinking amongst the political elite, before we all get tired of the story and 'business as usual' is resumed.

TEACHERS STRIKE IS GOOD FOR STUDENTS.

Today's news is full of stories about Michael Gove, the Education Secreatry, warning tachers not to take part in the planned public sector strikes next Thursday. He apparently thinks that striking will cause the public to lose respect for them.

What world does Herr Gove inhabit ? When I was a child, teachers actually cared about their students; they saw their occupation as a vocation and worked for decades in the same place, happy in the knowledge that they were imparting genuine education to their charges.

Today, far too many teachers are motivated not by vocation but either by money or by the old adage 'those that can, do, those that can't teach'. They are also hideously handicapped by an imposed curriculum that gives far more credence to nonsensical rubbish such as 'citizenship' and 'PSE' than it does to proper subjects. They teach 'Equality and diversity' rather than Physics and Chemistry but, of course, the latter is far easier as it's really just a matter of sociological claptrap; Physics and Chemistry require the teacher to have some genuine education of their own.

If I was Gove, I'd be jumping for joy that the teachers were going to strike, and just a bit sorry that they hadn't chosen a more helpful time of the year. As itr is, a little friend of mine has already told me that next week she's on 'work experience' (at 15) and the following 2 weeks she's trying out the next year's timetable. Why it should be necessary to 'try out' a timetable for 2 weeks is beyond me - we never did when I was at school and I don't recall ever landing up in second year French when I should have been in third year English. This seems to me like teachers creating reasons for not actually doing their jobs. Whatever, my young friend will suffer not a jot by the intended strike and may well benefit, as she'll quite probably end up in the company of adults who'll teach her far more than any school ma'am is capable of.

Gove is an idiot. He always has been, hide bound as he is by political doctrine and motivation. He has no real ideas about education, any more than have dozens of other Education Secreataries over the years; the only one I have any respect for is Estelle Morris, but only because she recognized her shortcomings and resigned, something previously unheard of amongst the political fraternity. The rest have been a joke, successively trying to please all points of view and utterly destroying our schools and university system in the process. We now have the least well educated people in the developed world thanks to decades of government meddling, cant and target setting, all supported, I might add, by the teaching unions.

Cameron talks of a 'broken society'; he supports all manner of left wing policies aimed at 'helping' families' and young people. Doesn't this moron understand that 'he does best who helps himself' ? What is needed is an education system that recognizes the different abilities of children and allows them to develop in their own way, with proper support, not a system that insists on everyone achieving certain numbers of and grades in specific exams, and then trotting off to 'Uni' to do useless degrees in colleges that used to be the local Technical Colleges awarding HND's and the like.

Let the teachers go on strike, they will only hurt themselves. Then sack the lot and start again.

WHO KNOWS BEST - CAMERON OR THE GENERALS ?

There are days when I truly believe we live in a dictatorship.

Today, Our Beloved Leader has been quoted as criticising our military leadership with a comment "There are moments when I wake up and read the newspapers and think, 'I tell you what, you do the fighting and I'll do the talking'."

As a statement of dictatorial arrogance this is extraordinarily outstanding. Cameron has absolutely no experience of military life; he knows nothing of real operational issues in any of the forces and can have no understanding of the logistical demands of warfare. The people he is taking issue with are senior officers in the services who do have such experience, knowledge and understanding. Cameron, it seems, is choosing to ignore their expert advice as it conflicts with his political aims to appear to be a leader of world standing saving us all from nasty dictators, while also getting re-elected through impossible pledges such as reducing costs and taxes, increasing life expectancy, making the trains run on time, and bringing Elvis back to life.

As our elected representative, Cameron has a constitutional duty to take proper account of the advice given to him; if he chooses to ignore such advice, the consequences are entirely his responsibility. If this man is so arrogant as to believe that he knows better than Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls, he's a better man than I. He's also not too many steps removed from Mubarak, Gadaffi, and Assad, not to mention Stalin, Mao and Hitler; he's adopting a dictatorial stance that cannot be justified and will eventually lead to  disaster.

