MUGABE : FRIEND OF ROME.

In keeping with its medieval nature, the Roman Catholic church is all set to 'Beatify, the last pope, John Paul II, in Rome tomorrow. Beatification is a step on the road to sainthood and relies on the subject having been accredited with performing at least one confirmed miracle since his death. Apparently, John Paul is now deemed to have been responsible for the 'miraculous' cure of a nun with Parkinson's Disease, something he achieved in early 2006, 9 months or so after his death.

Yes, well, to many of us, this is all a load of tosh, though to many millions of Catholics throughout the world, it's obviously a matter of supreme significance. Leaving aside the matter as to whether or not there is any sense or logic in the behaviour of religious groups, what is undeniable is that the guest list for the event in Rome tomorrow is highly questionable in at least one respect.

Robert Mugabe, the vicious thug who's run Zimbabwe into the ground over the last 30 or so years, has already arrived in Rome, despite there being a ban on him travelling to any member state of the European Union due to his generally disgusting behaviour and total disregard for anything that might be referred to as 'Human Rights'. Although the Vatican is an independent state and not a member of the European Union, surely inviting a creature like Mugabe to attend an important state occasion raises the most serious questions about the Vatican's own moral standing; that Mugabe has been invited to a gathering to recognise the enormous good done by a former Pope, is inexplicable.

If Mugabe were not the black dictator of a former British colonial state, he would have been removed from power by the UN, US or whomever, long ago. This man is the personification of evil and his attendance at the Vatican tomorrow is akin to Britain having invited Stalin to a Royal Wedding or Hitler to a Coronation. Whether or not Catholics are right in their blind faith that Pope John Paul II has really performed a miracle from beyond the grave, the Catholic Church is utterly wrong in its choice of friends.

TEACHERS STRIKE WILL HURT NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES

It is with great amusement that I read that the NUT has voted for a campaign of industrial action against proposed cuts to their pension arrangements.,

Let's be absolutely clear about this. No teacher, or other public sector worker, will lose any entitlements already accrued; anyone who is close to retirement will almost certainly find that their position is entirely unchanged. What is being proposed is that future pensions cannot be sustained at the rates of current pensions without their being substantial changes to both contributions and pension types. Given that the population is ageing dramatically, this is obvious and is inevitable, even without considering the dire financial position in which the country has found itself.

The antediluvian attitudes of trades unions such as the NUT is only to be expected. They automatically resist every change that doesn't actually give their members more money for fewer hours, in a way that resembles the behaviour of a Black Hole; everything goes in and nothing comes back. These organisations once served an important social function and achieved much but they are now outdated, self-defeating dinosaurs, wedded to a philosophy that is long gone.

The country cannot afford to maintain the bloated State that currently exists - 1 in 4 employees now works for the State, something more normal in a Communist State than in a Western Democracy. This means that changes have to be made. Most companies have already changed their pensions schemes due to the unaffordability of what went before; the State now has to do the same and to argue against this is to play the part of King Canute.

There was a time when being a teacher was a vocation. People entered this profession, not for the financial reward, but for the joy of passing on their knowledge to the next generation; they worked for decades, often in the same school. only too happy to have served a genuine public good. Now, they argue about money and conditons; teachers today work far fewer hours than they did when I was the recipient of their, often, invaluable knowledge and insights. It is no longer a vocation, it's simply another job.

In my days, teachers actually taught children. The children took worthwhile examinations and left school with useful knowledge, qualifications and / or experience. Today. most of them seem to learn very little and the examinations appear to be largely pointless, aimed more at producing statistics for Government use than anything else. Teachers going on strike for a day, a week, a month or even a year, will, in no way, incommode their pupils; many may even benefit from stand-in arrangements. The people who will be inconvenienced will be the parents who have abdicated all responsibility for their children and left them to the mercy of the State system; they will have to look after their own children for a change, which is about time.

Teachers' strike ? BRING IT ON ! Let's show these greedy self-obsessed individuals that anyone can be a teacher; let's teach our own children, and we'll do a much better job than the schools currently do.

WHERE'S MY INVITATION ?

I hear that the names of some of those invited to next week's big event have been released to the press and I can only despair.

As well as finding that I am not on the list myself, I understand that the marriage of our future King and Queen is to be graced by the presence of such dignitaries as Elton John and the Beckams. As someone of my acquaintance would undoutedly say 'You're havin' a laugh, aren't you ?'.

We are not talking about a 'Celebrity Wedding' here, it isn't a wedding of some minor royal and a rugby player, nor of the latest pop sensation or film wonder. THIS IS THE WEDDING OF THE FUTURE KING AND QUEEN.

I find it utterly shocking that such an occasion has now become just another part of the media celebrity circus. That the Royal Family and Government have allowed this to happen is a shocking indictment of how far this country and its rulers have fallen in recent years.

One has to assume that 'Hello' or 'OK' have already acquired the rights to the pictures and will soon be squabbling over the rights to the first-born. If ever there was an arguement for a Republic, surely this is it.

