Since I last posted we have a new government in the UK, and Brexit has finally happened. However, both of those events which have occupied our minds over the last four years have been overshadowed by a Coronavirus known as Covid-19

Ironically, our leaving Europe has become final at a time when we most need the support and collective ideas and science knowledge of our closest neighbours.

Covid-19 is demonstrating that our government’s promise of ‘taking back control’ with protected borders provides no barrier to this insidious virus. The death toll across the world has been almost incomprehensible in an age where it cannot be directly attributable to a war.

The reality, however, is that we are at war – a new kind of war. We are not fighting a physical form we can see and understand; we are battling with an invisible enemy that permeates the very air we breathe.

There are many theories how this epidemic started but blame is meaningless when we should be concentrating all our efforts in getting through the next few months. Facts are scarce and advice from ‘experts’ changes by the hour.

One thing seemingly clear is we should self-isolate. The elderly or those with underlying health problems have been instructed by government ministers they should not go out for the next three months.

Our government seems to give selective, but often seemingly random ‘scientific’ advice, on a daily basis while it struggles to suppress a rising death rate. At the same time, many of us ‘citizens’ are still failing to take the risks seriously or are simply ignoring them altogether.

Inevitably, we are seeing the best and the worst of human nature.

Many of us are likely to be suffering from confusion and shock about the virus itself and how we can change our daily lives to make it through these strange times. How will we cope with self-isolation and the closure of shops and leisure facilities? What are we supposed to do if we are feeling ill and if we are, how do we know if it is coronavirus or just a mild dose of the flue?

One sensible piece of advice seems to be if you have to go out, keep a MINIMUM of two metres from others and wear a mask.

Most importantly…don’t take unnecessary risks!

He has revealed himself to be not a leader of the free world but its biggest liability.

By openly threatening to ‘totally destroy North Korea’, he has managed to give much-needed credibility to Kim Jong-Un and his North Korean dictatorship in protecting themselves from any perceived threat, by owning a nuclear arsenal of its own.

Nuclear weapons are abhorrent but let’s not forget the only country that has ever used them in anger is America. In the decades that have followed since 1945 there has been an ever-increasing demand for their ownership.

Of course, the Russians were the first to respond by developing their own arsenal and as the technology leaked – as it always would – others followed. It fast became a nuclear arms race. The theory being, that owning nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent to being attacked. To do so would mean instant retaliation and almost certain annihilation of the attacker. It was the Doomsday scenario known as MAD – mutually assured destruction. No sane world leader would take the risk of a launch as the collateral damage would be immeasurable.

All was relatively secure in the world until Trump v Kim Jong-Un. Both are becoming increasingly aggressive in their rhetoric and are heading ever closer to a world-changing disaster.

In reality, the US would struggle to ‘totally destroy North Korea’ by using conventional warfare and without involvement in a long drawn out costly offensive. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese would be likely to sit idly by while watching their own borders.

So the question is: would either Kim Jong-Un or Donald Trump press the button for a nuclear strike? It seems it is fast becoming a likely scenario, as neither man has left any room for an alternative solution.

While experts from across the globe agonise over the various possible scenarios, it is worth remembering that Trump was once reported (and has since denied) asking a foreign policy advisor: “if we have them, (nuclear weapons) why can’t we use them?”

The lights are on but I’m not certain anyone’s at home!

But, of course, that was exactly the aim of the three men who were shot and killed by the authorities whilst rampaging through Borough Market attacking anyone within arm’s reach.

This latest incident may not have generated the same emotional impact as the attack two weeks earlier where children were the target of a bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, but it still managed to make its point. We cannot afford to be complacent.

This is the third unpredictable terrorist attack in the UK within three months – none of which appears to be connected.

Predictably, following a short period of reflection, the hunt for someone to blame commences, political points are made, and radical new solutions are presented for consideration.

Following the latest incident, prime minister Theresa May stated ‘enough is enough’ and suggested strict new measures are needed to fight back against radicalised Muslims. These range from forcing internet companies to take responsibility for monitoring extreme propaganda on their sites, to increasing prison sentences for less severe terror-related offences.

Other politicians have suggested increasing police numbers, introducing internment for suspected Muslim extremists and providing extra funding for the security services.

All of these suggestions make for good reading in an election week but sadly most have been tried before and didn’t work.

A recent example was during the height of the Irish troubles. We had both internment and the ridiculous situation where members of Sinn Fein were interviewed on TV but their words were substituted by those of actors. Ultimately, we had to engage in face-to-face talks and agree on a settlement where the ideology of both sides, in their campaigns of terror, reached a compromise.

Of course, the present situation is very different. The word ‘radicalised’ is really a substitute for ‘brainwashed’. It has nothing to do with religion but religion is used as the excuse for the killing.

