Alan Sugar's plane crash lands safely!

Sir Alan Sugar has been involved in a minor plane crash. More accurately, his four-seater light aircraft hit the end of the grass strip with its propeller. Sir Alan was unhurt. This is not mega news, I know, but the response by the media seems to be mega by proportion.

The BBC flag this up as - Alan Sugar 'survives plane crash'. You'd think this was some terrible accident with a jetliner going down in the middle of Manchester. Instead, it was a minor incident.

City Airport Manchester has a grass runway. Light planes tend to bounce around a bit when landing on grass. Nothing normally to worry about. The BBC hyped up the headline, but Sir Alan put the reporter right. "As far as 'life-threatening' is concerned, to put things in perspective my friend and I had as much chance of dying from the incident as we did in dying from food poisoning from the tuna sandwich that a very nice lady made us in the clubhouse whilst we waited for a mate to pick us up and take us home." Which is his way of saying there's nothing in the story.

So the headline doesn't fit the narrative. How many times have we seen that? If the media was subject to the same labelling laws as the retail sector, we might get nearer the truth in our everyday lives.

Obama to be beaten below the belt?

Politics is a tough game. It should be just on your policies alone. Possibly on your character or even your demeanour. After all, who wants a grump as President or Prime Minister?

In the USA, politicians have failed abysmally to dent Barack Obama's position. Dodgy pastors, a supposedly racist grandmother, or even his schooldays haven't turned up anything. Hillary Clinton tried. Husband Bill had a go. To no avail. Obama came through.

Now the Republican Party think they’ve found a weapon that could wound Obama. It is his own voice as recorded for the Grammy Award-winning audio version of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”

“I think the audio version makes a much more immediate impact” than the print version of his memoir, said conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who has played audio excerpts from the book on his syndicated radio show. “It turns out to be very jarring to many ears to hear Obama talking about his youthful adventures, his attitudes on race.” Hewitt seems pleased by all this. I think it just shows how devoid of Christian charity these so-called "conservative" talk show guys really are.

Boris Johnson was quite right. We don't want antisceptic politicians. But we don't want liars, cheats, and miscreants either. After all, who has not done something, or said something crass or cazy in past times. It's not as if Obama's committed a heinous crime.

I'd suggest the Republican Party treads carefully, otherwise they may get the odd floozy popping up to say she had a night of passion with McCain. On second thoughts, that might not stop him in his tracks. But you get the drift.

Let's have a nice clean fight, boys. If it gets nasty - well, who knows what can come out of the various closets with unlocked doors?

Episcopal mayhem?

Tomorrow the synod of the Church of England votes on whether to press ahead with legislation that would allow women bishops. The proponents of this innovation are all for having no system in place for allowing traditionalists the right to opt out from having to serve under a woman bishop. This morning, Christina Rees, probably the most vocal proponent of the measure, sounded all sweetness and light when she answered questions put to her by Robert Piggott, the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent. I say answered, but she spun her way neatly out of answering the question as to why those born into a church that had a male-only clergy should change their beliefs. Instead she suggested that life would all be cosy and comfortable without any need for safeguards.

In her world of prelatial power, all that a traditionalist priest would be required to do would be to let a female Diocesan into the parish once a year to "preach, or to teach, or to open a fete. So long as she can come in". This sounds like it has not be thought at AT ALL. It is, to my mind, typical woolly nonsense. What is this notional bishop to do? Is she to robe as a bishop during the service, or attend in a simple dress? Will she address the congregation from the pulpit with warm words of delight? Or will she feel she's in need of "explaining"? What teaching role is to be assumed? And as for opening a fete, well I would think that a bit condescending!

Now, just to put my views on the line. I am a traditionalist. I am an Anglican Catholic who cannot reconcile the Sacrament of Holy Orders with anything other than a male integrity. However, at the same time, I cannot understand how the C of E could seek to ordain women as priests but not to consecrate them as bishops. In that, I agree with Ms Rees. Where I beg to differ is that forcing a woman onto a parish where there is little or no belief that she is what she says she is is farcical.

Christina Rees had Robert Piggott believe that the option would be "for services where a male bishop would not be needed". In other words, the Mass or Confirmation would not be services where this notional Diocesan would attend. This all sounds like sweet reasonableness indeed, but, as I say, it is not thought out.

Having recently been liked to "withering on the vine" I don't see the situation as Christina Rees does. She likens it to the USA, where "it worked well". Piggott either knows little of the Episcopal Church or he chose to let her paint an unrealistic picture. When Jane Dixon was in charge in Washington, she determined to preside at a eucharistic service. When priest and vestry declined, she bussed in her own suporters to make a stand. Whatever Ms Rees says, there will be these stand-offs here unless we get safegurds built into the legislation. I can't see the Archbishop of Canterbury being too comfortable with a female prelate trying to conduct a similar pantomime here.

Why we cannot agree to live and let live, with the two "sides" living within the same tent I do not know. But Ms Rees and her friends want a "winner takes all" approach, with the likes of me kow-towing or leaving for pastures new. Sounds a bit like Shaun the Sheep's in charge of the fold!

Precious little discernment there!

Sharia law in England?

Once again the debate over whether Sharia law could, or should, be introduced into the UK is ignited. Previously the Archbishop of Canterbury put his head above the parapet. He got slings and arrows for his pains! Now the Lord Chief Justice has fared slightly better. He has at least been listened to.

Basically all Sharia law is is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life. Not all Muslims by any stretch, but a goodly number. My view is that it is perfectly OK for this if it is wanted. After all, the Church of England has its own set of laws encoded into synodical law or canon. I can't see that a Muslim counterpart would be any different.