ALCOHOL, CANCER AND THE BBC.

Today, it's being reported on BBC teletext that 10% of cancers in men and 3% of cancers in women are caused by the consumption of alcohol. This is, apparently, the conclusion of a Europe-wide study and is reported in the BMJ, and it's also reported that there is a substantially increased risk from drinking as little as one pint of beer a day.

Listening to 2 eminent doctors on the radio this morning, it is clear that the truth is rather different to the reports. I haven't read the BMJ article but then very few people will; those who take any notice will rely on the various reports in the media and seem to be in serious danger of being mislead, if not of succumbing to cancer.

Both of the doctors involved in the early morning discussion, Karol Sikora and Ian Gilmore, were clearly anti-drinking, but they also made it very clear that while alcohol may be associated with as many incidences of cancer as reported, it probably DID NOT directly cause many of them. The suggestion was that the risk was raised by alcohol consumption and risk is an interesting concept; if my innate risk is 1-in-1000, and my friend's is 1-in-100, alcohol may raise the risk for both of us but he's still 10 times more likely to suffer than I due to innate factors over which neither of us has any real control.

The truth, as stated by Professor Sikora, appears to be that those who drink heavily tend to have generally unhealthy lifestyles - poor diet, inadequate exercise etc.- and the increased risks from drinking alcohol are associated just as much with these lifestyles as with the alcohol itself. To me, the BBC's report is a potentially disingenuous use of a scientific study, aimed at promoting a particular point of view that is not fully supported by the facts. The 'pinkoes' and 'do-gooders' at the dear old Beeb are at it again.

NHS DEBACLE.

Listening to another bunch of politicians telling me that the NHS is their number one priority or is safe in their hands makes me want to commit hara-kiri. Cameron and his cronies have no more idea about sorting out the NHS than have any other politicians since 1970. The problem is that there is no simple solution and this seems to be the conclusion that's been forced on the Government as it's announced a 'pause' in the passage of the latest reform package.

Doctors will always want to do the best for their own specialty, and the ones who shout loudest, and have the most appealing causes, are the ones who get the money. This is why we've failed to invest in areas such as care of the elderly and terminal care, male cancers and arthritis, while pouring resources into the nebulous fields of psychiatry and psychology, female cancers, and anything that vaguely appeals to a younger age group. Money has followed the outcries because that's how politicians get re-elected.

Whatever these idiots say, we all know that politicians have only a political interest in the NHS; they don't have any real understanding of how it works or what is does. Many of our political leaders are in the happy position of being able to switch to private healthcare whenever they like or, at the very least, are comfortable in the knowledge that their high public profile will ensure they are never at the end of a queue or treated poorly. They have no idea about what happens to the ordinary man-in-the-street. The likes of the current Health Secreatray, Andrew Lansley, and a previous one whom I met, Stephen Dorrell, have as much understanding of the NHS as I do of 15th century art - zilch.

Having worked in the NHS for many years, at a very senior level for a good few of them, I know more about the ins-and-outs than the likes of Cameron and his acolytes will ever know. It is frighteneing and not a little shocking to hear some of the utter rubbish that is talked by these totally uninformed people. The idea that GPs should be handed the vast bulk of the budget to manage is laughable and terrifying; inevitably, much money will be wasted on pet schemes, experimental therapies and employing their consultant friends, not because they want to waste it, but because they are not expert in the art of managing scarce, and diminishing, resources.

Doctors are good at what they do; they are not accountants, they are not general managers. In terms of the NHS, they know about their own field of expertise - doctoring; they do not know about general or financial management on the scale of hospitals, some with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. Of course, they can always employ experts to advise them, but then we're back to where we started, having thrown the whole pack of cards in the air and created an enormous mess to get there. 

This may be unfair on some doctors but, as a generality, it is true. Some GPs may well want the 'buzz' of having a huge budget to play with - god help us if they ever get the chance. From my own experiences at the time of 'GP Fundholding' in the early 1990s, I know very well that some GPs are far from averse to using such a power to line their own pockets and those of their hospitial consultant friends, rather than actually worrying too much about their patients. There were cases in which the power of money went to their heads and they were all too willing to virtually hold hospitals to ransom. We do not want, and cannot afford, any repetition of these scenarios.

Sadly, what politicians love is to make a name and 'do something'; far too often they feel an irresistible urge to 'do something', when doing nothing would be far better. It's as if 'doing something' was their very lifeblood. Ever since its foundation in 1948, the NHS has been used as a political football; it's been re-organized more times than I've changed my socks and all we have to show for this 'action' is a disorganized and demoralized service. Vast sums of money have been wasted on computer systems, management consultants, pricing mechanisms, pay restructuring and so on. What the NHS needs is a period of genuine stability in which it is allowed to use the resources at its command to solve its own problems. By all means, set up a high-powered board, peopled by genuine experts, let them determine a future course and then let them implement it - not over 2 or 5 years, but over 10 or 20 years, WITH AN ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE THAT THERE'LL BE NO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN THAT TIME. 