His comments bring us ever closer to Dictatorship.

FIFA : BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Following the previous shenanigans at FIFA that culminated in the unopposed re-election of Sepp Blatter, this unaccountable and utterly corrupt organisation continues to amaze.

Today, Jack Warner, vice president but currently suspended pending an enquiry into bribery allegations, has resigned. As a consequence, FIFA has terminated its investigation into Warner's activities and say that 'the presumption of innocence is maintained'.

How can this be ? As long as these allegations remained uninvestigated, both FIFA and Warner remain suspect; why should his resignation bring enquiries to an end ? FIFA is an organisation that has many questions to answer and that many people see as simply being a 'gravy train' for its members; surely, it is in its own interests to continue this investigation to the bitter end, in order to demonstrate that it has a desire to prove that it is not.

Once agian, FIFA and Blatter have merely shown how morally bankrupt they are.

PENSION AGE : WOMEN HAVE NO CASE.

My heart bleeds for the poor women who are now complaining so bitterly about having their pension age equalised with that of men by 2020.

For decades, women have been able to retire and receive a state pension 5 years earlier than their male counterparts. Historically, men have worked many more years, retired later and had shorter lives; no one made a fuss or complained that this was unfair. With women, however, it is different. Any change which removes some inbuilt privilege is resisted; hordes turn out to complain about the 'unfairness' being visited upon them and politicians quake. Whatever we do, we mustn't upset the female vote.

What rubbish. Let's have a bit of equality and fairness for the men, just for a change.

EXAM GRADE MADNESS.

The 'AQA' an exam-setting body, has said that it is planning to intrduce a new 'Super A star' grade to recognise the performance of particularly able students.

When I was at school, the grades were A to E for pass, and F to H for fail. Now we shy away from even referring to failure and seem to have lost the appetite for grading students sensibly. We give them 'projected' grades long before their exams and even 'target' grades throughout their school lives, effectively pigeon-holing them in a way that was never done in the past. Again, when I was at school, an 'A' grade was the aspiration of all, now the children aspire only to meet the target set for them by their teachers - what sort of lunacy is this ? We heap pressure on them in ways never thought of when I was a child. Pupils are even made to sit sub-standard exams, in which the highest attainable grade is a 'C', so as not to put them off by giving them the real exam which they might struggle at.

All this nonsense is simply to avoid facing the fact that some children have different abilities to others, and that some will inevitably do worse at certain subjects than others. Why can't we just admit this fact and work from there ? Rather than do this, we continually inflate the top of the grade scale, first with 'A stars' and now with 'Super A stars'. Logically, we should be looking at a return to the former system, in which top performers gained an 'A' and the grades then descended through 'B' to 'F' and beyond but no, this would cause distress to those awarded the lowest grades so we keep the myth that every 'F' has the same value and, instead, extend the top end of the scale.

I know 1984 has come and gone long ago, but not even George Orwell could have imagined this type of madness.

HAIRSTYLE IS A CHOICE, NOT A RIGHT.

A school in the area in which I used to live, St Gregory's in Kenton, Harrow, has been judged to have discriminated against a boy due to his hair style.

The school has a dress code that includes not allowing certain hairstyles. The boy, apparently from an 'ethnic' background, has a hairstyle that the school does not permit and would not change it; consequently, he was refused a place. The matter went to court and now judges have decided that the school's position is "not unlawful in itself, but should have taken into account the individual pupil's family tradition". It would seem that the boy has a right to his hairstyle, enshrined in law.

This is sheer bunkum. If a child is from a family of naturists, should he or she be allowed to attend school naked ? Should they be allowed to wear jeans and tee-shirts because they are Americans ? If the family tradition is for arranged marriage at 12, should we allow that too ? We fall over ourselves to maintain societal differences, while ignoring the critical need to create a society that sees itself as a single entity. The boy in question should be, and is, perfectly free to do what he likes, within the law, while he's at home; while at school, and later at work, he should be required to conform to the rules that are the traditions of THIS country, not some homeland from which his family have migrated. Hairstyle is a choice, not a right.

