Arsenal ditched Arsène Wenger, and got a new manager – anywhere near ‘winning the Premier League’ now?


When over a number of years of a long-standing destructive campaign by a group of moronic so-called Gunners supporters’ campaign undermined the position of Arsène Wenger, Arsenal’s iconic manager of 22 years, the gang finally got their wish and he was driven out last season by disgusting abusive chanting from the stands and the holding-up their anti-Wenger banners – all of which undermined and completely demoralised their team ON the field and destabilised everyone including the boardroom OFF it, didn’t it?

Now, those of us who are longstanding football fans, but not necessarily a committed supporter to a particular team, were dismayed that a manager who undoubtably had brought such respect, fame, awesome achievements, and financial stability to a major club in spite of it building a massive 60thousand capacity new stadium, could be abused in such a manner by a mob of cretins, who even managed to undermine the loyalty of the Gunners’ real supporters.

You see, the basis of the crusade to oust Wenger was that that despite other major successes, Arsenal hadn’t won the Premier League since 2004 and that a new manager would. Those of us thinking outsiders though believed otherwise, because clearly the Club was simply incapable of competing in the current Premiership marketplace for enough top players where the current massive moneybag outfits of Manchester Utd, Chelsea, Manchester City, and Liverpool have secured pride of place, eh?

Some of us were of the view that under a different manager, Arsenal would struggle to achieve what Wenger had done for many years and that included the ‘demoralised’ team’s outcomes of last season’s – league 6th place and qualification for Europe again, Europa League group stage again, winning 8 games to reached the semi-final of that Europa cup competition, the final of the UK EFL cup.

Arsenal’s new manager is Spaniard Unai Emery, ex-PSG [outed for failing to reach the semi-final of the Champions league (eliminated at the first knockout round)] despite massive spend (£500million?) and ex-Seville, who brought in five players to Arsenal last summer [costing over £70million] when he took over the squad and afterwards which he claimed was ‘complete’. Well, he is not a name that rebounds around the place even amongst Arsenal supporters and he is not now, nor likely to be in future, someone who is a beacon shinning bright for Arsenal football club, nor is he likely to be the man to help Arsenal return to competing among the Premier League’s elite, is he? [defeats already by big outfits Manchester City (h) Chelsea (a), Liverpool (a) and only draws at Liverpool (h), Manchester Utd (a)]

They say he is a bit of a football obsessive killjoy whom is not good at managing really top players, but that shouldn’t really matter at Arsenal, should it? No, HE WON’T HAVE MANY TOP PLAYERS THERE considering itsvery limited shoestring transfer budget, eh?

No, so Emery needs to rely on his coaching skills to gain success rather than the big-buys allowed at PSG, but how’s it been going for him so far this season, do you think?

Certainly, Arsenal’s better success under Emery doesn’t seem to be on the horizon, does it? Not when you look at things like the setback of their home game’s defensive system failure 2 weeks ago, when arch-rivals Tottenham, to reach the semi-finals, knocked them out of the EFL Cup– Spurs’ first away victory over Arsenal in eight years, indeed? It may well be that this Cup isn’t the highest priority of either side but nevertheless Emery shouted-off his mouth beforehand on the value of reaching a cup semi-final.

The proof in the pudding though has ultimately to be Arsenal’s competitive position in the title race since that after all was the bone of contention that the bully boys of the terraces used to oust Wenger with, wasn’t it? Well then, are Arsenal with new manager Emery on board now at last real challengers for the Premier League Title this year, eh? NOT according to the betting odds, which puts them streets behind Liverpool the current favourites, and nowhere near Manchester City who are second, nor even north London rivals Spurs, or for that matter Chelsea. Oh yes, they are level pegging with Man U who equally are a long way short as well – but that is a team that has had a torrid mis-firing season under out-of-touch sourpuss manager Jose Mourinho, who got fired a week before Christmas as a consequence [moreover, things are already looking up for them with 4 good convincing wins since then].

Last January when the anti-Wenger brigade were in full flow with their vitriol, Arsenal after 21 games under Wenger (so half-way through the season), were 5th in the Premiership and not in sight of the then leading team Manchester City. This January Arsenal after 21 games under new manager Emery, are 5th in the Premiership and not in sight of the current leading team Liverpool. IN ANY WAY OR FORM THAT DOESN’T REPRESENT A PROGRESSION TOWARDS A CHALLENGING ROLE FOR THE TITLE, does it?

Certainly not, so what have the loud-mouth louts got to say now about their great strategy of last year for outing Wenger to bring the title home to the Emirates when it just isn’t happening, eh? NOTHING? [weeks ago some fans were chanting ‘We’ve got our Arsenal back” is some kind of perverse joke, surely?]

It’s all a false dawn because the team needs to be in the top 3 to really be a genuine contender, doesn’t it? Without doubt, a top four finish would be an essential minimum start, as the Arsenal chiefs will certainly have warned Emery, as they are missing out on the tens of millions in rewards that it brings [Arsenal reached the Champions League for 19 consecutive seasons out of 22 under Wenger]. That is increasingly likely to be impossible without investing in major new signings in the January transfer window, as while the team can certainly score goals, it leaks goals itself and only 8 teams have conceded more goals than them and while their goal difference is just 15 that compares to Liverpool’s massive 40 [the problem is that Arsenal’s defenders don’t do the job they are paid for and often abandon their posts to seek glory in the attacks].


[Arsenal would have been more likely to have been in the title mix this season as one of the contenders for the title if Frenchman Wenger had stayed in post, don’t you think?]

The Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, Monkeys – lives of Primates that continue to be abused by mankind?

 Gorillas [Congo , Uganda, Rwanda] 

 Orangutans [Borneo, Sumatra Indonesia]  

Chimpanzees [central or equatorial Africa to the west, from southern Senegal across the forested belt north of the Congo River to western Uganda and western Tanzania 

Monkeys [the tropical rainforests of Africa, Central America, South America and Asia] 

Many of us will know well that Primates are the mammals in the World that are the closest biological relatives of us humans, and that is because we share almost the same DNA with them (98.4%) – they include the Great Apes of Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, plus Monkeys, and the like [of course there are many species of primates]. We humans indeed are classified also in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes, though we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24.

If we feel an affinity with such ‘wild’ animals it is because in many respects, as a species they are quite like us lot, both in characteristics and behaviours [particularly chimps]. They are highly intelligent, complex and sociable animals, which like us humans have hands with five fingers and flat fingernails (while most other animals have claws), possess full colour vision, and they also live in thriving established communities where essential bonds are formed through grooming, playing, fighting and foraging – so these primates are like us in their dislike of living solitary lives or being alone.

However, about 90% of primates live in tropical forests, where they play an integral role in the ecology of their habitat, as they help the forest by being pollinators, seed predators, and seed dispersers. So, basically those primates aren’t around us here in the affluent West, but their very existence elsewhere is nowadays threatened by us humans’ destruction of their forest home combined with exploitation by commercial hunting for food and medicine, plus commercial trade as pets.

The alarming rate of worldwide tropical forest destruction is estimated to be 200 acres PER MINUTE. Incredibly, over 40% of the 234-primate species are threatened with extinction, with 13 of these species now critically endangered – which means they will simply disappear within the next five years if greater efforts aren’t made to protect them.

Nevertheless, here in the UK we ourselves are not squeaky clean, nor guilty free of culpability in this impending catastrophe facing these creatures of a fellow species, are we? No, and that is self-evident on a number of fronts, isn’t it?

First, apart from the glaring fact that we ourselves are doing virtually NOTHING about it, there is the unacceptable incentive we are giving those producers of the termed “dirty palm oil” who are intent on destroying the lush, green rainforests (incorporating crucial precious habitats), some seven thousand miles away, in say Borneo and Indonesia, which consequently are progressively simply wiping out orangutans (the ‘red ape’) and which over the last fifty years are being killed as well as being forced from their home – 100,000 Bornean orangutans have been lost in the past 16 years alone, while three species [Bornean, Sumatran and the Tapanuli] are now on the critically endangered list. The reason basically started back in the 1960s when the Indonesian forests were logged for timber, but now it’s for palm oil.

[The Indonesian government is even boasting about a projected increase in palm oil production from 36.5m tonnes in 2017 to over 42m tonnes by 2020]

Not only does the World face losing forever a beautiful species, but the indigenous poor  peoples there, will lose their homes and livelihoods as well, and all down to the forces of greed and for the benefit of the undeserving.

Oh yes, and it’s not just orangutans [meaning “man of the forest”] that are threatened. More than seventy percent of Sumatran elephant habitat has been destroyed within one generation, and there are fewer than 100 Sumatran rhinos left in the wild. People are part of this conflict too with land grabbing and exploitation of workers, including the endemic use of child labour. Decades of deforestation for palm oil have created conditions ideal for furious forest and peatland fires, when these, habitually deliberately started fires by companies clearing the land, threaten the health of people across southeast Asia and drive climate change

Is this really the kind of selfish society we British support or have become ourselves and does that represent the real personal values we now hold deep in our society?