Fat chance of that ever happening, when there's so much apparent political capital to be made out of each and every reorganization.  Time to join BUPA, I think.

IRELAND : AFGHANISTAN ON THE DOORSTEP.

I see that a young policeman has been killed in Northern Ireland by a bomb planted under his car. Forget Afghanistan and Iraq, we have our own insurrection on the doorstep.

Despite all of the efforts made over many decades, there are still fanatics who seem to believe that violence against entirely innocent people is a justified response to their grievances. That their grievances are born out of religious differences makes the situation even more poignant.

The 'Irish Problem' has dogged successive UK Governments for centuries; it is akin to the arguments put forward by occupied territories all over the globe and is incapable of resolution without some compromise by both sides. In Ireland, a compromise of sorts was arrived at a few years ago when the IRA agreed a ceasefire and politicians took centre stage. Since then nothing more has happened and it is inevitable that young firebrands will see this as a betrayal; they will want to 'up the ante' and start to put more pressure on the UK Government to move towards their aim which is a united Ireland.

The question to be answered is 'Why is Ireland divided ?' Ireland was a separate entity in historical times and English kings had a tenuous hold on it; before Henry VIII, they were styled as 'Lords of Ireland' while exerting varying degrees of influence over the country. Henry changed his style to 'King of Ireland' but it wasn't until 1801 that Ireland was officially absorbed into the United Kingdom. It stayed that way until 1922 when, due to continuing unrest, the Irish Free State, was created as a breakaway entity.

There is no logic to any island of this size being divided into 2 separate nations, let alone having one of them as nothing but a part of a different country. The only reason for the division is religious; the south is catholic, the north is protestant. Are we living in the dark ages ? The division in 1922 was a political answer to what is a religious issue; there is no logical reason for Ireland, as a whole, to be anything other than an independent country. Can these people, all Christian, not find a way of living together ? Isn't one's religion a private matter, quite separate from everyday life ? In Ireland it seems that the reformation created issues that have never been resolved and probably never will be.

These days we still seem to have terrorists, masquerading as religious zealots, who are intent on forcing a reunification at all cost. Reunification should happen; there is no reason, other than religious bigotry, that it should not, but killing policemen is not the way.

TERRY JONES LEADS US TO ARMAGEDDON.

The killings in Afghanistan in the last couples of days, following the burning of a Qur'an in the US, show just how mad some people are and just how destructive religion is. On the one hand we have fanatics in Afghanistan who supposedly follow Islam and, on the other, the maniacal followers of a so-called 'pastor', Terry Jones, in the US.

The Afghans, at least, have the excuse that they live in one of the most backward and uncivilised nations on Earth; their everyday lives are what westerners would consider as being medieval. That they adhere so fervently to the supposed teachings of a figure who died nearly 1400 years ago is, to some extent, understandable, given the nature of their society. This is not to excuse their actions but to find some basis for them.

As for the real madman in this story, Terry Jones, he has no excuse and should be roundly condemned. He lives in the richest country on Earth and one which espouses equality and liberty for all; freedom of expression is something almosy sacred to the US. He, of course, follow the teachings of a figure who died almost 2,000 years ago, so has a sort of 'religious superiority' over his Afghan counterparts which he has exhibited by being every bit as fanatical as they. Jones is fully entitled to express his opinions in accordance with the US Constitution, but, as a professed Christian, where is the tolerance ? Where is the Christian charity ? How about a bit of 'cheek turning' ? Presumably, Jones does not believe that equality and freedom of expression apply to those of whom he disapproves and, therefore, he does not need to show them tolerance or charity either.

What Jones has done in publically burning a copy of the Qur'an flies in the face of all that his country supposedly holds dear. What will he turn his torch to next - the Talmud or, perhaps, a version of the Christian bible that he doesn't like ? Jones is an appalling bigot and his followers must be the same; one wonders why his fringe activities have gained such coverage but, maybe, that is a reflection of the true nature of wider US society. Perhaps we are wrong to see the US as a fount of all that is good; perhaps it is, in reality, every bit as medieval in many of its ways as is Afghanistan. It is certainly the case that 'Christian fundamentalism' is rampant in the US, mirroring the backward-looking and largely uncivilised societies of much of the third world.

There are no 'rights and wrongs' in this matter; everyone is so wrong that it is painful to contemplate. While the UN has condemned the Afghani militants, very little seems to have been said about 'Pastor' Jones and his actions, He may not have shot or beheaded anyone, but his deliberately provocative actions have given the Afghani lunatics more than sufficient excuse to go on the rampage. Why hasn't Jones been loudly condemned by the UN, or by his own Government ? Why does the media of the Western World not rise up and squash this appalling little man ? The answers to these questions say far more about the US and the Western World generally than they do about any third world troublemakers.