Pressure groups wreck sensible health advice

This week we have had more morbid headlines based on the findings of Cancer Research UK which suggest that even one pint of beer a day can raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 10% - an alarming figure.



However this is in contrast to an article in the New Scientist 18 months ago which suggested that beer can be a preventive agent of other types of cancer.

We have the British Heart Foundation saying that a moderate intake of beer per day reduces the risk of heart attacks and that tee-totalers are at greater risk.

These are just a handful of examples of the 'useful' advice given out by particular health agencies and pressure groups in support of their own particular hobby horse.

I'm not suggest that this is necessarily conflicting advice. All it tells us is that the human body is a complex piece of machinery which all day, every day ingests materials, processes them and then discharges the wastage via other necessary organs. All these elements we ingest have properties which appear to be good for some organs and bad for others. We are not a perfect design. Sorry if this upsets the devout but we were not put together by an all knowing God, we have evolved. As we have evolved our bodies have learned to adapt to certain tolerances, some organs better than others.

What am I leading to? That there is an overall common sense approach to diet and lifestyle which MUST give you a BETTER chance of a happy and healthy life. Nothing is guaranteed. Some people eat muesli and salads as a religion and die at 45. Others can eat burgers and chips , grow to 18 stone and die happily at a roly poly 90. Much of whether we live a long life is, in my view, genetic and when they finally unravel the human genome and piece it all together a lot more will become clear.

In the meantime I don't think it helps one iota for single issue groups to come out with statistics like a glass of beer increases your risk of bowel cancer by 10%..especially when that glass of beer could well be off setting other problems. These people should be reporting to government not making flash headlines with sensational findings.

People need constructive and balanced health advice. They don't need the Cancer Foundation, The Heart Association, the National Stroke Centre and heaven knows how many other well meaning pressure groups shouting each other down with who has the best scare story.

Its all in the subtle nuances!

I watched the coverage of today's first meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown this afternoon with, naturally, considerable interest and it was revealing to note how much distance Brown is trying to put, not so much between himself and Bush, but between himself and Blair.

He stepped off the plane at Andrews, formally attired in a suit rather than chinos and a casual shirt. He was accompanied by the British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, rather than by his wife, and he quite deliberately but graciously resisted the George Bush 'cuddle' which Bush seems to extend to all visitors before depositing them in his buggy.

The news conference that followed was even more interesting. For a start it began 25 minutes late, unusual for the very punctual Bush, and during it, while Bush paid ample if not gushing tribute to Brown, the British Prime Minister, while praising the US for its fight against world terrorism pointedly omitted to praise two elements in particular - the Iraq conflict and, even more pointedly, George Bush himself. Neither did Brown mention by name.

In fact he referred to their earlier discussions as 'full and frank' - well known in diplomatic circles to mean 'we didn't really see eye to eye' and it was very clear that Brown was clearly not going to be drawn in by jokes, homilies or all the other folksy little tricks in Bush's repertoire used to disarm his guests.

There was an interesting phrase Brown used when he said "Our aim, like the United States is, step-by-step, to move control to the Iraqi authorities." What he didn't say was that the timing of those aims and the timetable for handover were mutually agreed by Britain and the United States, and in fact I doubt very much if they are.

On the surface, the new relationship was cordial enough but Gordon Brown's language was clearly inferring that the British decisions on Iraq will be made after consultation with British military commanders and not be influenced by outside factors like Mr. Bush's political difficulties.

Of course they will work together. Of course America and Britain will remain close allies but I'll bet one thing.....there ain't gonna be a 'Yo Brown' moment!!

A small ray of sunshine amid the gloom

Today something happened which must be almost unique in the tragic history of Iraq. The whole country came together as one smiling, cheering nation, celebrating as one - independent of religion or creed - car horns going off all round Baghdad in wild, uninhibited delight.

Why? Because the Iraqi soccer team today won the Asia Cup for the first time in its history. A feat was achieved by players in this war torn, terror racked nation which Saddam Hussein and his evil sons failed to achieve in all Saddam's years of dictatorship. He even appointed Uday Hussein as manager of the national team to instil terror as a motivator for victory, so prestigious did Saddam regard national sporting success, but it didn't bear fruit.



Now this young team which has had to play most of its games outside the country and has found difficulty getting players together to train has pulled off a seemingly impossible feat.

The team is composed of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and all through the competition thay have shown a togetherness and a team spirit which, if only it could be translated to the whole nation, would end the headaches of the occupying US and British forces overnight.