You see palm oil, in addition to its common use as a frying oil, has over the last half decade become the world’s most versatile raw material, and you will see it listed as an ingredient in at least half of the products on supermarket shelves, including food and non-food items, and it is widely used a vast range of other products, but there is no law requiring it to be shown for products such as soap, shampoo and other cosmetics [the global demand for palm oil has increased six-fold in under thirty years].

Many here in the UK have been surprised and shocked that a 90 second animated TV Christmas commercial by the Iceland supermarket which highlighted the current dire plight of orangutans, resulting from palm oil production having devastating impacts on wildlife and tropical forests, had that banned here by the authorities as being ‘too political’ – well nevertheless the bleeding message DID get across with a vengeance, as the ad went viral and over a million people signed a petition to overturn the ban [In response to the palm oil industry’s catastrophic failure to halt deforestation and deal with the problem the commercial ends with: “Dedicated to the 25 orangutans we lose every day”]

While possible millions of people worldwide have told the big brands to drop their ‘dirty palm oil’, these money-grabbing multinationals’ promises [brands like Unilever, Mondelez, Nestlé Pepsico, Mars] to do so have proved deceitfully false. The answer is for all us caring and ‘responsible’ consumers to reject their products and even though it may seem extreme, to TRY to avoid buying ANYTHING that lists palm-oil as an ingredient, eh?

In Britain, surely we should NOT fail to feel some sense of responsibility for the desperate situation faced by Indonesia’s orangutans, who are extraordinary creatures and one of our closest relatives, and who’s obliteration is being orchestrated purely by the obsessive desire of profits to be extracted by the elite from cheaper palm oil?

The similarity of orangutans to us is astonishing, as they are among the most intelligent ‘non-human’ primates who certainly have the human ability to figure out things, and they are inquisitive, smile, show empathy, and like us even laugh when tickled.

Interestingly, a study a decade ago found that humans share at least 28 unique ‘physical’ characteristics with orangutans, that included thickly enamelled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades, a hole in the roof of the mouth that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangutans. Humans and orangutans have the widest-separated mammary glands, and they grow the longest hair and they actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes. The claim is that they are the closest living relatives to humans! Will such findings aid efforts to protect the species from extinction at a time when only an estimated 100,000 Bornean and 7,000 Sumatran orangutans remain in the wild [that reduction crisis simply because their numbers have been decimated as a result of deforestation]?

Another area of our Country’s culpability in its disgraceful abject failure to prevent abuse of primates in captivity, and that comes with a specific focus on ending the primate pet trade in the UK. We urgently need to implement changes in the law to put a stop to current practices that allow intelligent, socially complex wild animals to be kept captive or as pets, when they are inherently unsuitable for keeping in a domestic setting. They are currently afforded very little protection under UK law and what protection does exist is often flouted or ignored, which seriously compromises the welfare of individual primates.

The existence of a legal trade in primates in places like the UK has a directly and extremely negative impact on wild populations of primates, through their capture for sale to people from here as pets, while even critically endangered species [such as for example cotton-top tamarins] continue to be traded as pets without regulation in the UK]

Because there is either no or very little controls of the primate pet trade, nobody actually knows how many primates are held captive today in the UK, but shockingly there are probably at least 5,000 of them now kept by private individuals. Undoubtably, this is a situation where there is a tragic lack of adequate species knowledge, veterinary care, social opportunity, space, which coupled with debilitating poor diet leads to mental, physical and emotional suffering for such pet primates, as is witnessed by those organisations who rescue some of them [more than eighty percent of all rescued primates residing at one UK Sanctuary were either improperly licensed or not licensed at all as pets – that simply highlights the utter lack of government control over this disgusting trade, doesn’t it?].

Oh yes, when it comes to primates, we only pay lip-service to our Country’s stated obligations to the 5 Freedoms that all animals in captivity should have – that is Freedom from hunger and thirst coupled with a good diet of nutritious and beneficial foods, Freedom from discomfort meaning being kept in a comfortable environment, Freedom from pain, injury or disease and having access to high quality veterinary care at short notice, Freedom to express normal behaviour so animals are given the space and freedom to interact as they would in the wild, with other animals of their own kind to live with, and enrichments to maintain wild behaviour, Freedom from fear and distress and ensuring positive conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.


[The ‘Five Freedoms’ were developed in response to a 1965 UK Government report on livestock husbandry, and were formalised in 1979 press statement by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council and have been adopted by professional groups including veterinarians, and organizations including the World Organisation for Animal Health, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]

In the rain forests it is the monkeys that are often a hunter’s main target, because they are the largest daytime mammal that is easy to detect and shoot. Females with infants are the preferred quarry, and their loss hastens population decline. Mothers are killed and babies are abducted for sale to the pet trade or use in tourism photoshoots, when these animals are regularly abused, teeth extracted, beaten and cowed, or drugged.

Marmosets   Capuchin  Squirrel Monkey 

The most popular primates that are kept and traded as pets are Marmosets, followed by Capuchins and Squirrel Monkeys, yet all of them being highly intelligent, complex and sociable wild animals, they just cannot adapt to being kept as pets. It is impossible to meet their needs in a household environment, particularly as a primate cannot engage with its natural instincts as a pet and whatever an owner may intend, their welfare needs cannot be met.

[A Dangerous Wild Animal licence is required for selected primates like Capuchins but the licence is non-species specific and is issued by officials who have little or no understanding of primates, while neither Marmosets nor Squirrel monkeys require any kind of licencing).

Despite the fact that no primate should be kept alone, the RSPCA has found that in 60% of the cases they have investigated, the primate is being kept alone and in isolation. The lack of vitamin D from natural sunlight and the right diet can result in skeletal diseases and there is a risk of certain diseases spreading between owner, other house pets and primates


[Britain needs to end the trade & keeping of primates as pets and the UK government must ban it NOW, and follow the example of some 15 countries in the EU that have already introduced a ban on all or at least most primates being kept as pets].


When ‘Groundhog Day’ arrived in Britain – for BREXIT?

   equals in falsehood

The British public are sick and tired of it, but we need here to turn to the dreaded topic of BREXIT, once again.

Now many of us in the UK will know of Groundhog Day as being a comedy and a fantasy where people are trapped in a time loop where the same day is repeated endlessly, but we never expected it to become a reality in our lives, did we?

No, but it certainly has become both a comedy (though it isn’t funny), and a fantasy (you couldn’t have made-up if you’d tried), and all because of the nightmare chaos created by the Conservative’s crass handling of BREXIT, which has been forced into our brains every single day since early February 2016, eh?

That was when David Cameron returned from Brussels to claim victory, to proclaim to the nation that he had persuaded the EU that it had to change, so had secured ‘a deal’ with the EU, which obtained for the country a “special status” in the 28-nation bloc – whence he started a dastardly campaign to keep Britain in that vile institution.

It didn’t take long though for the British public to suss-out the lies that were being uttered from that guy’s lips because we all knew full well that it wasn’t anything like the ‘deal’ that he had committed in the Tory manifesto and he had promised to the voters – which he certainly didn’t get, did he? No, not in the slightest


On the issue of Sovereignty – while Britain was said to be now going to be exempt, with an unequivocal opt-out, from that EU treaty reference to ‘ever-closer union’, plus him obtaining the prospect of the EU’s ‘possible’ inclusion of a “red-card” mechanism for members to be able to block or veto a commission proposal [but in reality ‘unworkable’], but the so-called deal did not come even close to winning the UK back control of its own affairs [and even afterwards Cameron failed to come up with the further measures which he claimed would put the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament beyond doubt, didn’t he?]. Furthermore, other key issues had been dropped [like the promised repatriation of EU social and employment law, or changes to the working-hours directive]

Then, on the matter of Migrants and welfare benefits – Cameron basically caved into the EU opposition and the deal was ‘slap in the face for Britain’ as the PM admitted it would NOT cut migration, when even his ‘deemed essential’ four-year emergency brake on ‘In-work benefits’ was watered down, with new arrivals actually GETTING tax credits phased in over four years, while the so-called brake was to be in place for a maximum of 7 years, instead of 13 years he had required. Britain’s original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home was simply rebutted, although the payments would be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live but delayed for existing claimants until 4 years after the referendum.

