BREAST IMPLANTS ARE PRIVATE MATTER.

I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for the legion of misguided women now caught up in the row over supposedly defective breast implants. Once again, the providers of private medicine have got it wrong and are now trying to dump their mistakes on the NHS but, this time, the NHS is arguing.

The fact is that the NHS is for the treatment and prevention of illness and debility, it is not a 'backstop' for private providers who make mistakes. In the past, when private services have failed, the NHS has often had no choice but to pick up the pieces and bear the costs of putting things right; now those in authority are, rightly, saying that enough is enough.

Anyone who voluntarily, and for their own vanity, chooses to have bits of their bodies 'augmented' does so at their own cost and risk; they should ensure that the provider has adequate safeguards in place, not to mention insurance arrangements, and should also consider making their own insurance arrangements against the possibility of problems arising. The providers of these services should certainly have those safeguards and insurance, and to be now complaining, as the Harley Group are, that putting their mistakes right would bankrupt them, is risible. Potential bankruptcy cannot be used as an excuse for avoiding their clear responsibilities any more than any other company is able to do so.

It is my understanding that the immediate provider of any goods or services is responsible for any problems that arise following a transaction. In this case, the responsibility for dealing with the consequences of the misguided surgery lies with those who provided the service, that is, the private medical practitioners and clinics involved. If they wish to then pursue others further up the chain, that is a matter for them; if they have appropriate insurance, they should draw on this. What they should not do is plead impoverishment.

Private clinics and the doctors working in them have been making a very nice living from their exploitation of many very silly and vain people, mostly women. It's now time for them to return some of their substantial income and put things right for those who have been short-changed in their dealings, immediately and without argument, and in exactly the same way as any other businesses are required to do.

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 ?