THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE ENTITLED

On the 2nd of December 2024 the British public awoke to the news that a 76 year-old grandmother had been taken ill whilst on holiday in America.  This sort of  occurrence has happened to numerous holidaymakers over many years,  Few instances make the media news unless the unfortunate soul is famous of course.  Most people are responsible, most people take out insurance.  The grandmother in this case, Mrs Patricia Bunting, decided against such peace of mind, and being of an irresponsible nature, certainly on this occasion, and against her daughter's advice, made the trip to Florida hoping that all would be well for the three-week duration.  

By the time news first went to press, PB was already a patient at Orlando Hospital suffering from flu and Covid-19.  The woman has COPD and atrial fibrillation but still decided against insurance on the grounds of cost, quoted at between £3-6000.  To my mind it's quite simple.  If you cannot afford the insurance, you cannot afford the holiday.  The same analogy can be applied to one's car, though many motorists fail to understand that one either!

Slow forward to the 14th January and PB is still in hospital seven weeks after being taken ill in her hotel.  She travelled with her two sons aged 40 and 42, plus her grandson aged 23.  What didn't go unnoticed was the reference in the papers to the fact that both her boys are unemployed and that the grandson is autistic.  What the former tells us is that the taxpayers have probably paid for the offspring's trip to Disneyworld,  If that is not the case and mummy has paid, then instead of accepting a freebie, they should have clubbed together and bought insurance!  Who in their right mind at PB's age and existing medical conditions  would even contemplate travelling more than five miles outside of Wigan without insurance?   Surely a day excursion into the great metropolis that is Manchester would require insurance?  You could without fear of exaggeration probably add flak-jacket, bullet-proof vest and bodyguard, we are talking about the North after all!  Quite what the grandson's autism has to do with the price of eggs is anyone's guess. Though if I had to, it would be to guess that a sympathy vote was needed in order to bring a hearty 'Well done', an 'awwww'... Anything really that smacks of empathy with mental illness in all its variant forms.

Only days before (Friday 10th January), daughter Emma announce to a less than sympathetic world that her mother was being repatriated on a medical flight due to leave the USA on Tuesday, 14th Jan.  Monday 13th, however, came the news that there were complications and she would be leaving hospital that day and that no  return date was imminent.  

So, what do you do when there is no pot of gold to act as back-up come a rainy day or emergency?  No stash of cash from hard-working sons who turn up trumps when the going gets tough for their 'Lets-wing-it-and-hope-bugger-all-goes-wrong' mother?  No distant aunty in some far-flung flood-ridden,  disease-ridden or God-forbidden African or other third-world country - though  Mablethorpe's also a possibility - who has recently died and left them a family fortune?  Answer?  You ask the public to pay by setting up a GoFundMe page!  Unbelievable!  What concerns me more than the matriarch's foolishness and total lack of responsibility - and at her age, she really should know better - is that donations to the tune of over £40,000 have been garnered from those who have more money than sense and who,  by their very action of giving to this extremely unworthy cause, make the process of pointless charity easier to start for the next case of 'decision without responsibility'.  I wish PB well and hope she pulls through, but really, that £40.000+ could have gone to real cases of need - animal welfare for instance,  a local hospice,  a model railway club...

Sadly. no-one wants to be responsible for their actions, it is the way of the world.  Let someone else pay, from taxpayer funded benefits and donations from Blighty to American taxpayers' subsidies through hospital funding.  Such is the way of modern society, even more so 'up north'!

I wonder if they still have 'Trouble up their mill?' 

 

                            PUTIN AND TRUMP - THE DEADLY DUO!