On the issue of Economic governance or safeguarding interests of countries outside the eurozone – while Cameron got his explicit recognition that the EU has ‘more than one currency’ that did NOT go as far mandating multiple currencies, and while any single non-eurozone country would be able to force a debate among EU leaders about any ‘problem’ eurozone laws they would NOT have a veto, so that concession was meaningless. Also, French resistance on financial regulation resulted in the EU deeming that Britain would NOT win any exceptions to the rules of the EU particularly in relation to regulation in the City

Regarding Competitiveness – Britain’s desires weren’t in the least controversial, so the EU made promises about targeting to cut red tape [as they have done before and haven’t, so pie in the sky, eh?]


Nevertheless, Cameron got his Cabinet lackies (mostly Remainers of course) to endorse the deal [though half a dozen subsequently actually joined BREXIT] and so henceforth it would campaign for the UK to stay in the EU – loyally sticking to that naturally included ‘ambitious intent survivor’ and Remainer Theresa May, who subsequently achieve her well signalled greatest ambition in life of being Prime Minister of the UK, but by blatantly lying and as a vicar’s daughter claiming to having had a Saul-like Damascus road version conversion into a BEXITEER, no less?

More recently then, we come to the Conservative’s end-game chaotic crass handling of the BREXIT final (?) negotiations being rammed-down out throats every single day since mid-November 2018, eh?

That was when Theresa May returned from Brussels to claim victory, proclaim to the nation that after nearly two years of tortuous negotiation she had secured ‘a deal’ with the EU, and obtained a draft BREXIT withdrawal agreement to takes us significantly closer to delivering what the British people voted for in the referendum – whence she started a dastardly campaign to keep Britain in that vile institution as good as damn it.

It didn’t take long though for the British public to suss-out the lies that were being uttered from that woman lips because we all knew full well that it wasn’t anything like the ‘BREXIT’ that she had committed in the Tory manifesto and had promised to the voters – which she certainly didn’t get, did she? No, not in the slightest and some ninety percent of us think that



Any deal AT ALL – despite what she claims, because in reality the 2 years of negotiation was about getting a TRADE DEAL, wasn’t it? Yes, and the UK are NO NEARER getting one than we were at the outset and to all intents and purposes we are actually further away because May’s negotiating skills have been so crass that the EU see Britain as a pushover with no power or control over events [not least since the damned Remainers here (including our Chancellor Hammond) have spent 2 years undermining our negotiating position to try and stay in the bloody EU, eh?

Her so called ‘DEAL’ is in fact just a ‘legally-binding’ irreversible TREATY that, at enormous expense, KEEPS the UK in the EU for ANOTHER 2 years [so double the time we voted for in the Referendum!], BUT without ANY representation nor a say about the rules, laws or anything else governing us, when Britain has lost its VETO into the bargain. All that coupled-with the potential of a forced break-up of the Union, to gain a totally UNRELIABLE EU promise to agree a trade deal in the next 2 years [fat chance, don’t you think?]

You might well ask “how did the world’s 5th largest economy end-up negotiating such a crock of shit, eh? Well, look no further than May handing-over Britain’s exit planning and negotiations to an unelected CIVIL SERVANT [whose organisation desperately wants to control our politicians and believes that the people can be trusted so is determined to scupper BREXIT], who personally is in favour of a FEDERAL European union [i.e. a single federal state with a central government], no less?


Payments to EUMay promised to end “vast annual payments”, but in fact will pay the EU more than £50bn by the time the transition period expires on December 31 2020. [even more will be paid if we stay longer – and we LOSE our rebate to boot (£15billion/year)]

Customs and trade – May promised no customs union but instead wanted a customs “partnership” allowing UK-EU frictionless as possible trade, but she delivered instead a Single Customs Territory, which shares an external tariff, so does NOT allow the UK to set its own tariffs on goods [setting tariff rates is a key leverage in trade negotiations]. Applying a common external tariff is a key difference between a customs union and a free trade area. Sharing this tariff leaves the UK closely integrated in terms of trade policy with the EU and significantly limits its ability to have an independent trade policy. Furthermore, the UK has committed to EU cooperation on the World Trade Organisation, which is likely to have significant consequences for UK- US trade. The UK will not be able to benefit from EU trade deals with a third country and will be able to independently negotiate only AFTER the EU has already signed deals with them. IN SHORT THEN – A BLOODY DISASTER ON TRADE, eh?

Irish border – May promised an open border, with no new customs infrastructure on the 310-mile land border and no trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but she got a “backstop” clause which would see Northern Ireland remain in a Customs Union, but additionally applying the full EU customs code and the EU SINGLE MARKET rules for goods, while Great Britain will remain in the same all-UK Customs Union, but it will not follow single market rules, which will create frictions between ‘Dover and Calais’. [This ‘backstop’ will effectively REMOVE NI from the the UK union and will legally remain in place ‘in perpetuity’ unless there is a trade deal – would YOU trust the EU’s “best endeavours” to reach such a deal, eh?]

EU law and the role of the ECJ – May promised to END the European Court of Justice’s rule in the UK, with laws  in future drawn up in courts across this country and NOT in Luxembourg [as “we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws]”, but she didn’t deliver that, did she? No, the UK and EU built an unprecedented legal model, whereby neither the UK’s Supreme Court nor the European Court of Justice has the final say in legal disputes over the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, but this is achieved via an independent arbitration panel, while disputes involving matters of EU law MUST be referred to the ECJ, and in certain cases the UK MUST take “due regard” of ECJ case law. SO MUCH FOR DITCHING THE ECJ THEN, eh?

Transition – May promised a transition period of approximately two years to allow a smooth exit from the EU, but she got a transition period due to end in December 2020 during which it REMAINS part of the EU’s SINGLE MARKET and CUSTOMS UNION, so the UK MUST follow EU rules such as free movement, send payments to Brussels, must also accept new EU rules without having a say in them [Britain will no longer attend meetings at the European Council and will lose its 73 MEPs in the European parliament]. This will render the country a “vassal state” that is effectively under EU rule for as long as the transition period lasts.

Citizens’ rights – May promised an end to free movement and give  legal guarantees on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK as well as British citizens on the continent, but she agreed that the 3m or so EU nationals living in Britain WILL be allowed to claim “settled status” residence in the UK, retaining almost ALL the rights they had before Brexit [they just have to register with the Home Office]. Furthermore, EU nationals arriving in the UK right up until the END of the transition period will be able to claim ‘settled status’ if they reside for a further five years, locking in Free Movement rights until the end of 2020, and longer if transition is extended. EU nationals will RETAIN almost all family reunion rights, though their right to bring foreign spouses to the UK will match those of the UK nationals, and in certain circumstances they will be able to claim benefits for children living abroad. EU nationals will keep their ‘settled status’ for up to five years, even if they move away from the UK. [The UK has agreed a special governance mechanism for this deal which will require UK cases to be referred to the ECJ for eight years after the end of the UK’s transition].

Competition – May promised that regulatory standards would remain as high as those set by the EU, but instead she delivered a legal commitment to actually APPLY EU regulatory standards in the UK. [these are wide ranging and includes tax, state aid rules on industries government backing, and environmental standards].

Fishing – May promised that Britain will become an independent coastal state after Brexit and will regain control over our domestic fisheries management rules and access to our waters, but nevertheless Britain will actually REMAIN in the Common Fisheries Policy during the transition period, with the EU setting and enforcing quota limits on fish ON WHICH THE UK WILL HAVE NO SAY [the EU can exploit the transition period to impose yet more punitive rules and quota limits on the UK fishing industry]. The Withdrawal Agreement determines that fishing rights will be NEGOTIATED as part of a separate agreement to be concluded by July 2020. Moreover, France has announced that it will veto any proposed future trade agreement unless they are allowed to continue forever to steal British fish.

In addition, in another day of national shame and betrayal, May had caved-in once again to get her disastrous ‘deal’ sanctioned in Brussels, so has disgracefully abandoned this Country’s obligations to Gibraltar and has cast its people aside. After the UK leaves the EU, Gibraltar will NOT be included in the territorial scope of the agreements to be concluded – this has left the status of Gibraltar in dire jeopardy with Spain’s leader now again demanding talks on joint sovereignty

Every so-called ‘break-through’ in the EU BREXIT negotiations were in fact not even a compromise, but just another capitulation by the British Prime Minister, and ones that got the UK nowhere fast.

A senior Brussels negotiator has said the proposed agreement (deal) will mean the UK aligns its rules with Europe, while the EU will retain all the controls, eh?

In speeches delivered over the past two years Theresa May has repeatedly vowed to take back control of our borders, our laws and our money, leave the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, whilst protecting jobs, security and the integrity of our United Kingdom, yet she has failed to deliver ANYTHING resembling that. Instead she is running down the clock before the leave deadline of 29 March 2019, just 96 days away, in a hopefully vain attempt to get MPs [it has to be said, mostly Remainers intent on defying the will of the electorate, subvert BREXIT, and stay in the EU] to accept in exasperation her unacceptable naïve and crap Brexit plan with her withdrawal agreement, which is NOT in the British national interest (as she claims), but would indeed set the UK up for failure by surrendering “our voice, our vote and our veto” (Sam Gyimah MP).


