Cameron's patriotic moves

There was a time in the Sixties when certain opinions were commonplace. One such opinion was that the Labour Party was nothing better that a Trojan horse for the Soviet communists. After all, they sang the Red Flag and they wanted to nationalise most things. Many were closet republicans, a lot were ban-the-bombers and they were keen on dismantling the traditions of the state. In short, they were not patriotic and needed to be defeated. Then the Berlin Wall collapsed and the soviet empire went with it. It seemed little point singing the Red Flag with such gusto, and opponents were less charged by Labour Party views.

Tony Blair and his New Labour control freaks decided that all the commie stuff had to go. If he controlled the party it could look like a new party with fresh ideas. Not really. The icing on the cake changed but the rotten fruit inside just got re-hashed.

Now we have Harriet Harperson pushing so-called equality laws on us, we have a meddlesome mattie in charge of the Charity Commission and quango chiefs all on the fiddle or the cover-up. New Labour is a frightful mixture of control, sleaze, hypocrisy and whitewashing episodes.

So is David Cameron right in saying that it is his patriotic duty to try to remove these people? I suppose it depends on what you think Britain should be and remain as being. A conservative's view of patriotic duty is in honouring and maintaining the institutions of the state. If that duty is challenged by those who want to destroy the institutions, then it is a patriotic duty to stop it. We do live in a changing society but too much change is detrimental.

When it comes to the voting, though, we may have a result that in no way reflects our views. According to the YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times, the Conservative lead over Labour has narrowed to two points. It suggests that 37% would vote Tory, while 35% would opt for Labour and 17% for the Lib Dems. This, the Sunday Times says, could give Labour 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories on a total of 263 MPs. So Gordon Brown could remain prime minister (with some backing from minor parties) even though he did worse in the voting. Do we really want that?

35% would vote Labour it says. But how many does that 35% represent of the total electorate. If the stay-at-homers are the largest group, then active Labour voters are a real minority. Perhaps that's why Harriet Harperson is so keen to promote minority causes. She knows she's a minority in a minority which in turn is in a minority. It's like a television camera looking at its own monitor. All you get is a load of television sets leading to oblivion!

Carrie Prejean Living In Sin With Fiance Kyle Boller

I supported the former Miss California in as much as I thought it wrong that she should be pilloried for her Christian views. However, those who make a solid stand in favour of upholding the doctrines of the Christian Church should not affect a pick 'n mix approach. Carrie Prejean has been caught out setting up home with her fiance, NFL quarterback Kyle Boller. Whilst many would say "what of it?" that's not the point. She has been standing on stages telling people she believes in traditional marriage and is against certain sexual arrangements. The calling of the Church is to marriage or celibacy. Now that's a high ideal, but it's the Christian way. As human beings we all fall short in many ways, sometimes deliberately, sometimes just carelessly. However, if we are to preach to others we should at least be prepared to live a life that doesn't give others to think it hypocritical.

Carrie Prejean stood out against gay marriage but she didn't say she thought heterosexual non-marriage a perfect alternative. In that, she has laid herself open to ridicule and mockery.

Drunk driving woman bishop resigns

I had never heard of the fact that a woman headed up the Lutheran Church in Germany. Now it has come to pass that she drank too much and got caught driving a car. So that's how I get to hear of her! This is relatively big news on the continent but it has gone virtually unnoticed in Britain. Margot Kaessmann appears to have been caught out on the drink front having previously stated that alcohol abuse was a concern.

Far be it for me to cast the first stone. I'd be feeling too guilty even contemplating stooping down to find one. She did wrong and admitted it freely. What I found interesting is that Ms Kaessmann has been described as the "popstar of Protestantism". She has an attractiveness that would lead the media, at least, to propound such an opinion. And that seems to be the way protestant thinking is going for those of a liberal persuasion. Ms Kaessmann is divorced and no doubt has a particular view of what kind of "good report of them which are without" a bishop should have. Liberal churchpeople have liberal interpretations, one of which suggests she may be a kind of X Factor competitor or maybe Germany's Got Talent.