FATHERS ARE NOT ALL BAD.

David Cameron has, reportedly, penned an article in today's 'Sunday Telegraph' in which he condemns those he tersm 'runaway dads'. He believes that such individuals should be stigmatised by Society as it is simply not acceptable for single mothers to be left to bring up children on their own.

On one level, Cameron is certainly correct but there can be little doubt that he has also shown himself, yet again, to be horribly divorced from the Society that most of us live in. Of course, there are men who fail to act responsibly and desert their children, but there are also women whose behaviour is such as to leave them uncertain who the father of their child might be; it is not uncommon, in the real world, for some such women to accumulate several children by several different men without even being sure who the men are. Some women (not just men) are unfaithful to their partners and the resultant children may not even be aware of their true parentage; when the sinned-against partner discovers the true, the true father may have disappeared from the scene without knowing that he has a child. In a Society in which marriage is no longer the universal bond it once was, when relationships break down the parties inevitably go their separate ways, often with great acrimony; some mothers may no longer wish their former partners to have any part in their childrens' lives. Indeed, some families may now have such a confused mixture of children and relationships that trying to determe who should bear ultimate responsibility for them may be not just be difficult but might also be highly damaging to the family group.

Men have already become the downtrodden element in our modern world. They are vilified at every turn; they are discriminated against as 'positive discrimination' is brought to bear for women. Many men are frightened of being seen with small children and they are viewed with suspicion whenever they undertake activities with children of any age. Even the laws have been amended to make it easier for women to cry 'Rape' and gain a conviction, notwithstanding their drunkeness and debauched behaviour. Now Cameron wants to introduce yet another stick with which to beat us.

Cameron and his like live in a world of tradition in which marriage and 2.4 children is not just the norm but is almost mandatory. While these types look to condemn those who are not "PLU" (People Like Us), they have also overseen changes to our Society which have seen marriage downgraded and aligned with 'civil partnerships' for homosexuals; they approve the spending of substantial sums on free fertility treatments for all and sundry, rather than point out that having babies is not a right, it's a responsibility. They've introduced ludicrous benefits and advantages for unmarried mothers and, in particular, for teenage single mothers that have surely encouraged some young girls to see pregnancy as a means to gain independence from their parents. They have done little to really track down errant fathers and, in this respect, are far less effective than were the Parish officials of 200 years ago.

Another aspect that Cameron seems to have forgotten is that in some cultures, mens' attitude to fatherhood is very different to that of our indigenous western population; given the propensity of the courts to interpret human rights and anti-discrimination legislation in some very odd ways, Cameron's position could easily be seen as discriminatory towards such communities, rightly or wrongly.

Before he condemns 'runaway fathers' Cameron needs to look again at the Society in which we now live. He needs to acknowledge the mess that it is and take steps to turn the clock back to a more ordered and responsible time. In short, he needs to go back to the drawing board.

WHO NEEDS WEEKLY WASTE COLLECTIONS ? NOT I !

It's reported today that the Government is back-tracking on its earlier promise to reinstate weekly household waste collections. This is, clearly, yet another example of this Government undertaking a massive 'u-turn', but one has to ask why they made the committment in the first place.

I have never filled my standard size 'black bin' with ordinary household waste. Recycling arrangements mean that paper, cardboard, plastics, glass and cans are all collected separately, along with garden waste, with collections being on alternate weeks - week 1 is the black bin, week 2 is everything else. Additionally, green kitchen waste can be disposed of with the garden waste, or composted, leaving very little that has nowhere to go other than in the black bin. I could probably survive quite well with 2 MONTHLY collections and, for the life of me, I fail to see why even families of 5, 6, or more, can't manage their waste within a 2 week cycle. In my borough, larger familes can ask for a larger bin, too, so why they should have a problem is beyond me. Yes, some waste may begin to decompose and smell but, wrapped in a plastic bag and enclosed in the lidded plastic bin, that really shouldn't be an issue.