[The only way that BREXIT can work is just to just bloody well to walk away from the disastrous  European Union – it may be termed ‘no-deal’ by those extreme Remainers, but in reality, it has ALWAYS been the ‘real-deal’, because any deal we strike with Brussels will be ‘EU first’]


Enid Blyton’s ‘The Famous Five’ rewritten – now is it BREXIT’S ‘The Complicit Five’?

Well, well, well, Julian, Dick, Anne and Georgina (George) with their dog Timmy have transformed into Michael, Chris, Andrea, and Penny with their lapdog Liam.

You see, the original stories took place in the children’s holidays from their respective boarding schools when they get caught up in an exciting adventure, often involving criminals or lost treasure.

While now the derivative stories take place in the adult’s continuance from their respective universities when they get trapped-up in a debilitating nightmare, often involving villains or lost opportunity.

The Complicit Five- that is of course Gove, Grayling, Leadsom and Mordaunt with Fox – have proved themselves unworthy of the high office that they all hold. After all, these men and women are all members of the UK Cabinet serving under PM Theresa May who indeed appointed them to their esteemed posts. However, they are at fundamental odds with the Prime Minister’s BREXIT planned deal for the UK to leave the EU, so they make an utter dog’s dinner of the Country’s Cabinet government by remaining in their predominately undeserved high profile highly paid jobs while publicly slagging off its EU draft Withdrawal agreement.

The reason that they don’t accept what is now on the table is pretty simply though – it is a crock of shit and everyone knows that who isn’t either a civil servant or Theresa May. The moot point is why are these five, who were big players campaigning in the Leave side of the Referendum that convinced the electorate to choose BREXIT are still being driven about in their posh ministerial cars instead of resigning and forcing May to abandon her illusional attempt to leave the EU, do you think? It is certainly not to do their duty to their Country is it, so one must assume that it is simply one of self-preservation, eh?

In July, these five were ambushed just like the rest of the Cabinet by May and her captor civil servants at Chequers, when her new secret, divisive, crazy, plan was sprung on them like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a top hat. Apparently, the Cabinet in their state of shock were coercing into agreeing it by threats of immediate sacking and walking home if showing descent.

The upstaged BREXIT secretary David Davis who had been leading the negotiations with the EU [but constantly having the rug pulled from under his feet by May] and indeed only the day before had been in the process of writing the official plan, promptly resigned not long afterwards as ‘the “common rule book” policy hands control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.’

That was following by the resignation of Foreign secretary Boris Johnson who had spearheaded the Leave campaign plus another minister, party officials, and ministerial aids, and who could not accept a watered-down Brexit [Guto Bebb (Defence), Ben Bradley (Party vice-chairman), Maria Caulfield (Party vice-chairwoman), Scott Mann (Treasury PPS), Robert Courts (Foreign Office PPS), Andrea Jenkyns (Housing PPS) Chris Green (Transport PPS)]

So why did the Five hang-on in there then, instead of resigning, handing back their chauffeured cars, lackies & privileges, and so kill-off the plan and force May to back-down at that initial stage? Doubtless their excuse is that they stayed to fight within the Cabinet to get the plan changed? Well if that was so, they have fully displayed their unimpressive abilities and failed miserably, haven’t they? Yep, because not only did May’s outrageous plan remain totally unchanged but she and the plan’s architect Olly Robbins continued to give-in to the EU bullies in Brussels making even further concessions that has resulted in an appalling deal with a truly scary withdrawal agreement, which is just the PROCESS of leaving, with a NI backstop that threatens the future integrity of the United Kingdom and is one that makes a mockery of the very concept of democracy in this Country, doesn’t it?

[Britain’s fate has been delegated to Robbins, a mere senior civil servant, May’s direct report and her personally appointed ‘European Advisor’ (he is a committed European, determined not to upset the EU, who was indeed chair of the Oxford university ‘Reform Club’ to promote a federal EU, no less)]

Just as it was done at Chequers, there was underhand trickery and slight-of-hand to blindside the Cabinet, together with the BREXIT department, and of course parliament itself, who were all kept completely in the dark about what in reality was being given away in the Brussels negotiations that resulted in the final draft of the withdrawal agreement being released last Wednesday – the only ones in the know were the small group of puppeteers operating May and she herself.

The list of resignations from government about May’s BREXIT deal inevitably lengthened significantly in the past week with those who cannot support her latest agreement that does not deliver a good and fair Brexit, with Cabinet members Dominic Raab (BREXIT secretary) and Esther McVey (Work & Pensions), and ministers Suella Braverman (Brexit), Shailesh Vara, (Northern Ireland), Jo Johnson (Transport), Steve Baker (Under-Secretary BREXIT), and others Ranil Jayawardena (PPS Justice), Nikki da Costa (Downing Street director of legislative affairs), Anne-Marie Trevelyan (PPS Defence), Rehman Chisti (Party vice-chairman and prime ministerial trade envoy to Pakistan)

[In 2 years May has lost more ministers than any PM since the 1980s

Yet nevertheless, the Five hung-on in there, but announced that they as a team would jointly face-down May and demand last minute changes to the draft agreement because ‘the UK must not be trapped in a customs union’ – this required from May as the price for them not resigning, eh? Well, the Five’s rebellion has simply fizzled-out despite the fact that there is no majority in Parliament for the proposed deal.

The EU responded saying that what was on the table could NOT be changed – apparently set in stone, you see? Who has EVER heard of a DRAFT agreement that couldn’t be changed, eh? Well, May has also claimed it cannot be now amended and moreover she has said that it is ‘her deal or nothing’ – meaning that she countenances dropping BREXIT altogether and that is in blatant breach of the instructions of the electorate AND of her election manifesto mandate itself to leave the EU. Her other weapon of fear she is threatening her Tory MPs with is that if they reject her proposal that will let-in a Labour government.

Does May really think that making such threats instead of trying to prove her half-baked dishonest deal has any merit, is fooling anyone into thinking that she has concluded a decent or acceptable outcome for BREXIT, eh?

By their capitulation, that has included staying and clinging-on like grime death to their day jobs (obtained by false pretences), the Five supposed BREXITEERS have shown-up themselves as having zero integrity or principles when they are seen to continue to support a legal agreement in direct conflict with their publicly announced views on Britain leaving the EU. They are a spineless set of charlatans who have cowardly shirked confrontation and have ended-up without credibility and reputations in the gutter.

Oh yes, May may have satisfied the governing elite and the big business interests but that looks increasingly likely to be at the cost of Tory power, as the abject failure of the May Government to take-on the EU in the BREXIT negotiations in any meaningful manner and abandoning our sovereignty in the process, will NEVER be forgot by the electorate, will it? Moreover, she has not only ditched her commitment to the Country [remember “BREXIT means BREXIT” and “No Deal is better than a bad Deal”, do you?], but she definitely has ‘lost the plot’ by reneging on her commitment to the DUP to keep NI solely within UK rules and without any divergence between mainland and them and not to sacrificed NI to the EU.

You see the DUP are power players who the Government are critically ‘dependent-on’ to hold a majority in the Commons via a formal Confidence & Supply arrangement (covering the Queens speech, the Budget & finance bills, and on all motions of confidence). The DUP have already shown their teeth by failing to vote WITH the Government on finance bill amendments last week (they abstained) – the DUP voting AGAINST the Government won’t bring it down now there is a fixed-term parliament but it would mean that the Conservatives will not be able to run a working majority so cannot be sure of getting legislation through and that’s unsustainable. May’s continuing pursuit of a Brexit strategy that doesn’t satisfies the DUP’s red line on the union [a red line NOT to be obliterated], is an indication that she’s got a screw loose, surely?

In 2 years, NO progress whatsoever has been made in securing a trade deal OF ANY KIND with the EU despite May agreeing to give them £40billion of our taxpayers’ money, not demanding a share of joint EU assets, and giving-in at every stage. What hope then do we have of securing a ‘FREE’ TRADE DEAL in the next 2 years within a transition stage when we are controlled by the EU but have no representation at all, do you thing?

Brandon Lewis, Tory chairman has assured the Chairs of its constituencies Associations that there is a legal commitment for the EU to do so – he is a lying git of a lawyer, as the withdrawal agreement only commits to do that with the EUs “best endeavours” [worthless in a court of law when it doesn’t happen].

There is a suspicion in many quarters that the deal on he table has been made so abysmal and unacceptable by the EU that the establishment invested interests here will be able to secure a 2nd Referendum when all us Leavers will agree that Britain might as well stay IN the bloody EU – there is more than a grain of truth in that, isn’t there? Then of course is the other plan to extend Article 50 to delay the UKs departure from the EU and have no doubt will you that the intention will be not to reset the timer but to stop the clock completely, eh?