Not long now until Donald Trump in inaugurated once more as President of the United States of America.  He became the 45th President on the 20th January 2017 and on the 20th of this month, America's 47th.  I wonder how many people saw that coming in 2021 as Mr. Biden took to the stage?  I currently wonder as to where the world is going given the ambitions of both DT and VP?  Neither being of a shy and retiring nature, it is possible that a more peaceful future can be found with the incoming American President.  He has met the Russian Head of State during his previous term which may be cause for some comfort to those foreseeing a rather dismal future for world peace.  The fly in the territorial ointment is Mr. Trump's desire to control the Panama Canal, incorporate Canada within the USA and buy Greenland from the Danes!  His publicly-made-known ambitions, or tick-boxes on a bucket list have inflamed the Panamanians, outraged the Canadians and worried the good people of both Greenland and Denmark.  Not ruling out taking control of the Panama Canal or Greenland by forceful means doesn't make for greater peaceful confidence either.

I have previously commented that the United Kingdom needs DT on board,  He is at least pro-British, unlike the current incumbent - pro-Irish and fairly anti-British.  DT's Scottish roots may have a lot to do with it, but it doesn't stop the man from being a child-like bully whose basic mentality has never risen above that of a 5 year-old in a school playground.  

When you stand back and look at both men, are they that different?  Both are proud of their respective countries and will fight for their sovereignty as any mother would defend her offspring whenever trouble - perceived or tangible - raises its head.  Very laudable - I wish the UK had a leader who fought for our country with the same fervour and passion.  Sadly, the days of Mr. Gorbachev, perestroika and glasnost have long departed the Russian scene.  The 'old guard' has re-emerged as a force not only to be reckoned with politically, but to take control either through physical force or intimidation and mischievous acts during neighbouring countries elections. The aim being to de-stabilise the country, their democracy and ultimately control the future of a newly-formed alliance.  Can the same principle of control not be put at DT's doorstep?

I remember back in my own secondary school - Spencer Park on Wandsworth Common - I asked a teacher what the difference was between a communist regime and that of a dictator.  The reply was something to the effect that communists control by committee and a dictator controls by himself.  Have things changed?  Is that a fair assessment and appropriate today?  I think so, especially when you note the closeness of allies and family that make up DT's new government.  It is natural to surround oneself with people one trusts, but DT does seem to make it appear as close to an inbred 'Norfolk' family as one can imagine.  Note:  For readers abroad and maybe not familiar with the County of Norfolk, situated in East Anglia, England,  they never say 'Give me five, they always say 'Give me six!'. Or...  'When arrested for a potential crime, the police never bother with DNA because they all possess identical genes.  Or ...   'Norfolk is a wonderful county, a population of 2 million people yet only 83 surnames!'.

But I digress...  Musing, as I do, wouldn't we be proud as a nation if a British Prime Minister were to announce that our army was about to invade France, and consider it as a new territory to be 'replenished' with souls either unwelcome or unwanted in the Motherland!  For example, the immediate removal and re-settlement of channel hopping migrants, all prisoners serving more than six months, anti-social families who make their neighbours life a misery, all owners of XL Bully's and other 'trophy' dogs that make up in size that that is lacking in their owner's penis and anyone who frankly isn't 'English' enough in class or diction to remain here and contribute to the raising of the next generation!

Musing further however, and getting back to the 'Despotic Duo', I can't imagine anybody raising a hand in objection if either one announced they were annexing Croydon or Slough.  Just a round of applause and a universal cry of 'About time!', I'd imagine.  One can dream...

                       ONLY FOUR+ YEARS TO THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

I commented previously that we needed a Labour government for a number of reasons.  One, in order to wake the Tories out of their corporate malaise, their arrogance, their lack of direction and performance.  Two, to address their trustworthiness, honesty and ability to follow through the policies on which much store was put by the electorate, who loyally voted for them over several general and local elections. 