What would St.Paul have made of it all!

Highway Robbery in the Square Mile!!

Stephen Hester appears to be a victim in this banking bonanza of bonus baggers. He is powerless to suppress the rampant greed of bank workers who are basically gamblers. He says if he doesn't shell out billions to these legalised punters, then they will go elsewhere. Is this man in the real world or living in a parrellel universe? If it wasn't so desperately wrong I'd think he'd got himself a part in a Carry On film.

The British public were told that the banks could not be allowed to fold. So shedloads of cash were poured into the likes of RBS. Hester has the brass neck to preside over a whopping loss of £3.6bn and still whine on about these blackmailing bonus buggers. It is outrageous.

Is the British public going to stand for this highway robbery? Hester told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, "We've had a small experiment in this respect... some of our best-performing people have been leaving in their thousands. The people who left us last year, I believe, would have increased our profits by up to £1bn beyond the ones that we've got." Really?

Where have these guys gone? Which bank is utilising their skills? Some offshore operation? A Swiss bank? Thousands have left have they? 40,000, maybe? Or 3/4,000? It's all so vague. No concrete figures are ever given. Just the parrot call telling us that whopping bonuses are an absolute must in 21st century banking. And can we be sure that any of the money used in this casino is real in any sense? I get the sense it's just another version of the wonderful sub-prime money laundering excercise that got us into this mess in the first place.

A man in Scotland made 21% on his investments last year and emailed the BBC to suggest anyone could do it, simply because the markets had risen strongly. Simon Hester was pushed three times on this (not exactly firmly) and gave a limp-wristed response. The truth is nearer the fact that RBS is being held to ransom by those who have found a great way to exploit banks to fuel their insatiable greed.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

New laws and humbug

New Labour is in a tizzy today. It is also becoming strident in its anti-Catholic diatribe talk. Use of terms such as "homophobia" and "intolerance" have been bandied about. Even the LibDems are talking illiberal nonsense. David Laws was on the Today programme insinuating that the Catholic Church could teach children to have a hatred of homosexuals. Whilst he did not say so as such the inference was clear.

Ed Balls says, "A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can't do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children and how to access contraception. What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership."

Where does the Catholic Church teach homophobia? Does Ed Balls think a church school cannot teach two sides of an argument? It is all such arrant nonsense, but the secular liberal elite have got some notion that, because a certain activity is deemed sinful by the Church, that it has to follow that hatred and abuse of the sinner is accepted and tolerated by the Church. So they speak in innuendo with slanderous overtones in order to push ahead with their social agenda. We have to be very vigilant that this new elite does not become a repressive regime exercised only in the promotion of their so-called equality laws.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, of the Accord Coalition, has been doing the rounds. He sees it as being perfectly OK to force his equality views onto others. Emm! Liberty needs eternal vigilance. I'm sure the rabbi knows that. We need honest education that empowers children with proper knowledge. Nobody can gainsay the truth about different sexual activities or behaviours. But seducing children with the gameplan of a political agenda is not on.

First class fun on the trains

I've heard Nicholas Winterton speak up about travelling first class on the trains and I am probably a lone voice here but I think he has a point (even if he put it in a vigorous non-PC way!). Not only that, but most of the gainsayers are hypocrites. I can't for the life of me think that Rupert Murdoch would travel on a train in Britain in second class (or is it standard class?). It is quite right to say that first class offers the benefits of an office environment. The Radio 5 presenter was just trying to be provocative. I've travelled on a train down to London by standard fare. Stop at Coventry, Rubgy, etc and all sorts get on, piling up the numbers. Yes Radio 5, all sorts. People eat sandwiches from paper bags that stay on the tables, they listen to radios with earpieces sounding like a telephone on hold with an impatient caller trying to establish contact, children get tetchy, luggage is strewn in the gangway, and you get the trolley (if it is on board!). Most train companies have only one objective. Getting trains to the destination on time with as many passengers on board as possible. Having a seat is not necessarily a right. If you have to stand all the way to London, so be it. In that, nothing has changed since Doc Beeching's days.