The only way out of this quagmire that May has diligently created is to ditch her forthwith and the Tory MPs need to do that and quickly too. If they wait until her BREXIT plans are trashed by parliament, they will face a dissolution of parliament with a consequential General Election – and the people will vent their anger about the May government incompetence as a consequence, don’t you think?

The elite think that they are secure and can ride roughshod over those below them because Brits unlike the French and others in Europe, are not prone to rebellion. History shows though that they are once again mistaken because when pushed too far, the disadvantaged and the commoners act  and that is exactly why this Country has secured a democracy that May has put under threat.

Moreover, the rule has always been that a government cannot do something that binds the hands of the subsequent or a future government and that is ‘precisely’ what the current BREXIT proposals enact – a situation whereby Britain cannot in perpetuity leave the control and constraints of the EU and that is why our MPs have to do their duty to protect this Country – or suffer the consequences.


[‘Theresa May’ is a bad pathetic PM who has betrayed the British voters and intends that without a fight our proud nation is with tail between the legs to shamefully slink out of the EU in name only, by generating a monstrosity of an agreement that is only the start of our humiliation as the future relationship issue which was supposed to have been completed by now hasn’t even been addressed yet]

The Prime Minister used to be the most powerful person in the UK Parliament–is it now the Speaker?


A chaotic, mayhem, bedlam and more, of pandemonium has been going–on in Parliament about the suitability of the current Speaker of its House of Commons no less, one John Bercow.

Now you see, there has been the credible exposure of Bercow himself as an ‘accused’ long-term serial bully in an oppressive environment where a sizeable but minor proportion of MPs consistently behave badly, expect utter deferential, and appear to be minded that they are gods ‘above the law’ [as we already know from the 2009 scandal over their expenses], and that includes deeds in their dealings with parliamentary staff, when they think they can behave with impunity as overlords by ill-treating its employed individuals – particularly those are “the clerks” [expected to be “thick-skinned” officials having a “stiff upper lip” where there is an inequality in their roles, so easy prey for MPs], who play a vital behind the scenes role, but can get shouting at by out-of-control disgruntled MPs without being protected at all [would that be acceptable in any normal place of work, do you think?].

MPs unbelievably simply turn a blind eye to the dishonourable behaviour by others, so the existing system where MPs can be judge and jury about their own conduct means no punishment is dished-out, and that injustice just gets perpetuated.

Reportedly, there has been a culture of bullying and harassment in Parliament for decades and is one that persists until this day, so it seems therefore highly ‘unlikely’ that Speaker Bercow, as himself a suspect and the person basically running the place as well as setting standards, will take effective steps to finally put a stop to it, doesn’t it? Well, that is certainly what many MPs, staff working in the Westminster bubble, and those in the know outside think anyway, isn’t it?

One clerk, highly regarded by senior officials, was promotion to run a committee but was bullied by the chairman to such an extent that colleagues chaperoned her to events so she was never left alone with him and in the end she had to step-away for her own health.

Now, it has to be said that the previous Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, was also a short-tempered git who let-off steam and used his position to bully and intimidate others, so the issue with the current one isn’t ‘just’ a new problem is it? No, and it appears that the bullying issue at our parliament includes not only senior ministers but goes up the chain to those people at the very top of management. That issue itself has been also accompanied by a level of (mainly unreported) sexual harassment, with the younger women in particular at risk, to boot?

Examples unrecovered included a 20 year-old who reported being sexually assaulted and forcibly kissed by an MP in his office but nothing was done. Others reported being pushed against walls, forcibly kissed, groped and slapped by MPs – only to be advised to ‘dress differently’!

Another woman reported “My career at the House of Commons didn’t end when I was sexually harassed. My career ended when I complained”. She left when all she had wanted was to do her job without being humiliated.

A writer accused a first secretary of state of inappropriate behaviour in hinting he could advance her career in exchange for an affair – he denied it but resigned not necessarily for that and more likely because he was caught-out lying about pornography being found on his parliamentary computer, eh?

Other Commons workers aren’t safe either – a journalist claimed a former defence secretary lunged at her and attempted to kiss her on the lips.

Now, just why the staff put-up with bullying, mistreatment, and sexual assault is easy to guess, isn’t it? Yep, parliamentary staff members are ‘not only’ easily replaced but they have the cards stacked against them if they deign to pursue complaints against any MP, don’t they?

Oh yes, we all may think that bad practices by bosses in the workplace have long since been banished because offenders get severe warnings or instant dismissal, but apparently we would be wrong when it comes to the House of Commons, where the overwhelming evidence is that they are still tolerated.

A victim clerk there who protests just gets further bullying and if formally reporting any abuse, is sent on a course on dealing with “difficult” people, or simply gets punished [moved], or forced to leave (tarred with the bush as being sensitive or a troublemaker), while the abuser remains at large with impunity [or at worst told to write a private (not public) letter of apology to the victim] – how the hell can that be an acceptable outcome, eh? The serial abusers are men of course and predictably almost all but a few of the victims are women.

A recent matter implicates the House of Lords as well in the manner sexual harassment is dealt with in parliament. Peer Lord Lester was accused of groping a woman and offering her a peerage in return for sleeping with him [he said the claims were untrue – he would say that, wouldn’t he?] but he was indeed found to have failed to act on his personal honour by sexually harassing the complainant and offering her corrupt inducements to sleep with him – he should have faced immediate suspension from the House of Lords, but instead his fellow peers voted for the case simply to be looked at again [didn’t want to damage his reputation and sod the poor woman’s reputation, eh?.

Following an expose by BBC’s Newsnight programme last March, former High Court Judge and QC, Dame Laura Cox, has on behalf of the House of Commons commission has conducted an independent inquiry into this whole situation of alleged bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in parliament and has delivered explosive conclusions that fully exposed the truth of the allegations that have been rife of that place’s macho and toxic culture with unchecked bullying enacted on gendered grounds

[she concluded in part “….there is an expectation of loyalty to the institution they serve. But that sense of loyalty has been tested to breaking point by a culture, cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.”]

She has determined that basically the existing procedures for protecting staff are a crock of shxx and should be flushed down the toilet forthwith and that from the top down dramatic change to the practice and culture within the Commons should be forced on the House.

Very significantly she has recommended that so-called ‘historic’ complaints of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment which previously had been blocked should also be open to investigation – now allowing the likes of Bercow, who has previously escaped censure, to be properly questioned. Also she required the appointment of independent authorities with due powers to impose sanctions on MPs in cases of misconduct, as currently MPs alone are the sole arbiters and unaccountable powerful judge and jury over their own conduct, indeed?

Some dozens of current and ex-parliamentary staff who have reported bullying and harassment at Westminster have waived their right to anonymity and together with a number of MPs and journalists have sign an unprecedented open letter calling for urgent change through the immediate implementation of Dame Cox’s proposals.

Turning to Bercow then, for example his former private secretary [very senior role] was forced to leave it after less than a year having suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, reportedly because of his bullying behaviour which included shouting at her a lot [he repeatedly denies all obviously]. Oh yes, she was punished of course and not him, which that meant her being moved by the House authorities to a specially modified role that avoided Bercow completely. Another Bercow’s former private secretary reported that he was sworn at and mimicked by this Speaker. Furthermore, Bercow is reputed to have shown temper tantrums to clerks and they definitely don’t want to work for him nor aspire to be his private secretary.

Bercow is all powerful in the Commons chair because he and he alone decides which party and who is allowed a voice, so MPs of all persuasions and at all levels are wary of crossing him, aren’t they?

A formal complaint against Bercow, accusing him of intimidation and bullying of [the Leader of the House (so a senior minister)] when he branded her actions “f****** outrageous”, and calling her a stupid woman and a liar [allegations not denied and he admitted using the word “stupid”].

The senior official, who served as Black Rod in Parliament until last year, says Bercow created a climate of intimidation and fear among MPs and officials and could be intimidating, unreasonable, and disproportionate. On one occasion the “red mist” descended on the Speaker and he banged the table and yelled and was highly personally insulting calling Black Rod an anti-Semite.

Instead of standing aside, Bercow even has had the gall to retain the chair when the Chamber has had debates about bullying problems – well until last month at least when he recused himself the Independent Complaints and Grievance Process was debated [not many MPs turned up – not the place to be seen when Mr Speaker is spying-in, eh?].


[Commons Speaker, John Bercow, should not ‘consider’ standing down as some have suggested, he bloody-well SHOULD stand down as many have demanded, or better still be ‘SACKED’ – that would certainly send a message, wouldn’t it?].