The glory to be gained by dying while carrying out what they believe to be an act of a god – of whatever religion – is merely a delusion. However, it is used as the fuel for many terrorists seeking martyrdom status.

It can, therefore, be argued that a shoot-to-kill policy by our own authorities is giving the extremists what they seek. It must surely be a better long-term solution to deprive them of achieving that ‘glory’ by apprehending them and making them face British justice and punishment.

The bottom line, though, is that none of the measures proposed in recent weeks will stop these incidents from being carried out randomly. You can’t just throw money at a problem and expect it to disappear.

Ultimately, it can only be solved by dialogue, education and by dissolving the propaganda of those who wish to instigate a holy war against non-Muslims.

To achieve that end, we as a nation have to be squeaky clean and to lead by example.

In the meantime, we have to live normally and resist attempts to restrict our right to freedom.

This election campaign has been the most irritating of almost any I have known during my lifetime.

It was brought about by the arrogance of a prime minister who thought she could increase her Commons majority and steamroller us into a life of subservience and obedience. If she gets her way on June 8th she will be able to manipulate us into accepting almost any new law without question or opposition.

Her party’s campaign is being disguised as a vote for a strong hand in the Brexit negotiations but I feel the reality will be an attack on our personal freedoms and working practices.

By focusing on the threat of terrorism or immigration – or both, her government will be able to introduce restrictions on our free movement, fulfill her long-held wish of enforcing identity cards and allow unwarranted monitoring of our everyday online communication with little accountability.

She will also be able to start selling off the most profitable parts of our National Health Service to the highest bidder – privatisation by the back door.

Fortunately, she has been surprised by the popularity of her key opponent, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn.

At the start of the campaigning, most polls forecast a massive majority for her party with much of the press portraying Corbyn as a ‘leftie clown’. However, he has surprised many of his critics – both within his party and beyond – by being adept at answering difficult questions and portraying himself as an honest, plain speaking politician, who cares deeply about a fair and equal society. There are many who see his views as being old school socialism but if you pause to think, most of his support is a reaction to the self-interest and increasing inequality that Capitalism has brought to society over the last couple of decades.

At this point, you are probably thinking I am going to be voting Labour but you would probably be wrong. I use the word ‘probably’ because I am still undecided who I shall back on the big day.

What I do know, and care passionately about, is that whoever ends up in power, we need a strong and effective opposition to represent all our views and to act as a brake for the excesses of the governing party – whoever they are!

With an effective opposition, we protect Democracy – without it, we slip into a totalitarian dictatorship!

Fifty-two percent of the passengers are screaming at her to go faster and forty-eight percent are begging her to slow down and proceed with caution.

“Why is she doing this” they cry at the fifty-two percenters.

“Because we need to ram all the foreign cars from our roads. They’re causing too much congestion; it’s far too crowded” came their exuberant reply.

“But this can only end in disaster. She has no vision of the road ahead and could kill us all before we get there – that’s if we even get there”

“Stop worrying. Everything will be OK. Our driver says she knows what she’s doing and has promised she will deliver us to our destination unscathed”

At that point the coach crashes through the barrier, tumbles across a green field, seriously wounding its occupants. The driver is killed outright.

A menacing black executive BMW pulls to a stop on the hard shoulder, overlooking the scene of the crash. Its darkened window descends revealing the insipid faces of three men. One of them portrays an air of insanity and flaunts a shock of unkempt white hair. It makes him stand out from his fellow passengers. He is known as Boris.

“It seems we might have got it wrong after all” he says dryly.

His two companions nod their heads in unison, like marionettes operated by a skilled puppeteer.

“She always used to say politics is not a game but this was actually quite fun.”

The window space returns to darkness as the vehicle continues its journey. The carnage created by the three men has already spun its way from their memories as a timid voice asks: “What can we play next BJ?”

That’s my view on Brexit!

Somehow, I couldn’t make myself believe that a great nation like the United States would do anything other than pay lip service to a presidential candidate whose aggressive manner and ruthless – and often deeply personal – attacks on his opponents, were nothing short of shocking.

I was wrong; he was elected President and became (in theory at least) leader of the so-called ‘free world’.

Following on closely from his official inauguration ceremony, Donald Trump wasted no time in bulldozing his most controversial policies into reality. For quite how long his executive orders will survive unchallenged remains to be seen, but he has certainly succeeded in hijacking the headlines of most news outlets around the globe.

He appears not to be a man who takes advice or criticism easily. He states – almost too loudly to be believable – he is not a racist, or a xenophobe. He claims he is only trying to protect the United States from outside threat. He says he will accomplish this by raising an imaginary drawbridge, building walls and ‘reclaiming’ his borders.