Sadly, the Tories appear to have learnt little thus far into Labour's term in office.  A Tory (of unknown or forgotten status) recently opined that those who voted Reform cost the Tories in last July's election.  Wrong, dear boy!  It was the Tories who cost the Tory Party their chance of continuing in government. It was theirs to win, not lose.  The opposition wasn't exactly everybody's cup of Yorkshire tea.  Remember, only 37% of the voting electorate put their cross against a Labour candidate, not exactly an overwhelming vote of conviction or confidence.  Is it not plain to the Tories by now that if they hadn't been so weak and gutless on the continuing issues regarding Law and Order, Immigration, the NHS, Policing, Care and the Environment, they would still be in power as I write and there would be no need of a Reform Party!

Having taken an interest in politics since my late teens, I look back - and not through rose-tinted glasses - and I can honestly say, it is difficult to recall such a thoroughly nasty group of people at ministerial level currently leading this country.  Rarely, over a new government's first six months in office, have so many major decisions been made that have led to such universal antagonism.  From Sir Keir Starmer, alongside the 'Three Witches of Westminster', down through the pecking order of ministerial positions, there isn't one who shines as a decent and seemingly caring member of the Labour government.  How long were they sat in the doldrums of politics, the desert of political importance?  Long enough to come into power with policies that would see action taken on important areas of society within a short period of 'bedding in'.  Wes Streeting, the Minister for Health, is looking at 2028 before announcing much needed reform to the crumbling 'Care' provision and associated services.  The release of prisoners so that we can lock up more prisoners did not go down well with the general public, and rightly so.  The Labour government displayed all the imagination and empathy of a party out of touch with its citizens before its first month of tenure had elapsed. 

From the pensioners' fuel support being discontinued,  tax rises for both business and the working public, to car tax increases and National Insurance increases for businesses across the board, this ghastly mix of cohorts have little in common with what one would perceive as 'Socialist' values.  

The north-west of England, Lancashire in particular, has been a hotspot for the sexual grooming of young girls in care.  Mainly perpetrated by men of Asian 'heritage', as the left like to refer to them,  (They're still Asian!), various committees have concluded that many a blind eye was turned by the police, social services and other interested parties due to the 'race factor', which would have raised its embarrassingly coloured head.  Oldham Council want the government to hold a public enquiry.  Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister who is extremely lightweight and 'to the left of public opinion',  has blocked their request by responding that it's a 'local matter'!  It's a racial matter, and that's the last thing the Labour Party wish to be involved with.  Think of the loss of Asian votes, especially from the Muslim population, it's what keeps Labour in power in Lancashire.  Mosques, Mayors and Martyrs!   Oh!  -  and Mohammad, the most popular boy's name registered in England last year. Does that not tell you something?  Can you picture another summer of discontent, race riots, looting and other unseemly, ungentlemanly behaviour?  I wouldn't rule it out.  The country is a tinder-box just waiting to be set alight, suppression on grounds of race does not make a problem disappear.

Elon Musk is,  as I have previously stated,  not someone I would invite round for afternoon tea. Such are his unnecessary comments on the aforementioned Jess Phillips, ('She should be jailed', Musk says!), that I wouldn't even share a bag of pork scratchings with the all-powerful but socially ill-mannered and meddling oik.  Wealth does not equate to class.  Nigel Farage would do well to distance himself totally from the man who would interfere and, more worryingly, undermine our democracy and social stability given half a line on Twatter!

The United Kingdom needs America, it therefore needs Donald Trump to be on our side and as an ally, that Musk character is an entirely different kettle of jellyfish...

                                    CHRISTMAS GREETINGS AND GRUNTINGS

I must be getting into the Christmas spirit.   I awoke earlier to Chris Rea in my ear - not literally, obviously, we've never met.   I'm not that strange!  It did, however,  prompt me to extend the hand of friendship to those considered 'proper' people and a cursory grunt to all others.  From mere irritating ticks to those who would never be invited round for a mince pie or hot toddy.  No Ho-Ho-Ho for them, simply a grunting!  Far from being engulfed in the marketable and profitable time of goodwill, harmony and love, I perceive it to be more a case of cloying hypocrisy, sycophantic and sick-making  behaviour by the masses.   