BREXIT army defeat and Britain’s failed evacuation from Europe


“Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” ― Winston S. Churchill 4 June 1940


“Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Commissioners and all the odious apparatus of European rule, we shall not rally or deliver. We shall go on to the bottom. We shall harmonise in Strasbourg, we shall surrender on the fisheries and seaway trade, we shall submit with growing cowardice and growing weakness in the air lanes, we shall endanger our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall surrender on the ports, we shall surrender on the airport grounds, we shall surrender in the agriculture fields and in the city streets, we shall surrender in the hills; we shall never fight.” ― Theresa M. May 14 November 2018?


[The ‘Out of the Jaws of Death’ evacuation of Dunkirk 78 years ago is the best-known example of British heroic success. The ‘Into the Jaws of Servitude’ capitulation to the EU this year will go down as the most shameful act of British cowardice in history]










Funding the UK State Pension is a historically nightmare – but now the ghosts of the dead are coming to haunt and destroy us?


Halloween may be nearly here again but the real frightening ghouls and spooks that Britain faces these days really arise from the past and the iconic universal State Pension that was introduced back in 1946 by the national insurance act, doesn’t it?

Yep, the problem is that these days the cost of funding the present ‘old-age pension’ coupled with the rest of the benefits system is crippling the Country to such an extent that things just can’t go-on like it much longer, can they?

Now, that is NOT to say the state pension [SP] is far too generous – far from it, the UK’s SP languishes at the bottom of the table amongst the world’s 35 developed economies, but it is just that it is inadequately funded not least because the population is skewing towards the non-working elderly who are living increasingly longer. [Turkey, Portugal and the Netherlands rank top for their far superior pension schemes, with Britain having a less than generous pension – however that is offset somewhat by many here having an additional top-up private pension, so that system definitely warrants further government encouragement]

[Back some 70 years ago male life expectancy was about just 63 years and this has progressively increased to around 80 years today, as childhood survival increased and adult improvement in lifestyles, working conditions, and health care has been delivered – women do better with a gap of 2 extra years life expectancy].

The underlying consequence of this all is that basically the national insurance paid by current workers and employers of each generation is actually in reality paying the SP for those of the previous generation who have already retired – that’s not sustainable, surely? You see, last year pensioners were supported by a massive 60% share of the £217bn welfare spend with over £90bn [over 40%] of that going on their pensions.

Of course, when the pension was first introduced nobody had made any prior contributions by way of national insurance so the costs were covered by general taxation and the non-retired payers into the new fund, but then thereafter national insurance contributions were just playing catch-up. That hasn’t been helped from a financial point of view by all the enhancements since then that have included the likes of pension equality and reduction of years paying-in or inclusion of those who haven’t paid-in at all [the running balance on the fund is less than a quarter of the actual annual expenditure].

Despite the fact that the government has tried to offset the problem of increased pensions cost due to the greater longevity of pensioners, by gradually extending the state pension age [now equalised this year at age65 for women and for both men and women moves to age66 in 2020/26 then to age67 by 2028, and provisionally age68 between 2044 & 2046], that’s nowhere near enough to solve the increasing financial crisis for the national insurance fund, is it?

No, other dramatic things will have to happen in the next 14 years before the ring-fenced fund for Pensions [and some benefits] is finally exhausted and hits the big zero. It’s grimly simplistic really, either substantially more money has to got to go in, OR significantly less money has to go out, and you don’t have to be an accountant to work that one out, do you?

National Insurance payments go towards the NHS (well under £25bn last year) and mainly the ring-fenced state benefits and services of State Pension, unemployment benefits, sickness and disability allowances, and bereavement benefits

Therein comes the bleeding problem of course – how the heck do you do whichever in a way that is acceptable to the workers, the employers, the current pensioners, the future pensioners, and indeed the whole Country, eh?

Oh yes, the government of the day could do a short-term fix by stuffing in other taxpayers money but at say a £100bn a year that would indeed have to be very very short-term, wouldn’t it?

Boosting the fund’s income certainly would present a big problem for any government hoping to survive, as substantially increasing national insurance contributions [say from 12% to 17%] would be widely resisted and unpopular, not least because it wouldn’t be primarily for the benefit of those paying- in long-term, would it? Perhaps all workers even those of pension age even should in future continue to pay contributions?

The harsh and most clinical way of reducing expenditure would be of course to means-test the state pension as many other benefits are, but that could cause uproar as those who have paid-in all their working life would feel utterly cheated – though possibly means testing could apply to just those who have paid-in least? However, the Achilles heel of that solution is the disincentive it would create for people to save or make other provision for their old age, wouldn’t it?

There can be no doubt that a significant reduction in the pension award paid would drive many old people into poverty and require other welfare funding – but if the cupboard is bare what else can be done, eh?

People need to be weaned-off the comforting expectation that the state pension alone will meet their needs in old age and instead plan to substantially supplement that possibly reduced income by other means including savings.


[It is an utter disgrace that successive government with their head in the sand approach have allowed this known situation to feaster until it has become almost terminal. It has to tacked now and that needs to be on a cross-party basis to avoid political turmoil or further inaction]


Talk of transgender, transsexual and gender self-identification – what a load of cobblers?

A major debate is raging in England just now over ‘proposed reforms’ to the gender recognition act (GRA) of 2004, while most of us have no idea what the hell that is all about nor what is going on now, do we? Well, what we ought to know though is that the blood-sucking lawyers are loving it all, as they are expecting to make a killing whenever there is legal controversy, don’t they?

Nothing against lawyers in general of course, but they just feel the need to hitch themselves to any passing wagon to make as many fast bucks as possible while the gravy train lasts, eh?

Just to set the scene, it has to be said that it is an accepted medical fact that male and female gender is set at the time of conception, so 9 months before a baby’s birth. At birth the gender is determined normally without ambiguity purely by the genitalia and that sex is recorded on the birth certificate as Male or Female.

However, in adulthood certain people find that they are not as the norm attracted to those of the opposite sex but instead to others of the same sex as themselves, so they self-determine as male homosexual or female lesbian. Well, for many centuries that was outlawed in this Country and sexual participation between same-sex couples was deemed to be unlawful and punishable.

It was only fifty years ago that homosexuality was decriminalised here and even then, for decades thereafter homophobia was rife in the UK and there are still pockets of that around particular amongst immigrant communities, aren’t there?

The unconscious bias in British psyche that has that has adversely coloured attitudes to homosexually and lesbianism has most definitely abated, though it does appear nevertheless to some of us that they seem to get undue prominence these days in the world of drama entertainment for some reason?

While most of the population might well be aware of the lesbian and gay scenario and these days are likely not only to have come in contact with many individuals, but will have had family experience, or know them well, or have friends of that sexuality, it is less likely that they have personally come across transgender people, as there are just say ten thousand or so of them in England?

Now those people are ones who have developed a ‘gender identity’ that differs from their assigned sex, which in practice means that they feel to be in the wrong type of sexual body to express their desired gender. Sometimes they deeply desire medical assistance to transition from their physical sex to the other, in which case they are known as transsexual.

The situation is further complicated by other individuals who don’t feel themselves to be of either male or female sex so are of a ‘third’ gender often termed ‘non-binary’.

Now apart from the fact that hordes of us don’t give a hoot about what any of these people do in their private life, it does become a problem in society when people want to change the ‘recorded’ gender on their birth certificate and ‘legally’ operate as a member of the opposite sex. You see gender affects a great number of things in the way an individual operates within the community, doesn’t it?

Yep, it can affect the safeguarding of children, women and vulnerable adults, the types of jobs people are employed-in like roles normally reserved to women, access to women-only spaces like women’s centres, Girl Guides, ladies’ swimming facilities, rights to women-only services, the age a state pension becomes payable, access to female-only services protected by exemptions to the equality act, participation in competitive sport, parental status, religious constraints needs, and much more.

Furthermore we cannot allow a situation developing whereby for example women-only shortlists, schemes that boost women’s representation, or woman specific awards, that have come about to redress historic male dominance in certain arenas, can now be hijacked by the transgender in what might be seen as a less competitive environment

‘Biological sex’ must remain a protected distinguishing attribute in law, and continue to be treated as a separate category from ‘gender identity’, which cannot be allowed to assume the equivalent status as the lobby is seeking, can it?

So, why has all this become topical all of a sudden?

Well, for a start the GRA was kicked-off over a decade ago when an male by birth transsexual activist argued that the government failed in law to fully recognise her as a woman in breach of Human Rights, and the European Court upheld the complaint, so Parliament changed the law but that regarding cases of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals.

However, there has been a long-running campaign to change that new law because it is claimed that trans people are forced to endure a lengthy, highly medicalised, bureaucratic and ‘demeaning’ process to acquire gender recognition [to obtain a gender recognition certificate that changed their birth certificate’s biological sex).