It must sound very plausible to a die-hard patriotic Trump fan, but to the outside world it is just another example of a man appearing to possess an ego bigger than the continent on which he resides and which – in his own mind – he now rules. He won’t accept criticism, or engage in discussion.

His recent headline grabbing 90 day ban on Muslims entering the states because they originate from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen has caused global criticism and been reversed by the courts Trump states it is not intended to be anti-Muslim. However, it implies all Muslims are a threat.

Similarly, his desire to build a wall between the US and Mexico he says is not anti-Mexican; it just propagates the myth that all Mexicans are undesirables, drug dealers or racketeers.

President Trump won’t acknowledge any reasonable argument that the majority of Muslims and Mexicans might share his abhorrence of any acts that, in recent times, might have taken place in their name. He won’t accept he could be driving young disaffected Muslims into the open arms of terrorist organisations by his act of enforcing a ban that will in turn feed the myth of a Holy War against the whole Muslim religion.

Trump is a man used to having his own way. He enjoys being seen as combative and a celebrity. The world, however, is an increasingly volatile place and needs rational thought and an acceptance of another point of view. It does not need a maverick operating through the world of Twitter.

The real world of politics is nothing like that of a reality TV show. Only time will tell if President Trump should remain hired or whether he should be told “you’re fired!”

Whatever the outcome, you can guarantee more controversy.

(Photo copyright and courtesy of Michael Vadon)

What is the reasoning behind this pronouncement?

Officially, it’s to alleviate the current pressure being felt by the Accident and Emergency Departments within our general hospitals. The real reason is more likely to be to divert attention away from the government’s own failure to ease the current crisis within our NHS.

Our GP system is not perfect. We have all experienced delays and frustrations when requesting an appointment. GPs are usually upfront in admitting to their own inadequacy. Many are past the accepted age of retirement but are unable to find someone willing to take on the responsibility of running their practice.

However, why should they become scapegoats for the failure of a government which has ultimate responsibility for running the health service?

Theresa May’s simplistic view is that A&E departments are overwhelmed by patients who cannot get an instant appointment with their own GP. These patients would rather spend hours waiting to see a doctor in an overcrowded casualty department where seriously ill and dying patients should be taking priority.

Isn’t it time we all took responsibility for our actions?

If we spend an evening binge drinking and end up in the casualty department it isn’t the fault of the GPs. If we break a finger nail or have a cough it isn’t normally something that can’t wait a few days. Only rarely is there a need for an immediate medical diagnosis. Most of it is just common sense.

However, that does not seem to feature within the wisdom of Theresa May. She has ignored the lack of trained GPs who would be needed to extend the present surgery hours. She has failed to factor in that many patients scheduled an appointment fail to turn up on the day. She hasn’t accounted for the increase in our elderly population. She hasn’t understood that some patients require more time than the customary ten minute appointment. She neither thought – or cares – about the extra staffing needed to extend the present opening hours, or the effects on those staff and their families.

It has been a complete knee jerk announcement!

The NHS website already advises patients that they should only visit A&E for “life-threatening emergencies” including severe blood loss, unconsciousness and breathing difficulties.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt recently said:

“We have to recognise that society is changing and people do not always know whether the care that they need is urgent or whether it is an emergency, and making GPs available at weekends will relieve a lot of pressure in A&E departments.”

However, he was also forced to admit during a House of Commons questions session on health:

“I took my own children to an A&E department at the weekend precisely because I did not want to wait until later on to take them to see a GP.”

It appears some members of our government are infected by a dose of:

‘Don’t do what I do; do what I say!’

Perhaps they should seek treatment from their GP?

BBC2’s new documentary series ‘Hospital’ following a week in the life of St Mary’s Hospital in London, was both riveting and deeply distressing. It was even more distressing after hearing prime minister Theresa May’s earlier criticism of the Red Cross for having the audacity to state there is now a humanitarian crisis within our NHS.

Of course, it is of little surprise that May and her ministers have long resented those who dare to criticise their handling of our premier national asset. For the last couple of years we have been overdosing on stories of casualty departments in meltdown with their corridors lined by waiting patients on trolleys, unable to get access to a bed.

Most of us have become immune to the constant doom and gloom stories of casualty and are fortunate to be healthy enough to avoid having to visit. We assume the department is just a small bone on the body of the main NHS and the rest of the framework is functioning normally.

However, last night’s programme proved otherwise.

Yes, it was once again about the lack of beds available, but this time they were in intensive care. In St Mary’s, there are only sixteen ICU spaces for those needing round the clock, one-to-one monitoring.

Why does this matter?

Very simple. If a bed is not available in ICU for post operative care, then life saving operations are put on hold and the operating theatres remain on stand-by until one can be found.