When it comes to MPs expenses it seems we have passed the serious criticism stage and gone into the petty jealousy stage. Hypocrisy abounds. I hope never to see a Radio 5 presenter or a Daily Maily reporter in first class. In fact, why have first class. Apparently there is no need for it. Everyone is equal under Harriet Harperson's diktats. Let everyone go in one class of train. There is not a person in the land who is so important that he/she can't jolly themselves with the "ordinary people".

We need to get a grip in Britain. Either expenses are fair to have or not. If MPs are deemed unfit for first class travel, what about quango chiefs and any other government person? This story just reflects the base level certain sections of society are seeking to set their lovely equality theories at.

Is Britain going bust?

Gordon Brown's government is borrowing money as if it is of little or no consequence. They borrowed another £4.3bn last month to plug the growing hole in the UK's finances. Soon the amount owed will be too much for even penal taxation to repay. The country does not want increased taxes. It does not want job losses. So politicians try to follow a kind of Tommy Cooper routine with financial magic.

Private Fraser in Dad's Army comes to mind at the moment. Are we all doomed? How is Britain ever going to repay this cash. It seems the financial experts are filing into two opposing camps. Those that think the deficit should be tackled now annd those that think not. Lord Skidelsky thinks the other side is trying to "frighten" the public over the scale of the deficit. Lord Layard is an emeritus professor of economics at the London School of Economics, so he should know something about bean counting. He says Alistair Darling's plan for reducing the deficit was "sensible". The Conservatives, who believe in tackling the growing national debt have "Twenty leading economists, plus business leaders, including Richard Branson, who agree with us that the failure to have a credible plan to reduce the deficit threatens to undermine the recovery and push up interest rates. We are happy to have that debate with the government."

So are we, the public, to be docile bystanders whilst these two sides have a ding-dong about whether or not it is OK to have a colossal debt or not? I have long held the belief that having any number of degrees and qualifications is no bar to those who have a propensity for deviousness or political subterfuge. Having a doctorate does not stop a person from human desires such as greed.

It could be that the truth is nearer to the fact that Britain has exported jobs to countries like India, China and Brazil. We are beholden now to banks and their whims and fancies. At one time we had merchant banks who lent judiciously to businesses. Now we have investment banks who play a kind of Las Vegas game with other peoples money. If anyone attempts to enter the casino with the slightest whiff of censure, then the banking bigwigs scream blue murder and threaten to take the wheels of fortune elsewhere.

So we have blackmailing bankers encouraged by dubious financial experts who give investors the idea that things like mothballing steel plants is a good thing to do. If things get any worse, we may get riots outside these banks. Darling has only a short time to make any sense. What we don't want are prima donna pundits squabbling over who knows best. Everyone knows that if you borrow money you either pay it back or default. For a country, either way is going to be very painful indeed.

Stephen Gately PCC complaint rejected

The article written in the Daily Mail last October by Jan Moir upset quite a few people. In fact the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) received a record 25,000 complaints about the comment piece which was perceived by many to be homophobic. Now that the PCC has ruled it met the criteria of free speech more complaints are coming in about the PCC's judgement.

Free speech in Britain is being seriously undermined by certain interest groups that say you cannot express an opinion if that opinion is trenchant and totally opposite to a specific interest group. Any discussion of homosexuality that introduces opinions that see it as "not normal" is rounded upon as being "homophobic". Homophobia is only a perceived phobia against homosexuals and not against men in general or against similar things. So a person cannot be held to be homophobic about heterosexual men or twins or semi-detached houses. The English language is hostage to those who want to create their own words and meanings. Humpty Dumpty was not wrong.

The article was indeed strongly-worded. I did not read it then but have done since. Regardless of whether Gately was a homosexual or not, the article was prurient and disrespectful. My humble opinion, of course. If Moir wanted to write about such stuff she could have done it in a different context. But this raises the question of rights and privileges. It seems that certain sections of the community (community meaning us all and not an interest group) want their position to be outside the scope of criticism or discussion. But it is fair game to denigrate and abuse others because they are seen as "old-fashioned" or "reactionary".