To me, the problem is a simple one. Too many people buy too much convenience food, and other items, all prepackaged in plastic and cardboard, and can't be bothered with separating the components; additionally, we waste far too much cooked food partly due to the prepackaged stuff usually being in specific quantities that may not be appropriate for our individual needs. Families with babies use vast quantities of 'disposable' nappies which aren't truly 'disposable' at all - they all end up in the balck bin.

When I was a child, the dustman used to walk through the house to collect the metal dusbin from the back garden, carried it through to empty into the dustcart, and then returned it from whence it had come. My family of 4 had one dustbin, significantly smaller in volume than today's black bins, and all the waste, including papers, cardboard, cans etc., went in it, and yet I never recall there being a problem. Even in those distant days, much of the fresh kitchen waste - potato peelings or dodgy cabbage leaves - went on dad's compost heap and I don't recall the dustbin ever overflowing. Yes, the collections were weekly, but all the different types of waste were collected at the same time, with modern recycling not yet invented.

It seems that the passage of time has resulted in a 'convenience world' in which everything has to be made as simple as possible, one in which individuals have to do as little as possible while the state, in all its guises, services our every whim. In truth, it's time the state, and that really means the sensible but silent majority,

fought back.

TIME TO BATH WITH A FRIEND.

After one of the coldest winters in recent times, we are now facing drought in eastern England. Not so long ago, it was floods in both the south-west and north-west and one might be excused for wondering how we can journey so easily and swiftly from flood to drought, though it will take someone smarter than I to explain that one.

Today's announcement from Severn Trent Water that restrictions may have to be brought in if there is no substantial rain in the near future is hardly unexpected but it is a harsh reminder of more difficult times ahead. This spring has seen rainfall at little more than a fifth of average levels in many places and, with some water companies still failing to achieve leakage reduction targets, levels of underground reserves are becoming dangerously low. Hosepipe bans seem inevitable, and other restrictions may also have to be introduced as we struggle to cope.

How this situation can arise is one of the mysteries of the modern world. Britain is an island surrounded by water and fish and built on coal, and yet our fishing industry has all but died, we have regular warnings of drought, and our fuel costs are soaring. Only incompetence of an enormous magnitude could have achieved such a triumph of disaster in the face of plenty.

Of course, many experts will be trotted out to tell us that the latest water shortages are a consequence of 'global warming', while the likes of Nigel Lawson will tell us that it's nothing of the sort. Government ministers will make earnest pronouncements and the water companies will be told that 'something must be done', though nothing meaningful will be. Water prices will rise as the companies tell us that they need to put more investment into their infrastructures and next year, or the years after, there will still be drought.

Surrounded as we are by incompetent politicians and companies whose first duty is to their shareholders, there seems little chance of respite. Batten down the hatches, stop flushing, bath with a friend and do the washing in the used bath-water - wartime, all over again.

ROWAN WILLIAMS : A TROUBLESOME PRIEST GONE TOO FAR.

The 'Bearded Wonder' that is Rowan Williams (I always think Atkinson), our Archbishop of Canterbury, is, apparently, unhappy with the Government. He has put his name to an article in the left-wing magazine, 'The New Statesman' that criticises the Government's approach to the welfare state, accusing it of implementing changes that were not in any manifesto and that are causing great concern to the population in general. One of his points is that :

"the comprehensive reworking of the Education Act 1944 that is now going forward might well be regarded as a proper matter for open probing in the context of election debates. The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument."

To me, and I freely admit that I am rather too old to be directly involved in the education system, this statement is pure drivel. The previous Government made an assortment of changes to the education system that the current lot seem to be doing no more than accelerating. The issues involved have been known about for many years and have crossed at least 2, if not 3, general elections. Where the 'anxiety and anger' is, I have yet to discover, as friends and family who have children at school seem quite relaxed about the situation, if they're even aware of it.