Reforms are being demanded that include that non-binary people are included in future law, that even that each and everyone should be allowed to legally choose their own gender i.e. allowing anyone to self-identify their sex themselves without any diagnostic confirmation of having gender identity issues, meaning for example that even ‘self-identify’ trans people should be legally entitled to use single-sex spaces [where currently they rightly get turned away?]. As the idiom goes, what a crock of shxx these ideas are, surely?

While some level of law reform to protect affected individuals against victimisation or exclusion, is certainly appropriate, such proposals for expansion of the definition of transgender in this way to include those who are NOT transsexual, or whether or not individuals intend to make permanent physical changes, is a step too far, surely?

Now while most of us would accept that being trans is not an illness and certainly wouldn’t want to unnecessarily discriminate against those in that category, we certainly don’t expect their needs or desires to rule the roost over the rest of us heterosexuals or create risks or conflict, do we?

The existing equality legislation ensures all trans people are protected regarding employment and also against discrimination, except where appropriate specific sex-based exceptions exist so can be invoked.

What we cannot allow are changes that say allow male sexual predators, or paedophiles and the like, to self-identify themselves as women to gain easier access to their prey and we know well that such people as persistent sex offenders are skilled manipulators prepared to go to any length in their constant search for any kind of devious way to gain trust and obtain contact opportunities with potential targets.

Regardless of gender ‘identity’, we must maintain sex-segregation to defend women, girls and their female-only services, whenever that is appropriate and reasonable, particularly wherever women need protection from male-bodied persons, like say at abused women refuges, rape crisis centres, and of course prisons.

Despite the fact that provision already exists in prisons to exclude certain women whether trans or not, based on their record, from the female estate if they are deemed a danger to other inmates, the authorities have already been mesmerised by the aggressive transgender lobby and pre-any legislation changes, have allowed a multi-sex offender and multi-rapist, a male self-identified transgender women, into a woman’s prison to commit further sexual attacks on females [convicted two weeks ago and jailed for life] – there is a lesson there to be learnt, surely? Yes, and it is that any male with a retained penis cannot be allowed in any future law amendment simply to transgender to obtain a female certificate that gains them access to female only spaces or jobs or situations. [note that in fact almost half of trans women prisoners are sex offenders and a quarter have convictions for sexual offences relating to children – so none of them should EVER be banged-up in a woman’s prison]

There are rightly genuine concerns over those convicted of male violence against women, subsequently self-identifying as women, and those sexual predators should most certainly be excluded from acquiring a new gender without being post-operative transsexuals .

There is a massive problem lurking under the surface however and that is the one concerning minors with gender identity issues, as these certainly are not included in current legislation and are unlikely to be included in any changes.

It is particularly worrying to those of us who have come across it that children as young as six years-of-age are somehow being encouraged to desire to be of the opposite sex and while it is not clear how this is happening [as there is an explosive over 4,000% increase in girls wanting to be boys and over 1,200% increase in boys wanting to transgender, there has to be a BIG question WHY], nevertheless it is certainly being indulged rather than being tackled. We need to be clear that this is a totally different phenomena from what has always happened with girls being tomboys and boys dressing-up in their sister’s dresses when they are experimenting with their gender, which is perfectly normal and healthy, isn’t it?


[Much of the concern about proposed change in the gender law has to be about those born male, and that is because it has to be taken into account that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are indeed male so risk assessment becomes a crucial factor in the decision]

‘Philip Hammond’ a BREXIT terrorist and now International Law expert– the new Dynamo who can walk on water as well?



Well, well, well, we’ve now heard the latest outrage from mega-loudspeaker broadcaster of ‘project fear’ announcements, Essex boy Philip Hammond, the supposed Chancellor of the Exchequer so charged with protecting the financial interests of the Country in accordance with the electorate’s mandate, but when has spent his 2 years in the job doing exactly the opposite, hasn’t he?

Why as an ardent Remainer he was given that crucial job which essentially required someone to accept and progress BREXIT to the best possible outcome, which required him to turn-around a Treasury one hundred percent committed to staying in the EU no matter what and whatever their employer’s electorate voted for in the Referendum, is anybody’s guess – but then again his job was the gift of promotion from a Remainer, herself shiny-new PM Theresa May, eh?

Predictably, his Treasury has simply continued under his direction then to determinedly undermine the UK’s BREXIT negotiations with its dire forecasts, manipulated by putting negative assumptions into their financial models – ‘rubbish-in’ means ‘rubbish-out’, you see?

It is a fact that research published this year by economists at one of the world’s top business schools [the CBR of the University of Cambridge, top ranked by Bloomberg, the Financial Times, BusinessInsider, US News & World Report, and Forbes Magazine] identified that Treasury’s economic modelling reports on the impact of Brexit, issued during and AFTER the Brexit referendum, were fatally flawed – they say that the BREXIT decision will only have a small negative impact on economic growth over the coming years, and is likely to have a minor impact on living standards, and NOT the large negative impacts being predicted.

Now, the latest scaremongering intervention by Hammond is to warn-off the Cabinet from accepting a NO Deal outcome to EU negotiations and saving a £45bn so-called BREXIT divorce bill for maintenance, as he has determined that Britain is legally required to pay the bulk [£36bn] of it ANYWAY.

This of course is just a ‘rework’ of his crass utterances last December when he pontificated that the EU’s spurious financial settlement bill would have to be paid in full irrespective of a trade deal being struck or not [as if it was a High Court judgement, eh?]. He was immediately within the hour slapped down by May for that original assertion when he claimed that ‘not paying’ was “inconceivable” [May had unilaterally made the massive financial commitment to the EU without the authority of Cabinet or Parliament – her commitment to the Country is “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”].

Just exactly what qualifies Europe-loving Hammond to counsel Cabinet on the legality of the issue is anyone’s guess as he seems to have no training or qualifications in European or International law or Treaty obligations, does he? No, he only has an Oxbridge degree in Philosophy, Politics, & Economics and on reaching Parliament twenty odd years ago he has worked his ticket in assigned roles for work & pensions, treasury, transport, defence, foreign office – so perhaps a jack of all trades and master of none, eh?

So, Hammond’s ability is not equivalent in any which way say to the Attorney General’s, who is the chief legal adviser to the Crown, and oversees the legal department department and the CPS, and SFO, as well of course as acting as principal legal adviser on questions of EU and international law, and the legal aspects of all major international and domestic litigation involving the government.

Hammond once again strives to pull the rug from under the feet of BREXIT, cause further divisive turmoil in the Cabinet and even more disconcertingly, give succour to the EU enemy in Brussels. May hasn’t done anything about it though, has she? No, because she can no longer keep him under any measure of control as he has become untouchable – May a strong and stable Prime Minister, do you think?

Just recall that BREXIT was the clear-cut decision of the Country’s Referendum and that was followed by a General Election won with a Tory manifesto commitment to implement leaving the Single market and the Customs union, won’t you?


[Britain’s politicians hold senior government appointments as amateurs without any real qualifications and that undoubtably gives the likes of Philip Hammond to the sad delusional false belief that they can do just anything however miraculous – even walk on water?]

RUSSIA is a ‘disgusting’ country under Putin – AMERICA is a ‘disgusting’ country under Trump

Putin                   Trump  

There is an idiom truism saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover, but nevertheless that certainly doesn’t apply when it comes to the ‘elected’ leaders of certain countries does it, eh? No, and that applies in modern times to both Russia and unfortunately, now the United States of America as well, doesn’t it?

While it might have taken Vladimir Putin, a former head of the Russian intelligence service, nearly a full 20 years of without question running his country, either as either President or Prime Minister [thwarting its constitution in the process], to revert his nation’s recovering country into a disgusting and despicable one, it has taken Donald Trump only 2 years to achieve a somewhat similar disgusting fate for his, hasn’t it?

[President Putin has the evil look about him and President Trump can equally match him, can’t he?]

Some would say that a county’s people shouldn’t he judged on the actions of their leader, but that criteria cannot be applied when the leader has been elected rather than having seized power, surely? [Oh yes, Putin is deemed to have ‘stolen’ all his victories, but certainly the US punters got exactly what they had voted for, didn’t they?].

Well, of course President Putin has done the most so far to drag his already corrupt country into the gutter as he had had more time to do so, hasn’t he? Yep, and its descent into the abys was inevitable the moment Boris Yeltsin selected Putin to be his chosen successor.