So, with Christmas almost upon us, may I extend the warmest of seasonal greetings and felicitations to readers of this blog wherever you may be residing within this overpopulated world.  To regular readers of this blog in the UK,  USA,  Germany,  Switzerland,  South Korea,  Singapore,  Japan and Russia, thank you for your continued interest.  To those of you who may be new to my muses, I hope you will stay with me throughout the coming year.

Readers of my books may recall that there is a 'Pit of Pointlessness' into which, over successive titles, I have decreed that individuals, groups and whole species with common interest are metaphorically shackled before being thrown into oblivion, an abyss, a pit from which there is no escape.  There is one solitary pole, greased for good measure and situated in the middle of the pit so there is no way of touching the rock face, let alone rejoining humanity. All miscreants may attempt to climb the pole and peruse the land they once traversed with ease, but they can never return, for them it is hell on earth.  Just for the record, no-one has climbed the greasy pole more times than Tony Blair.  His failure has been mankind's success.  

And so it is 'Gruntings', not 'Greetings' that I wish for those mentioned in the following dispatches before they are well... dispatched!

The Labour Government - Cabinet, MP's. councillors and supporters who voted Labour at the last election.  All those who voted Lib-Dem.,  Green Party or any other left-leaning outfit. (I will spare those who voted Tory as I admire loyalty even though it was not reciprocated over the term of the party's last term of governance. They will also be required to vote 'Reform' at the next General Election and any By-Elections that take place in between time). All civil servants, trade unionists,  university and college lecturers, most school teachers (individually checked for levels of indoctrination and w***ness). All LCA's (Lycra Clad Arseholes) - cyclists not already 'Pitted'!  All employees, members and supporters of 'Stonewall', 'Liberty', 'Black Lives Matter' and 'Shelter'.  Virtually all, if not all, those dubious souls on long-term benefits, disability benefits and the homeless. (Means testing for all those purporting to be physically disabled, the bar for receiving tax-payer funded handouts being extremely high.  So high in fact that actual work would be less taxing than attempting to claim a single penny!)  For those who have made a career out of claiming financial support for mental illness, claim no more dearie - 'Get over it and WORK!!  All those over here on false pretences, all those arriving in not-so-small boats from the near continent who are robbing us blind, taking advantage of a welfare system they have never contributed to,   housed in hotels, redundant army and airforce bases yet still wanting what is denied those who were born here and work - decent housing within their own lifetime.  All the misguided luvvies from the theatre and television who support the very people the majority would wish returned to foreign climes. All who harm animals and wildlife in general through hunting and trapping for profit and house-building.  All CEO's of charity's, their title telling you that a large proportion of donations goes either on inflated salaries or supporting their pension pot.  All charities that employ staff involved in the following:- 1) Gender - and all that makes it complicated.  2) Diversity - and all that makes things awkward for white natives to be considered for employment.  All the top brass and investors in the banking sector and our utilities.   All who 'help' those in need in far-flung, debt-ridden, gun-ridden, war-mongering heat-stricken middle-eastern or African outposts, let them look after themselves for once.  They'll probably still die due to an opposing 'cause' anyway!  The troublemakers at the National Trust who seem to think that 'Left is Best' when it comes to policy and heritage, and that's the nation's heritage, not just theirs!  Oh, and Elon Musk, obviously.  No-one should be able to wield such power and influence.  The man is a danger to society and world order.

Think that's about it for now, I know there are plenty more irritating coves who frankly could easily be 'pushed in the right direction' and not wished seasonal cheer, but the queue is getting longer by the writing, so for now, let's think about the good things to come in 2025...  I'm sure there will be something... Won't there?  What's that?  A direct hit on Croydon from an unknown source destroying the whole borough?  Well yes. that would certainly help push up the land value! I'll drink to that - Cheers!

Happy Christmas!