Governments always change things; they fiddle in order to make their mark, usually to no effect though occasionally they do make a difference. The current Government has no choice but to pull back on the services it provides directly, such as health, welfare and education, due to the profligacy of the previous incumbents and the inherent lack of dynamism in the UK economy. Archbishop Williams, as a socialist, wants to see the Government supporting every lost cause and every element of life, while taking all responsibility away from families and parents in order to ensure that everyone is 'saved'. In following this line, he would deny everyone the right to any self-determination, as the State, and people like himself, obviously know better than we do and can rightly tell us how to live our lives; at the same time, he would have the State spend vast amounts of money that it does not have. 

Williams gives no suggestions as to how the Government should make good the vast overspending of our current national budget without reducing spending on public services; he simply criticises, in somewhat oblique and opaque language, the Government's actions. He fails to acknowledge, in any way, that our country is, and has been, living beyond its means for many years, even decades, and that the chickens are finally coming home to roost. In short, the man is totally blinkered by his own privileged and protected environment.

As is usual with the deeply socialist Archbishop, he uses 20 words when 1 would do; his language is often difficult, if not impenetrable. He is, after all, a man of 'immense intellect' who understands much more than do ordinary folk, or so goes the mantra attaching to him. The truth is that this man is someone who is blinded by his perception of his own position, importance and insight; he sees himself as a purveyor of hugely important truths that only he perceives.

The truth is that this churchman is a fool. 841 years ago, Thomas A'Beckett fell out with his King and the King, Henry II, famously called for someone to 'rid me of this troublesome priest'. Today we no longer have an all-powerful monarch who can call for such action nor do we have readily available knights who will carry out such tasks, but Williams could still find himself shunted towards early retirement if he's not careful. He is a man who knows little of the real world, having spent most of his pre-Archbishopric life in academia; his only other experience seems to have been 3 years curacy almost 30 years ago. He may well be a great academic, but that is no excuse for making public pronouncements about matters on which he should keep his own counsel.

David Cameron has let it be known that the Archbishop is well within his rights to voice his opinions but that he, Cameron, does not agree with them; Cameron is doing no more than being polite and diplomatic. Williams is stepping into clear political territory and should not do so; he is the voice of the nation's spirtitual and religious thoughts, not of its political views. As such, Archbishop Williams should be encouraging his flock to do what they can to accept and 'embrace' the inevitable hardships that are coming, not trying to stir up dissent. The man is a walking disaster and should never have been appointed; anyone with half a brain knew that back in 2002 but now can only watch the consequential mess unfold.

Sadly, in these enlightened days, no one can rid us of this troublesome priest; we're lumbered with him for a good few years yet.

FIFA DESCENDS FURTHER INTO THE PIT.

Despite the efforts of the Football Association and their Scottish allies, FIFA duly went ahead with the coronation of their discredited President yesterday. Indeed, from odd news clips broadcast on the BBC, it seems that not only was there little support for the opponents of Sepp Blatter but several FIFA representatives, from such mighty footballing nations as Cyprus, openly sneered at the efforts to delay the election until the current crop of corruption allegations have been properly investigated.

Blatter has promised to bring about a range of reforms during his new term in charge, but history suggests little will really change. Blatter will continue to enjoy the status of an international leader, trotting around the world and being feted by all those desirous of earning his favour, and the gravy train will roll on. Those who already enjoy the largesse that membership of this organisation brings will hardly be enthusiastic in bringing about any changes that will reduce their benefits, and corruption will remain rife.

The FA will probably argue that it's better to try to reform FIFA from within than from without, but this is nonsense; FIFA is irredeemable and the only honest action would be to withdraw entirely. In due course, other major footballing nations would follow and FIFA would be left with a rump of countries that have little footballing heritage. That this scenario is unlikely is obvious; the FA doesn't have the bottle to act in any serious way and we can look forward to a repeat of the recent events in 4 years time, when FIFA is called upon to elect Blatter yet again or, failing that, his annointed successor, unopposed.

FIFA IS NOW A JOKE.

FIFA has to be the biggest, and most appalling, example of corruption ever seen.