But maybe the security measures employed in Baghdad to protect the cheering fans indicate another truth. Insurgents killed 35 people celebrating after Wednesdays semi final success and similar, if not worse, violence is feared now that the final has been won. It would seem that the last thing these zealots of Al Queda want is a united happy Iraq and they will do anything to disrupt any such possibility.

I don't think they have much to worry about. The nation is at one for a short space of time, celebrating a major sporting success for the nation...but such celebrations are short and transient. Tomorrow or the next day, the blood letting will resume and the brief, wonderful moment of harmony when a nation torn apart by strife came together on the football field will be a distant memory.

A disproportionate response?

In the small town of McMinnville, Oregon USA, two young boys,Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelius one 12, the other 13, are in court facing charges which could see them spend up to ten years in juvenile prison and see them registered as sex offenders. Their crime? To race past female classmates and deliver a swat across the girls bottoms, emulating a scene from the 'Jackass' movies.



The boys led into Juvenile Court




What happened after that sounds like a scene from some Kafka-esque nightmare. The boys were taken to the Principal's Office, interviewed about the offence in the presence of a police officer stationed at the school, were 'Mirandised' ie read their rights, handcuffed, and taken into custody and spent 5 days in juvenile detention before being formally charged with several felonies.

Subsequently the local District Attorney has backed off the serious felony charges under tremendous pressure from parents and media and reduced MOST of the offences to misdemeanours. The children still have to go to court in August and, although the possibility of jail time has been lessened, they still face having to register as sex offenders if some of the charges are proceeded with.

There is no doubt that their behaviour was, using modern parlance, 'inappropriate', but sufficient to put two children through the trauma of major criminal charges and the possibility of prison and a sex offenders record? Hardly!

I am inclined to ask what kind of spineless regimen this particular establishment, Patton Middle School, has if it cannot cope with this kind of behaviour within its own boundaries. Isn't that what school authority figures are for?

I'm sure I'm not saying anything too shocking when I suggest that, at 12 or 13, when hormones are starting to whiz around and awareness of the opposite sex becomes a factor, there is all sorts of contact, touching, feeling, which is often reciprocal and a kind of exploration game. It is important, of course, that extremes are distinguished from what might be considered the 'horse-play' of growing up.

The victims in this case have testified in court that there was no way they wanted prosecutions brought, that they were not hurt by the contact and that they felt pressurised by the questions they were asked in the Principal's office..almost as if they had a responsibility to make an example of these boys.

It seems quite clear that this is a situation that has got completely out of hand. It would seem that there has been a series of behavioural problems in the school for some time and the Principal chose this issue on which to show there was an iron fist inside the velvet glove. I think he has shown total weakness and an inability to deal with this himself and proportionately. What he seems to have been oblivious to is the terrible stigma he was laying on two young schoolboys and what a nightmare experience he was subjecting them to, when even their victims were happy to concede that this sort of thing was regular horseplay at the school.

It seems a little bit par for the course. We live in an age where the protection of children is paramount and quite rightly so...but in so attempting to do the right thing, we do seem, in some cases, to have taken leave of that one element in the equation that makes for a fair and just outcome for all concerned.....common sense.

The cracks are becoming too wide to paper over

At a meeting of the House of Commons Defence Committee yesterday, the Committee, freshly back from a visit to British troops in Basra told the Government that the role of the British forces in Basra was effectively over and that British soldiers were running suicide missions every night in order to deliver supplies to the Basra garrison, attacked nightly by gangs who were a mixture of insurgents,armed local teenagers and 'a large criminal element'

Kevin Jones, a spokesman for the Committee and who made the trip to Iraq, said British Commanders were of the opinion that the soldiers were just 'sitting targets' now, had no further constructive military purpose and were only there still because of pressure from Washington. The Americans have asked Britain to keep a substantial number of soldiers in southern Iraq to try and limit public demand in America for cuts in US troop numbers and to guard the convoys taking supplies to the American forces.

Mr Jones said he believed that we were there still, only because of maintaining good relations with the United States and asked 'if the price in British lives is worth that'.

Our new Minister of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth, just back from Iraq himself, admitted that the situation was grim and that 'it has been a long time since any of us spoke of victory in Iraq' but would not concede the point that we were 'pandering to a United States domestic agenda'



Bob Ainsworth



Well as Mandy Rice Davies said of Lord Astor's denials in the Profumo affair, "Well he would, wouldn't he!" It is quite clear that Britain IS pandering to a US domestic agenda and quite understandable that a Government Minister is publicly reluctant to admit that. However the point is rapidly being reached where the cracks, both in our ability to provide the military support the operation requires and the illusion that we are at one with the US on the future commitments of men and resources, are beginning to show.

Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of staff of the British Army, said only last week that our troops are now so stretched that we have none left for any emergency and this was proven by the absence of soldiers available to help with the flood disasters of recent days. Whats more its clear that Dannatt and his commanders, though their language is coded, are sick to death of the situation our troops are in - one which if we were masters of our own destiny we would resolve by pulling them out. But we are not. We are playing second fiddle to a disastrous campaign initiated by the United States and our politicians believe we have to show loyalty or lose face.



Sir Richard Dannatt



But how long must this go on? The war in Iraq is lost to all intents and purposes - or certainly not winnable - primarily because it was an ill judged venture and because there was absolutely no planning for what happened afterwards. All that is water under the bridge. We can't turn back the clock and prevent a fiasco. What we can do - and should do - is announce a very clear deadline, maybe not next week or next month, but a very clear deadline by which time all British soldiers will be brought home.

That doesn't leave America in the lurch - but it does make it clear to Bush and his cohorts that we are not prepared to continue squandering British lives in a failed enterprise just to prop up his ailing administration. Lets face it, nearly 70% of Americans want their troops brought home too. It will force Bush to make some very hard decisions and maybe uncomfortable ones for his own ego and prestige....but he made this particular bed - he should be forced to lie on it!

All we need now is Noah and his ark!

This summer has been one of the wettest in British history with major floods in the north of England back in June now surpassed by the flooding of the midlands and south of England in July. Last week produced rainfall on a scale hitherto unparalleled, certainly not for many years with the consequence that the water levels of the River Severn, the Avon and the Thames have risen to dangerous heights, bursting their banks and whatever feeble flood defences we have in place.

So far, thankfully, no one has died this month as a direct result of the floods although a few died in June following the flooding in Yorkshire, but the devastation has to be seen to be believed. Three counties, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Hereford have have massive swathes of land underwater and at Tewkesbury, where the rivers Severn and Avon meet, the whole area almost from Tewkesbury to Gloucester looks like the Florida Everglades for mile upon mile.


Above is the town of Tewkesbury. This is normally a land mass connected by trunk roads and a motorway. Today its an island!

Above - Combrook village high street!


The Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford -on- Avon -advertising a water ballet I should think!




Over 3000 people have been evacuated from their homes and , as I write, 350,000 people are without power or drinking water.

This is not one of those periodic British flood inconveniences - this is a catastrophe, a disaster, the cost of which is,as yet,incalcuable. What is worse is that the rain hasn't stopped. In the flooded areas more rain is forecast until the weekend adding to the problems already faced by thousands. In Oxfordshire, too, our Environment Agency is watching anxiously as the River Thames reaches record levels and, as the rain comes down it is continuing to swell ominously for lot of towns which border the river from Oxford down to London.

These could be the worst floods, certainly in the land mass affected by them, for over 150 years. Is it climate change? is it just a freak horrible summer in that enigmatic element, the British weather? Who knows....but what is clear is that Government has some hard thinking to do.

While the Environment Agency has estimated that it will cost Britain £1 BILLION per annum to maintain the level of flood defences we need in the future allowing for the increase in these types of weather patterns, a leaked document has shown that the Government is still considering building more houses on flood plains. Already we have 5 million people at risk from flooding when conditions are this adverse...but there's the rub...how often does this happen? And how often is it likely to happen in the future?

This is the terrible quandary always faced by the British. It's like the moans when our trains pack up in icy weather because the tracks are not protected or the trains malfunction. If only life was clear cut as it is in Canada or Siberia. You know its always bloody cold in winter so you HAVE to pay the money to protect against it. If you live in Central Africa or India you have to pay to protect equipment which will malfunction in the heat. Britain has the benefit of generally a mild but unpredictable climate, thus we never spend money on anything which is only needed in extreme conditions. We just shrug our shoulders and live with the inconvenience of breakdown and cancellation when those occasional extremes hit us.

But can we carry on doing that? Can we afford to live with the risk of flood water, if the climate IS changing, which paralyses half the country and involves millions of pounds in sorting out the damage?

Government and scientists need to get their heads together pretty damn quick and make a very prompt decision about whether we are to put our hands in our pockets and pay for this protection....or are we going to struggle with years and years of flooding like this.

Such humility and coyness over taking soft drugs

Jacqui Smith our first female Home Secretary has come out of the drugs closet and admitted to smoking cannabis while at University. Almost immediately seven other Labour M.P.s, some of them Ministers, leapt out of the closet with her and came clean.