I find it upsetting that the media in general finds it amusing to mock and denigrate religious symbols and sacred beliefs. But I'm not going to try to get the perpetrators arrested, or fined, or censured. Because I feel free speech, so long as it does not incite violence or physical hatred, is something to be cherished. If we do not have the freedom to speak our minds, then we need to accept we will become a cowering breed of pyscophantic followers.

Last night I was shopping and the supermarket was throwing away bagloads of bread (which happens nightly). I pointed out this to a girl who was filling a plastic bag full of donuts, bread rolls, anything that she could get her hands on. As I disapprove of this arrogant wastage policy of supermarkets I spoke up. The reply was "It get's recycled". One has to wonder whether as bread or as fertiliser for the next wheat crop. A fellow customer felt this was a standard reply that they have "been told to say".

Without free speech we get no change. We cannot highlight rights and wrongs. I trust we can continue to speak our minds without fear or favour, so long as it is with the pen and not the sword.

Tory totty won't help Cameron!

Serious commentators are now wondering whether the Conservative Party under David Cameron's leadership can actually win this forthcoming election. All the pointers suggest he won't quite make it. Not that Brown will win either. My guess is that the Conservatives will get around 290 seats making it necessary to do a deal with the LibDems.

But the real message of the election will be the size of the vote for the minor parties and the size of the stay-at-homers group. If these combine to be more than two-thirds then our democracy needs some kind of medication - FAST!

Simon Heffer asks in the Daily Telegraph "Can anyone explain what the Conservative Party stands for?". Currently I'm not sure there will be many rushing to say they know. It seems that several ding-dongs are going on between A-listers and constituency associations. Internal democracy in the Tory Party is on a back burner.

Heffer says this - "We do have a number of respectable (and, in the shape of the BNP, non-respectable) fringe parties who will hoover up votes from the main ones. The BNP believes it can win a Labour seat or two, and it may be right. The Tories are also finding it desperately hard to gain footholds in big urban areas outside London, with their potential working-class supporters now in some cases edging towards the BNP." The Conservatives have no answer to this.

The trouble is that all the major parties have colluded over their expenses, over the economy, over immigration and over the management of government. The people of the UK feel hurt and aggrieved. They see bankers wallowing in bonuses only available because the dimwitted Labour government saw no reason to curb their greed. I hear angry mutterings in shops, walking about town and from people I use to think mild-mannered conservatives with a small "c".

Simon Heffer also thinks that UKIP can "damage Tory interests, notably in the West Country, where the agricultural and fishing interests have had enough of Brussels, and this damage is potentially huge." The Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that it is not just the Labour Party that the country is cheesed off with, but the whole system of sleaze and spin.

Maybe we need some body scanners for politicians. Get them passing through the warts-and-all machines. "Sorry, Mr.Cameron. Machine says you don't have a clue!" Now there's a thought.

Airport body scanners 'may be unlawful'

There's been an awful lot of talk about body scanners recently, mainly from those who think it unseemly that their private parts and other bits may be seen by ogling airport operatives. Personally I'm not bothered by that aspect. I'm more concerned by the burgeoning industry that is making a fast buck out of terrorism. How much are these body scanners? Apparently they cost $150,000 to $200,000 a pop. Then there are all the other ways to make people part with their cash in the name of fighting terrorism, such as dawdling in front of airside stores for a couple of hours.

I remember during Ted Heath's three-day week arrangements of the 1970's how people made money out of us, such as selling candles or flogging portable gas heaters. Now everyone is entitled to earn a living, but I think this modern day saintliness proffered by government agencies in the name of fighting terrorism is a lot more sinful than they would like us to appreciate. After all, if they eventually got round to spraying that poppy crop in Afghanisatan it would bring tears to the eyes of the arms traders. Am I being too cynical today?

A Sign of The Times!