                                     WHEN  'INCLUSIVE'  MEANS  'SPECIAL'

I have always liked watching football on TV and 'Match Of The Day' has been a staple diet of my viewing since it was first aired back in 1964, the 22nd August to be precise.  Remarkably, for a programme that has run continuously for over 60 years, there have only been five presenters, a feat in itself!  This is a credit to the format, the continuity enacted by a succession of producers and the professionalism of the presenters themselves.  What has been seamless and common to all five is they have never been what one would consider 'common'.  Good diction without being plummy, in other words, what one should expect from the BBC.  Sadly. over the past decade, new faces have been introduced in the form of pundits. They form  the traditional and ongoing 'gang of three' who analyse, debate and chew the cud after each match has been shown.  With new faces has come a drop in standards, diction has taken a backseat in the race to be as 'inclusive' as the corporation feel they can get away with.  

'Football Focus', a sort of 'warm-up' programme televised at lunchtime on Saturdays,was enjoyed for many years by many a fan.  I know from talking to others that I am not alone in giving it a miss nowadays.  Female presenters in the manner and with the professionalism of Gabby Logan are perfectly acceptable.  She looks comfortable and acts with authority.  Sadly,  there are not enough of her standard within the BBC - or BABC, as many think of this behemoth of an institution that appears hell-bent on promoting ethnic or disabled  candidates over native able-bodied white Britons.  So many of their sports presenters and pundits, (P&P's), usually former players from both men's and women's football,  appear lazy both in speech and diction.  It grates!  Penal-ee,  con-inui-y,  Manchester Ci-ee,  Manchester Uni-ed.  Is there a shortage of 'T's around the world?  It is sloppy and audibly irritating.  It does nothing for one's trust in an opinion or analysis on any given situation.  What is wrong with these people?  The problem is far more prevalent in black presenters and pundits - both male and female.  Why should this be?  Can the BABC not manage to employ members of the so-called 'ethnic minority' who are capable of reasonable diction over a period of ten words?  It's not that difficult, surely!

Before  MOTD starts, there's a cursory check to make sure it's not 'Black History Month', or 'Black Lives Matter'.  The latter  gives rise to the uncomfortable and embarrassing witnessing too 'native white Britons' turning their  heads away, having lowered the sound, so as not to throw-up at the spectacle of white men going down on one knee in subjugation to and paying homage to those of darker colour.  The whole spectacle is shameful and an insult to everyone who isn't 'Of colour'!  Secondly, one will have to continuously juggle the volume in order to mute the 'diction-less cove'  - or coves - as the case may be.  *Still waiting for 'White History Month' to make an appearance.

What I wasn't prepared for last weekend was the sight of club captains wearing rainbow-coloured armbands in support of the LGBT 'community'.   Why?  What the bloody hell has one's sexual preference got to do with men or women kicking a football around for ninety minutes in an effort to entertain their team's supporters, the majority of whom are neither L, G, B, T or queer!  The football industry has apparently become chummy with the charity 'Stonewall', which caters for the likes of their 'community'.  Again I ask - Why?  The move does not help inclusivity, it is divisive.  Captains wearing rainbow armbands, players sporting rainbow boot laces.  It is truly cringe-making.  What I'd like to know is how many of those players out there on the field last Saturday did so because they believed in the cause, and those who did so because of the flack they'd receive should they not adhere to the directive?  I noted that the captain of Ipswich Town, Sam Morsey refused to wear n armband - good for him, glad someone had the balls to refuse the 'Call to armbands'.  

Manchester United's players were to wear Adidas-made 'rainbow-themed' jackets for their entrance onto the field last Saturday against Everton.  One player refused and so the whole team was spared what most 'normal' people would consider a humiliating and unnecessary, politically-motivated gesture. I wonder just how much political pressure is put on business to 'co-operate' and promote these fringe interests?  I suspect that it can be quite intimidating, with a lot of hand-wringing from those involved thinking, 'One wrong move, one bad decision and my career is shot'.  