Highly skilled surgeons and their teams are forced to barter for the spare capacity and decisions have to be made about which of them has the sickest patient. Having your life saved, therefore, becomes a lottery.

Meanwhile, the losing patients are either left in limbo, with a greater risk of dying, or if judged to be not so ‘critical’ are sent home and put on standby – often for the second or third time.

The teams due to operate are left playing a waiting game and their sense of frustration and dissatisfaction grows greater. It is a complete waste of valuable resources, talent – and most importantly funding.

Why is the problem not being solved?

Providing more funding for ICU beds and staffing would be expensive but surely not as costly as the wasted time and hours of those who are not being permitted to do what they love and are paid to do.

Could it be our caring government is happy to wait until the dying breath of the NHS before allowing their white knight of privatisation to ride in and save the day?

Judging by their failure to act, it appears more and more likely.

Personally, I would rather our national funding was spent on beds and not bombs. The former is life over death; the latter is death over life!

Which do you prefer?

One of her first jobs was to form a new cabinet. She did this with precision and a certain amount of mischief.

The three leading architects of the Brexit movement were immediately tasked with drafting Britain’s exit from (and future out of) the EU. Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, David Davis as Minister for Brexit and Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary.

What has become abundantly clear is that none of them had really expected to win the vote in June and none of them has a clue how to proceed now they have. It seems they had merely been positioning themselves within their own party to lead it at a future date. Their actions were more about self-interest than the good of the country.

The added bonus of May’s cabinet blueprint is that her three new ministers don’t even like each other. She’s appears to be saying to them:‘you made this mess now either you sort it between you or you fall together!’

During the lead-up to the Brexit vote, May kept a fairly low profile. She was seen as a Remain supporter but was never too visible in the actual debate. Since becoming PM she has refused to activate Article 50 – the formal mechanism for leaving the European Union. Instead, she insists she will not be rushed.

She has now publicly ruled out a points based system for future immigration to the UK, stating it would not be workable. In doing so she has, once again, undermined the three new Brexit ministers she holds responsible for this constitutional mess and has removed the only concrete proposal they had previously presented as a selling point for leaving the EU.

In reality, since June, we don’t really seem to have moved on much further than we were at the time of the vote. Public opinion is still very much split over Brexit and, despite the public smiles, the Conservatives remain deeply divided.

Of course, the government are not obliged to act on the decision made by the British electorate. The PM might be hoping failure by her ‘Brexit Threesome’ will change the minds of those who voted ‘out’ and will finally destroy the anti EU lobby within her own party. If that were to happen we could continue as we are but in a much stronger position to renegotiate a new deal within Europe. After all, the EU cannot afford to lose any other member states.

If she miscalculates, her fate will follow that of her predecessors, for whom Europe has been a curse.

One thing is for certain – it could start to become very messy!

To lead a country to war is an action that should only be taken when there is genuine fear of being attacked. It should, therefore, be a defensive action – to do otherwise is nothing but aggression.

At its most basic, this was the simple premise facing Sir John Chilcot and his team in their official inquiry into the 2003 Iraq War.

Were there reasonable grounds for the UK government, led by Tony Blair, to order military action against Saddam Hussein? Was there a genuine and imminent threat to the population of the UK or were we being fed a diet of misinformation and scare stories? Were traditional protocols followed before reaching a final decision?

Tony Blair maintains the threat was real and weapons of mass destruction could be raining down onto UK soil with only a 40 minute warning. He had based his claim on information received from MI6. It was information which was subsequently found to be totally without foundation.

He chose to ignore the much reported scepticism of UN weapons inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix. They had been dispatched to Iraq with unfettered access to search facilities used in the possible storage and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction – they found nothing.

Blair chose to exclude the majority of his cabinet from his decision making process. Instead, he stood back while those closest in his team publicly discredited anyone who dared to question his belief, and his desire for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

He chose to ignore the protest of over a million members of the UK public, who took part in a demonstration against any military action.

He failed to disclose his earlier private conversations with US President George Bush, during which they had discussed invading Iraq and toppling Saddam some two years before the conflict eventually commenced.

He failed to ensure British troops were adequately equipped for conflict or were prepared for any possible fallout following military action.

It seems in almost everything to do with Iraq…..he failed!

After seven years, Sir John Chilcot has finally released his report  and has heavily castigated Blair and his team for their actions.

Blair remains adamant his decision has made the world a better place today.

It is unlikely the families of 179 dead British servicemen and those of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed either directly in the conflict, or because of it, would readily agree.

In war, the truth often becomes distorted by emotion and emotion becomes divorced from fact!

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

Joseph Goebbels

(Blair photo courtesy of The Guardian)