The Times may have changed quite a bit since Murdoch got his hands on it but that's no excuse for the BNP to manhandle a reporter in such a way that he nearly got his nose ripped off. Dominic Kennedy is quite at liberty to write what he wants to write. If the BNP bosses think this behaviour is likely to get them votes then they are living in a dream world. If Nick Griffin thinks that the House of Commons will be a delight, he needs to tone things down. In the unlikely event of him being elected he better not let his goons near the place. Anyway, he will be on his own.

This picture is a good example of why nationalist politics is so odious. Mr Kennedy was only doing his job in a democratic environment. I'd give them a wide berth but then I'm not an investigations reporter.

Brummie bus bows out at last!

Great news! The Birmingham-built Metrobus is being pensioned off, says the BBC. This boneshaker has been seen as a success story and no doubt it has done its job without breakdowns. Phil Bateman was head of the transport authority when the buses were ordered. He said, "They were Brummie buses built for people in the West Midlands to travel on and they suited our streets extremely well. They gave us efficiencies that we were craving at the time." But were they comfy back when they first appeared? I have to admit I don't know as I didn't do bus travel then. But I do now and my heart sinks when one of these turns up.

My guess is that we were never going to be treated to too much comfort as the seat slashers and cigarette smokers were competing for space. Even now the Birmingham buses are subject to blatant drug taking, window decoration and chewing gum impregnations. Seeing as there is no law enforcement to keep these types off buses and I'm looking forward to my bus pass, I'd like all bus companies to put up signs such as "This bus will stop automatically if a whiff of marijuana is detected, a window pane is defaced, or a seat is defiled!" Then I'd suggest all doors close and the perpetrators taken away by a police service that has been given the equivalent of sitting ducks at a rifle range.

From Bombay to the BNP

It strikes me that certain people, whatever their background, have a propensity to think they know better than others when it comes to an opinion on racial matters. We have the prize example of Trevor Phillips, head of the Equalities Quango, going off to the courts in the hope of giving the BNP a fatal dose of legal judgement. He was hoping that the law would assist him in getting the BNP to implode. It backfired. All it did was to get the BNP writing him endless letters asking what he intends to do about the National Black Police Association and their non-white membership criterion. This is now being used by the BNP as a bit of propaganda.

So the BNP welcomes ethnic minority members and the more fired up they are against Muslims the better. Take Rajinder Singh, who is in his late 70s, and is quite open about his criticism of Muslims. He thinks they acquire a collective identity. "The Muslim answer to reasoned argument is knife, dagger and bomb," he says, neatly lumping them all in a collective identity. So he's going to do well in stirring things up.

Now I've long known that deep-seated resentments emanating from the sub-continent can flare up like a latent volcano. I've witnessed first hand a verbal insult session between a Muslim and a Hindu. Not a pretty sight. Only today I read in the Daily Mail (must be true!) that a BT customer who is of Pakistani background came in for a tongue-lashing from a BT call centre worker in India. He was called a 'Pakistani b******' and a 'mother****** and bombarded with hundreds of sinister silent calls. India is full of people keen to give others a bit of racial abuse. Egged on by the BJP, they have a go at the likes of McDonalds for opening hamburger restaurants, they round up Christians and others for being so-called "non-Indian" and they encourage the PC sycophants in the BBC to accept their name changes for cities like Bombay.

Racists are all over the world. It's a kind of base level one-upmanship. But surely we are above the level of dogs sniffing bottoms in the park. I've seen that too. A disparate group - a poodle, a Jack Russel, an odd cur and an overweight bitch. All seems sweetness and light until one sniff too many and all hell lets loose with teeth bared and a canine punch-up is in full flow.

If we kept the PC brigade and the racists at bay perhaps we might all get along quite nicely.

Manchester dis-United

If there was ever a case of dodgy dealings by legalised crooks then it must be happening at Manchester United. According to the BBC, the Glazers, the American family that technically owns the club, didn't end up responsible for the massive loans they took out to buy the club. No, they used a bit of creative accountancy to make the club liable for the debts. No wonder the fans want these light-fingered Floridians out of the way.

Not only has the club been saddled with a collossal debt, but the Glazers employ a "security firm" to stamp out resistance. One of the club's longest serving stewards got sacked for siding with the protesters. If this carries on much longer Malcolm Glazer might get the Mussolini treatment.