The last few days have seen the only candidate opposing the current incumbent in the forthcoming Presidential election, Mohamed bin Hammam, accused of bribery and now suspended pending further investigations. At the same time, the current President, Sepp Blatter, has himself somehow contrived to be accused of something of which he has been cleared by the FIFA Ethics Committee. One has to wonder whether Blatter's own indictment was simply a mechanim designed to give the organisation an opportunity to tell everyone that he was 'clean'.

The upshot is that Blatter now has a clear run for the re-election he has so yearned and, no doubt, most nations will vote for him in order to remain in favour. A few, the FA included, will abstain but it is a shocking indictment of world football that their governing body is being allowed to carry on regardless even after plumbing the depths of such dirty dealings. Blatter has presided over years of alleged corruption and has done nothing about it; suddenly, the organisation has roused itself and taken action, but against Blatter's only rival for the top job. That this smacks of political intrigue can not be a coincidence. 

By the end of his next Presidential term, Blatter will be 80; what possible connection with, or understanding of, modern football can he then have ? Will he even survive or, if he does, still be capable of carrying out his role ? It is utterly ludicrous that a person of his age should be considered for, let alone elected to, a post of such international standing. Why doesn't anyone of sufficient status say so ?

KILLER CUCUMBERS TAKE THEIR TOLL.

One of today's news items concerns the extraordinary story of contaminated cucumbers causing a number of deaths in Germany. The cucumbers, believed to have been imported from Spain, have become infected with the E.coli bacterium which has caused some very nasty illness and some 10 deaths.

One wonders if the CIA have taken note of the possibilities attaching to these events ?

IF YOU'RE OLD, DON'T GO INTO HOSPITAL.

The government quango responsible for monitoring the performance of hospitals and care homes, the 'Care Quality Commission', has reported that a number of NHS hospitals have given cause for serious concern with regard to the way thay have been treating elderly patients. This is the umpteenth time that this type of concern has been raised and, as usual, there'll be lots of hot air but very little action as a result.

From my own experience, I know very well that elderly patients are poorly served in hospital. Patients who need help with toileting or washing simply have to wait until a care assistant, forget the nurses, they're too busy doing much more important things, can get to them. When breakfast, lunch or dinner arrive, the meals are simply placed in front of the patients, who are then left to get on with it; an hour or so later, the food is removed and, although there are forms to fill in to record what's been eaten, I've seen these completed in a truly mythical fashion. It is rare in the extreme for any staff to take an interest in the patients to the extent of noticing that they may need help or encouragement in eating their meals and it astonishes me that patients don't die from malnutrition on a daily basis. It is, of course, well known that most people lose significant weight when in hospital and this is just accepted as being a consequence of their illnesses; I suspect it's far more a consequence of the largely unappealing nature of the food presented to them and the total lack of concern about whether meals are eaten or not shown by staff.

The staffing of hospital wards, and the modern 'bayed' lay-out, do not lend themselves to providing anything other than the most basic level of care. Wards in which patients are physically fit are not a problem in this respect, but wards with physically dependent patients simply cannot cope with the demands; many make no secret of the fact and actually encourage friends and relatives to help out with tasks such as feeding. In such an environment, is it any wonder that those who experience the poorest levels of care are the elderly ?

The only solution to this problem is to look at the funding issues involved in the NHS. It is never going to be able to provide the level of personal, as well as medical, care that older and less able-bodied patients often need, without deploying greater resources; it makes sense that patients should contribute to the hotel and social care elements of their time in hospital. Putting these 2 issues together could be the start of a resolution but it's doubtful any politician will be brave enough to suggest it.

NSPCC SEX ABUSE FIGURES ARE MEANINGLESS.

Today's news stories include one claiming that sexual offences against children rose by 8% from 2008/9 to 2009/10. The police reportedly recorded some 23,000 offences according to information obtained by the NSPCC. The Home Office, of course, has said that the figures are appalling.

On the face of things, these figures are certainly suggestive of a fairly appalling situation, however, there is no further detail and what the figures really show is open to interpretation. The NSPCC, which obviously has its own corner to fight, will obviously claim that they show that thousands of defenceless children are being abused and something must be done to prevent it. The Home Office statement appears to be pretty ambivalent - saying that the figures are 'appalling' is as near to saying nothing as they can get but, without any further details, what more can they sensibly say ?