Here are just some of the evil things that Vladimir Putin has perpetrated in the name of his country:

  • with short shrift all Putin’s potential enemies were eliminated, others’ assets were purloined, the press was neutralised with suspect journalists done-away-with, and indeed that has been since the fate the political opposition in Russia, to boot?
  • used the power of draconian anti-democratic laws, arrests and assassinations to lose the democratic reforms of predecessor Boris Yeltsin
  • Putin befriends the elite criminals, in mutually profitable relationships mixes with criminals, and exercises power by using criminal gangsters
  • disgustingly, state agents exploit their own criminal opportunities in an increasingly controlled way and Putin has allowed organised crime to prosper, it goes with the grain of his system, you see?
  • Putin has orchestrated riots to destabilise neighbouring states and ongoingly has conducted mass state sponsored cyber-attacks around the globe
  • he ordered the invasion and continuing occupation of parts of neighbouring Georgia in 2008
  • back-in 2006, British naturalised Russian defector and Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in London with State radioactive polonium 210, and the perpetrator given a parliamentary seat by Putin as his get-out-of-jail-card
  • in 2014 he oversaw the most corrupt games in Olympic antiquity with the worst doping scandal in history
  • Putin ordered his troops to invade Ukraine and illegally annex Crimea in 2014, so stole a massive swath of Ukrainian territory, and continues to destabilise Eastern Ukraine, where fighting rages on, all with some 10,000 dead
  • the disgusting downing over eastern Ukraine of a civilian Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 with the loss of 298 innocent civilian lives, using a Russian missile occurred in 2014.
  • the Russian military was dispatched to Syria in 2015, shored up the regime of Bashar Assad and committed countless atrocities, still conducting devastating airstrikes, even bombing a United Nations aid convoy and targeting hospitals [ some ¼ million civilians murdered & 5M refugees, 6M displaced, 14M requiring humanitarian assistance (the whole nation?)]
  • without much doubt Putin ordered a cyber and propaganda attack to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election to undermine public faith in the American democratic process, while false stories were posted on Facebook reaching 140 million Americans, and his hackers stole thousands of emails from Democratic leaders and leaked them. (Similar attacks have since occurred in Germany, France and the Netherlands)
  • he is selling weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and banned oil to North Korea, while providing sanctuary to a rogue’s gallery of cyber criminals, dispatches fighter aircraft that harass U.S. military jets in Syria and NATO aircraft over the Baltic, and sends submarines to prowl threatening close to crucial Atlantic undersea cables carrying 97% of global communications
  • just this summer Putin sent his GRU military team of assassins to eliminate, using an illegal military grade nerve agent poison, British citizen and Russian ex-double agent spy Sergei Skripal together with his daughter Julia in Salisbury – they were saved but another innocent woman became an unintended victim and died horribly
  • his vile actions have resulted in the Western response of massive sanctions that are crippling the poor of his country – but with his own stolen untold riches why should he give a damn, eh?


Don’t be in any doubt will you, but Trump has taken a leaf out of Putin’s book when taking over the levers of power in America.

Trump has aggressively set about to:

  • neutralise and discredit the press, disclaiming every exposure as fake news, destroying as best he can journalists’ established reputations, and side-lining any political opponents and even being at war with members of his own party.
  • by-pass the checks and balances inherent in the American constitutional, ignoring the need to consult Congress about laws and issuing Presidential decrees in its place, abusing his power and ignoring the law, and of course terminating those who get in his way [like the Secretary of State, FBI director, FBI deputy director, the first, then second national security advisor, Chief strategist, Chief economic adviser, US ambassador], though not by Putin’s means – but doubtless he would if he thought he could get away with it, eh?
  • Trump appoints criminals to high office [first national security advisor (guilty)], employs criminals to hide his dirty exploits [personal attorney & fixer (guilty)], run things [former campaign manager (guilty), campaign foreign policy adviser (guilty), campaign aide (guilty), aides’ Dutch lawyer (guilty)], or support him [member of the House of Representatives (indicted), a second member of the House of Representatives (arrested)]. Then there are 12 Russian intelligence officers indicted for information warfare against the U.S [now back in Russia]
  • his charitable (?) foundation [directors — himself, sons Eric and Donald Jr. and daughter Ivanka] is being sued by the NY attorney general for violation over a decade of state and federal charities law
  • encourage violence [2016 campaign rallies] and he has even been accused in federal court of incitement to riot (didn’t stick of course). Trump public utterings include “I’d like to punch him in the face” [in front of a crowd of supporters, after a protester was removed]; “Maybe he should have been roughed up” [regarding a protester who indeed was ejected by a jostling, kicking and punching Trump mob]; “Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore” [complaining that protesters are ejected easily as they realize that there are no consequences to protesting anymore[; “I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will” [on giving way to a protestor]; “The audience hit back. That’s what we need a little bit more of” [about a protestor he accused of violent behaviour]; “If you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it” [about a protestor he wanted out]; “I’ll beat the crap out of you” [about someone had rushed toward the stage in an aggressive manner]; “Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees” [how to deal with a tomato throwing protestor]
  • failed to condemn the alt-right racist white supremacist riots in Charlottesville


One can always predict the inevitable degeneration of a country with a system sliding towards shabby oblivion, when its regime enables itself to take control of the judiciary, can’t one? Well Trump showed his colours on that front with his latest despicable act played-out last week, when he had forced through the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court judge whose suitability and candidature had been seriously called into question. Trump now has firmly under his limitless control a most influential judge in the highest court in the land – a man who now owes him BIG TIME and Trump is exactly the kind of man to make sure the man does his bidding, isn’t he?

Trump not only has sworn-in his new selection but has had the audacity to ‘apologise on behalf of the entire Nation to him and his family for their terrible pain and suffering in his selection validation’ and furthermore Trump claimed that those accusing the man were liars and that he has been “proved innocent under scrutiny” – A MASSIVE UNTRUTH on both counts that is worthy of the Adolf Hitler propaganda technique of THE BIG LIE [use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone ‘could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’]. The credible respected woman who blew the whistle on this all, passed a lie detector test but the learned judge didn’t take one, eh?

Now, this judge was accused of drunken sexual assault by three women in his youth, so just the kind of man that Trump, a self-admitted sexual abuser of women, would want as a top line judge, eh?

This appointment has become a major divisive political issue with seemingly even Republican women in acceptance of allowing men’s sexual disrespect of their ‘gender’, eh?

Not only that, but this follows-on in the footsteps of Trump’s full-throated endorsement last year of an alleged serial sexual predator [that included a 14-year-old girl victim] in a Senate race (he lost), which sent a clear message to women everywhere that he doesn’t believe that credible allegations of molesting women are ‘disqualifying’.

Apart from the above, Trump can’t yet match Putin’s most extreme destructive exploits, but what other things has he been up to since January 20, 2017?

  • issues noxious tweets that undermines the power and grandeur of the presidency
  • immediately signed an executive order halting all refugee arrivals, banned travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries [Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen], and refugees from Syria barred indefinitely [order successfully challenged in court (partial)]
  • acted in isolation in granting a undeserved pardon to a former Arizona sheriff for a criminal contempt conviction in a racial-profiling case
  • announced the end of the DACA program that gave protection to some ¾ million young undocumented immigrants [stalled by legal actions but now requires Congress intervention to survive]
  • has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, with relocation of the US Embassy there – provoking worldwide condemnation as that country is in breach of international law in the sequestration and occupancy of others’ land
  • withdrawn the US from the Paris climate accord, showing that the USA doesn’t give a fig about the future of the planet and the human race if business can make a quick buck
  • installing conservative judges who will preside for decades
  • empowered al-Qaida in Syria, by forging a de facto alliance with Russia and Iran to defeat the Islamic State, Trump is driving Sunni Arabs into the waiting arms of al-Qaida – which is preparing to replace the Islamic State and is much more dangerous
  • fired the FBI director for investigating Russia links, leading directly to the ongoing Special counsel probe, now hanging over the Trump presidency like the Sword of Damocles
  • attacked and undermined the FBI and the intelligence community when those in the FBI, the Justice Department and the CIA are good, decent and honourable patriots deserving of respect
  • risked nuclear war in making dire threats against rogue state North Korea but then negotiated directly with its despot leader (and lost)
  • stands suspect of being complicit in Russian interference in the presidential campaign, and of subsequent appeasing Putin, saying that he believes Putin and not his own intelligence operations
  • his administration has ‘slow-walked’ implementation of tough, new sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by Congress last summer.
  • . shamed the US worldwide in issuing an executive order enacting FORCED separation of immigrant children from their families at the border and jailing the adults, then face with protests he changed it to detain them ALL instead
  • Trump has lately started an ‘unwinnable’ but potentially devastating trade war with China, Canada, Mexico and EU


THERE YOU GO – HARDLY A WORTHY RECORD FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT, that makes America great, do you think?


[While authoritarian, oppressive, punitive and expansionist ‘Vladimir Putin’ doesn’t need to give a damn about public support or polls or image in other countries, ‘Donald Trump’ most certainly does and his administration is haemorrhaging support, with his approval dropping to 35 percent, and internationally his confidence rating is rock bottom (7% Spain, 9% France, 10% Germany)]