Krafty fibs!

So no sooner has Irene Rosenfeld got her cheesy fingers on Cadbury she sacks 400 workers. In this interview she feigns respect for the "brand, its workers" and warbles on about the business.

Would you buy a second-hand cheeseburger from her?

http://www.transactioninfo.com/kraftfoods/videoc.php

A terrible manifestation

Further to the last posting I've found this bit on paedophilia. It seems that most in the medical profession see this as a mental disorder. However, they have no cure for it. Paedophiles are on a treadmill for life. If they get an urge to offend and they get caught they go to prison with no prospects of a cure as they already know there is none. What a life! Literally. Who would want to be a paedophile?

If a cure is not to be found then it must be the fate of a few men (and women, it seems) to live with a psychiatric pathology, knowing that your brain triggers impulses that the vast majority of the rest of humanity finds repellent. You are at the mercy of lynchings at worst and misplaced sympathy at best.

All I can think of currently is that there must be a better way of trying to find a cure. Because the very presence of paedophilia in our midst seems to bring out a desire in many just to "kill off" these predatory people.


From the Italian TV Station RAI

What is paedophilia?
The World Health Organisation includes paedophilia in the list of sexual disturbances. It is a psychiatric pathology which is part of the so-called sexual deviations, meaning disorders which involve an attraction for something unusual, like inanimate objects, or in this case, children.

Treatments: an open discussion
Two treatments have been examined for curing paedophiles: the first is aimed at correcting the hormonal profile, commonly called "chemical castration", the second involves treating the psychiatric disorder.

The idea behind correcting the hormonal profile is to reduce testosterone (male hormone) or at least its effects with some drugs (primarily cyproterone). But to have a lasting effect the individual must be forced to take this substance for a long time and this may lead to irreversible physical injuries.

From a psychiatric viewpoint, paedophilia is manifested as an obsession and emotional disorder. The paedophile is an obsessive because he has the repeated idea of finding a child and using this child emotionally and sexually, an idea which he is unable to control. There are drugs which are capable of relieving this repetitive thought mechanism, but this type of treatment is not seen as a permanent solution. To treat the emotional disorder, often caused by childhood traumas, psychotherapy is used.

The debate over drug treatment to correct the hormonal profile and on psychiatric treatments continues and is very heated. To date it has not led to short term solutions.

Prevention and control: advice from associations
The best way to fight paedophilia continues to be prevention.

We all need regulating!

Last night I watched Panorama. A rather depressing report about the new Vetting and Barring Scheme. Those behind the new quango seem totally unfazed by the monster they are creating. In fact one of the board members, Donald Findlater, said that people need regulating. This is a common theme of those signed up to do the handiwork of the New Labour Fright Regime. Far from keeping children safe from paedophiles, it will only serve to produce a multi-million pound quango raking in cash from those compelled to register. All the nine million people on the register, me included, will be up for all manner of potential problems.

One man has had a load of vile comments stuffed onto his CRB form. All this about raping children, etc, gets to be shoved around the system for all and sundry to see. In his case it was a load of unsubstantiated allegations. Now that's where this new quango comes into its own. Not just relying on facts from the courts they will include tittle-tattle and innuendo as so-called "soft evidence". It is this Chinese whisper style of policing the state that I find so objectionable. The head of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority, Sir Roger Singleton, seemed to find the prospect of data going astray on a train rather amusing. He claimed he had procedures in place and his staff were well trained. I'll remember that one. He is unwilling to consider that false information can be devastating to lives. Mostly this is about safeguarding those in authority from lawsuits and unnecessary inquiries.

I have a suggestion for Sir Roger. If he is so keen to rid society of paedophilia perhaps he can turn his attention to that radar thing. The one police officers keep going on about each time a conviction is brought against an offender. All the recent convictions would not have come about by anything Sir Roger and his team gets up to.