What the figures do is to raise additional questions. Was there any change in the recording methodology between the 2 years in question ? Was there any change in policing methods or emphasis between the 2 years ? What counted as an 'offence' ? How many of the recorded instances ended in arrest, caution or prosecution ? How many of the associated accusations were later withdrawn or found to be groundless ? How many prosecutions were successful ?

Without answers to these questions, and others, the figures publicised today are actually meaningless, and that is appalling.

FIFA - AS CORRUPT AS IT GETS.

FIFA continues to amaze.

Just days before the election for its next President, the only candidate opposing the current incumbent ihas been accused of serious corruption, along with the current vice-President. Sepp Blatter, the current President, has immediately announced, in extremely strong terms, that FIFA will not stand for corrupt practices and there will be an inquiry by their Ethics Committee within the next 3 or 4 days.

Given the other recent allegations of corruption which have met a stoney silence, this sudden activity is astonishing. FIFA has faced allegations of corruption for years and has done absolutely nothing about them; indeed, it has steadfastly denied all charges of wrong-doing by anyone and everyone associated with them. It can be no coincidence that this latest change of heart is so close to a Presidential election nor that the allegations involve the one obstacle to Blatter serving yet another term in his position of authority, privilege and abuse.

The timing of these events is so coincidental as to be impossible. It is clear that the charges are part of a conspiracy to try to ensure that Blatter achieves his aim of another Presidential term; at the same time, it is clear that such an outcome will ensure the survivial of the existing FIFA system of total corruption and incompetence in the management of the world's most popular game.

With any luck, the plan will fail and Blatter will be defeated, notwithstanding the attempt to blacken the name of his opponent; with any luck.

CAMERON AND OBAMA BARBECUED.

Watching Cameron and Obama pretending to be great barbecue hosts makes me wonder why anyone actually voted for these two men to be the leaders of 2 important nations.

They are meant to be serious politicians, responsible for the health and future of 2 great countries, instead they play the parts of fools for the camera. The 'photo-shoot' or 'photo-opportunity' is all; let's give the media something that will appeal to the masses and perhaps they'll forget, if they ever knew, what else we're up to.

Where are the real leaders who will treat us like mature adults rather than ballot-box fodder ?

These 2 men are a disgrace.

DISABLED COUNCILS MUST BITE THE BULLET.

Councils that are attempting to avoid more general cost reductions by reducing services to the elderly and disabled have been dealt a blow by today's ruling in the High Court against Birmingham City Council. The Court ruled that councils must take account of peoples' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others in order to comply with anti-discrimination legislation.

What gets me is why it is that councils should try to save money by reducing services to the elderly and disabled. Why don't they first look at services to the very abled, those more than able to look after themselves ? Gay and lesbian centres, youth centres, services for young mothers etc., etc. Why can't these disparate groups look out for themselves, if necessary, with support from voluntary and/or charitable organistions ?

Councils need to sort out what they must do from what they'd, ideologically, like to do, long before they start cutting truly essential services.

OBAMA; MAN ON A MISSION

I never cease to be amazed by the ability of politicians to change sides seamlessly.

Not very long ago, countries such as Egypt, Libya and Syria had full support from most of the western world, including the USA. In the last few weeks, the USA initially withdrew support from President Mubarak in Egypt, then from Gaddafi in Libya and now from Assad in Syria. Nothing has really changed in any of these countries except that internal events suggested that it might be in the interests of the USA to  support local populist uprisings, which they did. Egypt got rid of Mubarak in a relatively bloodless coup, though what will happen to the ex-President may be less than bloodless; Gaddafi is intent on ensuring that his country will sink with him, and we have yet to find out how Assad will decide to respond.

At the same time that the USA was making these somersaults, so were many other western nations, including our own. All of a sudden, foreign leaders that we'd been happy to trade with for years, or even decades, were declared 'beyond the pale', ' persona non grata' and so on. Why this sudden change in approach ? Is this just politicianns being fickle ?