 I have little in common with Gary Lineker when it comes to politics - actually, there is absolutely nothing we have in common, birthdays once a year being as 'in common' as it gets!  He is however, a consummate professional presenting MOTD, though I would dispute his worth to the BABC and paymaster - the general public through our licence fee.  

Who will follow him after his departure at the end of this season?  Probably a female, probably a black female.  The Beeb will be clinking glasses of Jamaican rum as they celebrate another couple of boxes ticked in their 'W*** target' quest!

I could be wrong and it turns out that standards are to are raised, but I won't be holding my breath.  Oh for the days when football was a 'politically quirk-free' game and you were treated to the dulcet tones of Mr. Kenneth Wolstenholme.  'They think it's all over, it probably is now...'

                                  CHILDREN - AND WHO SHOULD HAVE THEM?

Anyone who knows me will be aware that I am very traditional in my view on parenting.  I suspect it comes from being born in an era when common sense was as rife as rickets and there was a universal assumption that children needed a 'mummy bear' and a 'daddy bear'.  Despite calls for multiple classifications of 'sexes' to be recognised throughout the world, those with even a modicum of intelligence will agree that there are only two sexes - male or female, or for the sake of gender equality - female or male.  Why do these unnatural couplings wish to 'own' a child?  Is he, she or 'it' a trophy to be bandied about in their cloistered little world?  Will they become outcasts if 'without child'?  Will they be considered 'odd' if they don't become a family - like 'normal people' - because the one thing they are not, is normal!  

It does not make for easy reading, learning that the likes of Tom Daley has two children with his 'other half', an American film-maker by the name of Dustin Lance Black,  20 years his senior.  No reason to mention it, but I did anyway.  I find it uncomfortable at best and  disgusted and queasy at worst that any man has a 'husband'!  It doesn't sit right - any more than a woman having a 'wife'.  As discussed in previous missives and indeed any or all Anthony Mann  books, homosexuals and lesbians have been around since the evolution of man and woman kind.   Adam or Eve could have preferred sex with someone of their own gender given the choice, problem is, there wasn't any,  so they had to make do with what they had - a bit like rationing - and in their case it was each other!  GET OVER IT - or her in his case!  (That is if you are a believer in such complete bollocks, otherwise it's all just an imaginative relationship written by some unknown scribe in order to start a chapter in that book of fairytales and myths - or 'The Bible' as its more commonly known). And you have to give credit where credit is due, it has sold a few copies since first published, helped in no small way by that Mr. Gideon who went round selling copies to a whole host of hotels across the four corners of the earth.  Bet he was glad of a bed after a day's traipsing the streets seeking out out a Premier Inn or Travelodge in deepest Darfur, the wetlands of Brazil or the drug-ridden alleys of Croydon - wonder if he got a discount or a free coffee?

We Brits care about our NHS.  We will moan about it, we will complain about the time we have to wait for an appointment, but we will defend it to the nth degree when someone else criticises our national treasure. What is indefensible is the obvious waste within the system.  The Nurse Letby case where hospital management is falling over backwards in order to apologise for not listening to consultants and doctors about concerns raised, ignored and/or met with a deafening silence as any action would impinge on the 'good name' of the hospital and repercussions for all who sail in her - especially those at the high-end of the salary structure who could be the first to be affected should an inquiry be forthcoming.  Agency nurses, consultants covering shifts for others who were on strike have cost the NHS an absolute fortune and in the case of the former continue to do so, day in, day out. 

Whilst I was aware of same-sex couples illogical and frankly appalling ability to adopt children. I wasn't aware of their being offered IVF on the NHS - or taxpayer funded, as many of us see it!  What a bloody cheek and what an insult to 'normal' couples!   I spent some time researching the subject.  Well, OK, I googled 'IVF for same-sex couples' and an avalanche of options cascaded before me in a manner not dissimilar to when I was seeking statistics on crime committted by black and other ethnically-toned non-natives in the UK!  