Now, before the Sun hacks start debasing the noble and learned gentleman, we should understand what exactly Lord Phillips is saying. He says there is no reason Sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation. However, he emphasises this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts". So no supremacy in any way.

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said. He added, "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts." Very clear indeed, I'd say.

If we did allow Muslims this legal nicety, I for one think it would offer Muslims a way of feeling part of the legal process without their beliefs being compromised. But more importantly, it would deny the likes of Abu Hamsa, that strange version of Captain Hook, any reason to attack this country for its view of Islam. We should be happy to embrace our Islamic citizens and be able to denounce the virulent ramblings of such manic street preachers.

Ben Bradshaw claims doctor has only two patients!

That illustrious minister Ben Bradshaw, a man with a penchant for rubbing people up the wrong way, has decided to take on the general practitioners with a combination of innuendo and bribery. He has attacked them for operating "gentlemen's agreements" whereby they promise not to accept other doctors' patients. Where these are he cannot say. He insinuates that there is a doctor with only two patients in his/her practice, "surviving" on the existing arrangements. He said government research had found this one practice in Southern England, but he has refused to say exactly where that is. Neither will he say how widespread the issues are.

So he smears the doctors by saying they are being deliberately obstructive and working against "real patient choice". Personally, I swapped doctors within Solihull due to location reasons (a new practice was set-up nearer to me) and I had no trouble. It's not the doctors who are the problem, it's Mr.Bradshaw and his inability to stop meddling. In that, he is very New Labour!

I am very interested in a group called Doctors for Reform. The way the likes of Bradshaw will have it is that no criticism of the NHS can possibly be heard. Everything is saintly sound and he is one of the guardian angels. Tory types like me can go hang. Doctors for Reform want proper reform. They say "We all work in the NHS. We are committed to its values. But we believe the time has come to consider a new way to deliver healthcare in Britain." I echo that, and I hope many more will do the same.

The time has come where it is not possible to keep this slush fund of Nye Bevan's going. Currently 8% of our nation's wealth is spent on the NHS. In 2020 it will have to be 20% if we are to keep up with the high cost of procedures, the increasing number of elderly, and so on. Whatever Bradshaw and his ilk in this New Labour outfit think, 20% is unrealistic. Instead of antagonising the medical profession, he had better think again. Reform his brain before he tries any more reforms on the NHS.

NHS Dentistry back to teeth pulling and pain!

What can be said of the state of NHS Dentistry. Not a lot. Well, to be fair, it's probably better to respond as the proverbial curate did. "It's good in parts!"

I've not met a dentist yet who actually likes the way government handles dentistry within the NHS. Of course, coming up to the 60th birthday bash for the NHS, it is a brave person who will actually criticise full on. Complaining about the way the NHS is run is rather like being accused of denigrating Nelson Mandela. Heaven forfend that there is anything wrong with this behemoth created by that wily Welsh wonder, Aneurin Bevan.

It was, of course, Bevan that perpetrated the biggest con on British society. He introduced National Insurance to pay for the NHS. INSURANCE? Humpty Dumpty could not have dreamt of such a misuse of a word. Even today, people come on the television saying "I've paid my contributions!" as if they were in some sort of policy for health care. Nothing of the sort. It was a slush fund from the start.

Now if it had been properly run, with those "contributions" being properly invested, then we would be seeing some sense today. But even Margaret Thatcher recoiled at Sir Keith Joseph's desire to see the National Insurance scandal reformed.

In his Commons report, Kevin Barron said, "It is disappointing that so far the new contract has failed to improve the patient's experience of dental services." He sounds like a man who's just discovered something new! I prefer the comments of Susie Sanderson, from the British Dental Association, who described it as a "damning report". She said, "It highlights the failure of a farcical contract that has alienated the profession and caused uncertainty to patients." Damning indeed.

A Department of Health spokesman said it would "carefully consider" the recommendations of the Commons report but said that the benefits of the reforms were already emerging. "We have invested over £200m in NHS dentistry this year, over and above increases in the last three years. This takes our total investment to over £2bn." TWO BILLION! I ask myself, are these people fit and proper persons to be handling such large sums of money? There must be a better way. Divide the population of the country (say 60 million) into this sum and you get enough for free check-ups all round. I think some people are lining their pockets on the way. We must be fools indeed!

So dentists are pulling teeth rather than expending time on expensive treatment for which they will not be paid. No wonder Candid Camera was dropped from our TV screens. "Smile, please! You're on Candid Camera. Well, actually, on second thoughts, don't!"

Madeleine mishaps and muddles!

It is now well over a year since Madeleine McCann disappeared from the sight of her parents whilst on holiday in southern Portugal. Today there were rumours that the Portuguese police had "filed the case" and that was that. Since these have been reported, the Portuguese attorney-general has come out to deny the claims of a local newspaper.

This whole case has had a cheesy whiff about it from day one. Incompetent police, hiding behind arcane secrecy laws, have allowed a drip drip approach to fester. Information is handed over to the press. Given that this is a mega story, can we be certain that the hacks have not passed over wads of euros to these Clouseau types?

The Correio da Manha newspaper, which got hold of this part of the story, said today that sources within Portugal's judicial police had said they "do not have sufficient evidence to allow formal charges to be brought against the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter". It beggars belief that the McCanns were fingered, and Robert Murat for that matter, in the first place, whilst evidence appeared to go AWOL and information has not been taken seriously or followed up. Not one single British policeman has suggested that this case has been handled well. So it can be assumed then that Portuguese people in Britain could expect a fair investigation, whilst British people in Portugal better watch watch their backs!

What I'd like to know is why there is such a deafening silence from those great democrats in Brussels. Is it OK for law enforcement agencies to smear people like this within the European Union? The McCanns' have put up with a lot but this outrage leaves them in a horrendous land of limbo.