I suspect the truth is that, in the continuing aftermath of the 'Cold War', there has to be an enemy to confront in order to maintain the fiction that some countries have to have a controlling influence in order to prevent Armageddon. The Americans initially rounded on Iraq, then the focus moved to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, and now we've moved on to 'what comes next ?'. Armed forces need exercise and practice, weapons need real trials and, in the absence of a real enemy, states have to manufacture threats to justify the use of their forces in conflict situations. Hence, we invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and will quite probably invade Syria before long; then it may well be Iran. The one middle-east country that's immune from invasion or censure is Israel, the made-up country that the USA will support until doomsday because of its own over-riding political interests, and yet he even appears to be suggesting they need to change their approach.

President Obama has said that the USA will now support 'reform' in the Arab world, including its 'transition to democracy'. Will he also really support the Palestinians who have been so shockingly subjugated by Israel ? Is democracy what everyone really needs or wants ? The truth is that Obama needs to build a platform on which to base his re-election campaign next year and he is currently in trouble. So far, he's achieved very little and is in danger of being the worst President, other than his immediate predecesor, since at least the 1920s; making a lot of jingoistic noise and pretending to save the world is an ideal way of improving his position. God Help the rest of us while he gets on with his own career.

THE FA NEEDS MORE BALLS.

I've just read a news story which says that the English Football Association (the FA) intends to abstain in the vote for the election of the next President of FIFA, the world football body.

Half-way good for them, I say. Both of the candidates are tainted and neither is likely to bring about the changes necessary if football is ever to become a 'clean' sport. Why did the FA not make a real gesture and put up its own candidate ? Why have they not threatened to withdraw from FIFA unless there is real reform ?

Sadly, their decision to simply abstain in the vote is an indication that they are powerless to influence affairs, but that they'd rather not be blamed for future events, if that's ok, Mi'lud. It also indicates that no one actually gives a damn what they think, that they, themselves, don't really want to rock the boat too much for fear of falling off of the gravy train, and that corruption is acceptable. Who cares about football or probity when there's money to be made ?

RAILWAY USERS' HELL.

It's reported today that a government-commissioned study into the railways is to recommend all manner of changes to the rail system, including a complete revamp of current ticketing and fares.

Years ago, we had British Rail which owned and managed everything as a publicly owned body. Then we decided this wasn't efficient - it certainly wasn't - and sold off all the pieces to a variety of dfferent organisations. We had Railtrack, which had responsibility for the infrastructure of lines, signalling, and stations, and a host of train operating and freight operating companies. Inevitably, this fragmentation led to all sorts of problems and some of the parties involved have failed to survive, most notably Railtrack, which was wound up in 2002, its assets being transferred to a new, pseudo state-owned company, Network Rail.

Over recent years, passenger fares have skyrocketted while the facilities offered have declined; many stations have little in the way of staff, ticket offices are rarely open, and they've become scruffy and unattractive. Some towns and villages may well have sufferred as a result of the unappealing state of their stations, not to mention the infrequent and unreliable nature of the services available.

Now, Sir Roy McNulty, the man appointed by the government to conduct the study, has apparently made recommendations that include a complete review of fares, reducing staff, still further, and a variety of organisational changes which seem likely to take us back towards more of the former British Rail model by re-integrating elements of the services.

Will government never learn ? They tinker, screw things up and then tinker some more; there's always another expert lurking round the corner to offer advice on how to make things better, and they always make things worse. This country is crumbling under the burden of state intervention in every area of life; our main roads are clogged, our railways grotesquely inefficient, overcrowded and overpriced. While we are constantly cajoled for using our cars and fuel prices rise to stratospheric levels, in many parts of the country there is no alternative as the railways no longer exist, courtesy of another government review, in 1963, by the infamous Dr Beeching.

Rail users can expect no solace from this latest review. Fares will rise for many users and services will be reduced; there'll be even fewer stations with manned ticket offices and rural stations will become less and less looked after. Until the next review, in 2016, of course, when it'll all be put right, again.