Top of the advertisements/contacts is a company called Care Fertility.  Entering their site and scrolling down brings you face to side-face with a black woman sporting semi-shaved head and dressed in what could be an Emu or a mop, not quite sure.  Moving down their page the reader views two female couples, one couple appearing to be excruciatingly happy to the point of silliness and the other couple blissfully happy in a sort of 'come-to-bed' manner.  The company provides IVF for both NHS patients or those who can afford to go private.  Their site is followed by many more companies and clinics perversely going where none would have been necessary in days of yore. 

Worryingly, taxpayers are funding adverts promoting all manner of services available on the NHS.  Having read their blurb on their website, they are positively falling over themselves in order to widen the already banal idea that same-sex surrogacy is normal and acceptable in wider society when in my view it is anything but.  I await a survey in a decades time when researchers talk to these children about the upbringing, their social life and their own sexual preferences, not to mention asking if the 'two mummy's'  that of traditional couples.  I suspect that just as religious beliefs are handed down from generation to generation, same-sex parents will be very single-minded in their surragate, fostered, adopted child's approach to relationships. Will Martha wish to date Arthur - or will she prefer Bertha?  Will Lily desire Willy or will Willy wish to become Lily?  Or will Lily fall for Milly, maybe Willy will court Billy?   Time will tell...

                                                     THE 'ASSISTED DYING' DEBATE

Friday sees the debate in the UK Parliament when MP's will mull over the pro's and con's of letting individuals choose whether to end their lives or not.  There are naturally strong views born out of beliefs, both religious and secular on either side of the argument.  I liken the discussion to that of abortion - both subjects being fiercely opposed by those who believe that they are right with no allowance made or granted for anyone with an opposing stance.  Emotion, justice and morality all play a part on both sides of the argument.. Those of a religious bent - and I do consider those who believe in characters from a best-selling novel to be nothing other than bent! - should not be allowed to use this 'crutch' as a reasonable argument against either the choice of dying or aborting a foetus. Unfortunately, there are sad saps still at large who have believed in such tosh ever since that well-reported incident on a cross. (Can't believe it really took place myself, can you just imagine the 'Health and Safety' implications!). Bearing in mind the congregational sizes at your average church service, is it representative of our population to allow twenty-six C of E bishops to sit in the House of Lords?  They pontificate, at great cost to the taxpayer, over proposed government legislation before voting on the subject's possible implementation prior to being passed back to the House of Commons for amendments or support.  The quicker these non-elected, minority-serving, migrant-fawning hangers-on are banned from office the better our democracy will be.  That goes for all members of the House of Lords, not just those with a 'nod to God'!  

It hasn't gone unnoticed that head honchos at the C of E, the Catholic Church and the Jewish faith have banded together in a show of unity, as if anyone should care, and come out with the following statement: 'Part of the role of faith leaders in communities is to provide spiritual and pastoral care for the sick and for the dying.  We hold the hands of loved ones in their final days, we pray with families both before and after death.  It is to this vocation that we have been called, and it is from this vocation that we write'.  Vocation?  Vocation?  Sanctimonious prigs! It is not a proper job!! Not once is there reference to the physical and mental suffering of the individual concerned. This 'Collective of wastefulness' goes on to say:  'Our pastoral roles make us deeply concerned about the impact the bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion'.  Is it just me, but the irony is not lost.   'Vulnerable'?  'Life-threatening abuse and coercion'?  I thought those attributes played a large part in the everyday life of those 'members of the cloth'.  (The words 'large part' and 'member' taking on a life of their own in more ways than one!).

 I'm all in favour of a second house, but one where the incumbents are elected to serve by the general population, not because you are high up in some religious sect or due to an accident of birth - a great-great-great grandchild of a so-called 'noble heritage', 'Yeoman stock' or diluted 'blue blood' with an unbroken family listing in DeBretts!