We live in a society where sleazy activity is carried on in the highest quarters. There is sleaze in parliament, in the boardrooms and in the sporting arena. Debauchery is carried out in most English towns and cities at the weekend. It's called binge drinking. A lot of people care little for behaving well. Added to this sexual gratification is now on a sliding scale of what is permissable or not. The scale has tilted in the direction of debauchery. Is it any wonder some grow up to be abusers, seeing as they have been abused themselves. What makes a young woman want to show her knickers to policemen whilst in a drunken state or a young man drop his trousers for a cheap thrill? It's hardly nature. It's got to be society's nurture.

So Sir Roger could start by addressing the slack approach taken by social services and others to inappropriate behaviour. But I somehow guess he won't. Not his department, is it? Far better to make a mint from nine million people and claim the paedophiles are out of the loop.

Here's his problem. He gets all nine million signed up and starts counting his takings. Then an outrage occurs and a police officer stands before the cameras saying, "This one was below our radar!". What does Sir Roger say next?

Tears of a spin doctor

Alastair Campbell got all weepy yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show. He feels aggrieved at not being believed about his testimony over the Iraq War handling. He told Marr he had been "through a lot on this". Well, no doubt he has, but so have millions of others for extremely different reasons. Some have been killed, others maimed and the truth itself has been sorely abused. Campbell came across as a man deeply troubled. I have no doubt he believes in this New Labour project. He gave his all to see Tony Blair esconced in No.10. But he must surely realise that he has a reputatation for being a devious liar at worst and a man who dissembles the facts at best. Maybe its all catching up with him.

Even if his version of events has some element of truth in it, most people can never believe that he and Blair were not up to something. All the evidence points to the fact that Blair agreed in advance with Bush to go to war over Iraq. It was an invasion. We were not targeted or at risk. Blair did not listen to anything he did not want to hear. Perhaps he believed Bush's crazed notions about this war "being over by Christmas". Such nonsense has always been trotted out to give a false sense of hope. The American neo-cons, led by Bush and his apparatchik Rumsfeld, thought they could make a killing over oil. No such luck. But the devious types are still rooting around trying to make a fast buck with "security" and "advice".

Campbell may cry a river of tears and part of me feels sorry for him. But in the end, his own rather viscious method of political operation has eventually caught up with him. He's in a Matilda situation. Nobody really believes him anymore.

Anti-Catholic feeling stirred up by New Labour

New Labour in the personification of Harriet Harman certainly knows how to be illiberal when it wants to be. Now she has unleashed a load of anti-Catholic bile onto the nation. Maybe not personally, but her craven desire to make life difficult for the Church has encouraged all manner of diatribes against the Pope.

Now I'm not suggesting everyone has to believe in the basic tenets of the Christian Faith. If they wish to walk by on the other side, I'm not going to force them to think or behave otherwise. And it's not as if the Church is seeking to cajole securalists into the fold. It is just a very strange thing that those who say they are liberal and in favour of free speech seem so keen to rubbish the beliefs of Christianity in such a mean-spirited way.

Harriet Harman is besotted with control and legislation. In her zeal to prove a point, she has become the one who has opened the bottle and let out a rather unpleasant genie. Probably the New Testament is lost on her currently, but we are told "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." They certainly have today.

Blair believes his own bull****!!

Tony Blair takes the biscuit, he really does. We now know that most of his warblings on Friday were a fine art of deception. He's deceived his own brain, it seems.

Now it is the turn of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the head of the armed forces to sit in on the Iraq Inquiry. He said defence chiefs "simply didn't have enough time" to source everything they wanted for the invasion of Iraq. Ministers were warned of a "serious risk". He told the inquirers, "The problem of course was that we simply didn't have enough time, as it turned out, to do everything we needed to do before the operation started."

Soldiers died unnecessarily as a result. So what about the cloth-eared Blair? What did he think when told all this? And I assume Straw, Hoon and the rest of the New Labour cabal heard these words. What a shower! A conniving bunch of self-delusional fools. They just didn't want to hear what they didn't want to hear.

I hope Blair is recalled before this inquiry. Because if not, his weasel words will just be shunted into the documents and we will be told nothing more than that.