Meanwhile, back in the land of the living - including those who clearly wish they weren't - despite the Prime Minister's directive that Friday's vote should be 'free', Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary and the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, one Shabana Mahmood, have both publicly declared they are voting against the bill on Assisted dying.  Wes Streeting has stated that passing this legislation will be costly to implement for the NHS and could 'lead to someone choosing to end their life early as a way of saving the NHS money'.  I thought he and Rachel Reeves in particular would be over the proverbial deathbed, if not the moon, should this be the case.   Surprise, surprise, Mrs. M, the L C & J Sec. sees the bill being passed as placing the country on a 'slippery slope towards death on demand'.  A tad dramatic in word usage, but then she is a barrister, as opposed to a barista, and not untypical of an MP representing a constituency that has a large Muslim population, in this case, Birmingham Ladywood.  Whilst she may well hold genuine concerns on moral and/or ethical grounds, one should never discount the percentage of motivation created by the guile and pandering of an MP in order to hold on to their seat come the next election.   As has been noted in the press, if the bill is passed, two of the 'Top dogs' involved in its implementation and success will be those who voiced their opinions and voting intentions.  That could cause a few problems methinks, still, I'm sure the good Mr. Starmer has all situations covered.  Thought...  There's always Novichok to fall back on if things look awkward - joke... joke!

Whilst it is a serious subject, I continue to be naively optimistic for a positive outcome.  The mischievous and whimsical side of one's nature does however allow one's mind to conjure up thoughts of a dictatorial regime - elected obviously - where subjects could be put down on the grounds of 'Being kind to them and good for society at large'.  What an opportunity to find space to drive on the M25 without the usual tailbacks?  It's the elderly that I have trouble with.  Now I say this as a 77 year-old in body, but 47 years-old in mind - well that's how I see myself.  Some may differ.  I do recall an instance when I described myself as 'Young at heart', to which I was subjected to the retort - 'More childlike really!'.  We still speak...

Queuing at a supermarket checkout usually causes blood vessels to enlarge, if not burst.  'Bert and Doris' stand between me and the customer being served.  They tut, they moan in dismissive, though hushed tones as their wait continues.  She sporting inherited broach on her coat, he sporting flat cap, as opposed to baseball cap, which often denotes ongoing chemotherapy in the elderly. They look at me for moral support in their dual irritation but their turn eventually arrives - and milk it they do!.  They are slow at packing, they are slow at paying.  Doris can't find her purse, the assistant gives me a sideways glance indicating her own irritation at their slowness.  Bert reminds Doris to show their Nectar card before the final sum is requested. That's also lost in the Tardis that serves as a handbag!  Much searching and a further minute out of my life, when 'hey presto' another rabbit is extracted. I am beginning to feel slightly more confident that this  couple will soon be on their way and out of my life. Bert then reminds Doris that they have vouchers.  More scrambling, same handbag, different pocket!  Just as I'm losing the will to live and asking myself why B&D had to be in front of me that day, I witness the debilitating ageing squawks seeking advice from said assistant who by now has joined me, and those behind me, in losing the will to live.  'Are any of these vouchers any good', Doris plaintively asks.  The assistant trawls through said collection and verbally confirms that six are irrelevant and three are out of date.  Doris puts them neatly back into her purse, which is then equally neatly placed in her handbag ready to be extracted on their next visitation in a week's time - at precisely the same time of  day.  These are people of routine! I am now served, my goods being placed quickly in my bags and with consideration to others behind me.  My Nectar card and credit card are to hand, I carry no vouchers.  A swift transaction, a smile, a 'cheerio' and I'm away.  Off to my car, but sadly snookered in my quest to exit the sliding doors as there stand Bert and Doris who have met up with Neville and Elsie, chattering like monkeys and oblivious to the their trolleys  being parked in such a manner as to stop all 'who enter here'  or  those wishing to exit and make up for lost time and a possible course of counselling.  Assisted dying?  A nudge in the right direction for some springs to mind...