So synchronised were the confessions,its hard to believe that our new Prime Minister has not said to all of them, "Right you lot - if you have any track record of taking dope in your youth I want you to come out and admit it. Now, while we are enjoying a honeymoon after Blair, is the best time - and we'll pull the rug from under the feet of the right wing newspapers desperate for some scandal!"

Her 'confession' was still a little coy. It consisted of 'I only smoked once or twice...I didn't really enjoy it..regret doing it' etc etc.

Wouldn't these politicians get more respect from the public and from the media if they said , "Look it was University! We were all away from home and feeling our feet..becoming young adults. So yeah I smoked every weed going and got stoned out of my head, drank far too much and screwed around like the world was going to end. Do I regret any of it? Do I hell!! Anyway when I'd got all that out of my system I knuckled down and got a degree. That's why I've got this job. What's your story?"

And I reckon their stock with the most of the media and certainly with the general public would rise astronomically!!

Political terror - no absolute black and white?

The United Kingdom, in response to the refusal of the Russian Government to extradite former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi to face charges of murdering Russian exile Alexander Livinenko last November, has expelled four Russian diplomats from the Embassy in London. Russia, incensed by this, has threatened to take 'appropriate measures' in response to this action but has not yet done so.



The dying Litvinenko



Andre Lugovoi


The argument has now blown up - was Britain right to take this action, one which is seen in diplomatic circles as the signal of severe disapproval from one government to another? The simple answer is yes, surely all decent people want to see a murderer brought to justice. But in the world of political intrigue nothing is that clear cut.

The Russians have for a long time been demanding the return of two men, one being Boris Berezovsky, the businessman now living in London who is wanted in Russia on fraud charges. He has also candidly admitted to being anti-Putin and committed to bringing down the Russian leader 'by peaceful means'. The other is former Chechen warlord, Ahmed Zakayev, also resident in London. Zakayev is a suspect in planning the Moscow theatre siege in which many people died. He is also accused of being responsible for the deaths of countless Russian servicemen as part of his resistance campaign in Chechnya.



Boris Berezovsky



Ahmed Zakayev


The British government has refused to extradite either man, in the first case because they claim that the fraud charges are trumped up and that the real focus is Berezovsky's political hostility to Putin thus he is a 'political refugee'. Zakayev too is being treated as a political refugee because the British support the cause of Chechen separatism. To the Russians however, Chechnya is a legitimate part of the Russian Republic and someone killing Russian troops for trying to restore order is a terrorist not a political refugee.

They say, with some justification it has to be said, that their Constitution first of all forbids extradition of Russian citizens and secondly, while that of Britain does not, the British will not co-operate in returning the men THEY want.

So is any Government ever justified in this murky world of political intrigue, espionage and counter espionage in public shows of outrage and indignation manifested by expelling diplomats? Does it help stability and international relations to 'pump up the volume' in this manner. Is it, in fact, rather than a genuine cry of outrage, Gordon Brown flexing his international muscles for the benefit of the media. It does seem that there is no absolute moral black and white in this shady world. Would we not be better off, awful though it sounds, to just accept that one nation's spies will always try and 'eliminate' political threats from its exiled nationals and just put up with it as long as it doesn't affect the likes of you and me? One nation's murderer and terrorist is another nation's hero and saviour of the nation. Just depends where you start from. Sure we should use our secret service to try and protect people who come to us for refuge...but if we fail should it be escalated to a national crisis? Immoral and conscienceless though it sounds, I have my doubts.

Are the British gently cutting the umbilical cord?

George Bush must feel more than slightly besieged at the moment. Having lost control of both Houses to the Democrats, he is now faced with a major rebellion in his own party over future policy in Iraq.

Now, under the new leadership of Gordon Brown, the British International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander, gave a speech in the United States yesterday suggesting that Britain was no longer going to give the U.S. its automatic support on every foreign policy initiative.



Alexander spent a large part of his speech praising the United States for its powerful influence in keeping peace in the world and then, as is the manner of diplomatic addresses, delivered the criticism in a 'coded' form.

He suggested that powerful countries often measure their might by how much they can destroy rather than how much they can construct. He called on the United States to develop new 'imaginative' policies which reach out to the rest of the world rather than isolate it. American politicos present took this to be a criticism of George Bush's unilateral stances on Iraq and 'The axis of evil' which pays little heed to the UN or other world bodies.

Despite 'happy' public signals, it has become clear that the antennae of the White House has been acutely aware over recent weeks of the change in the tone of the British Government. There was, apparently, some concern in the US Administration over the appointment of Lord Malloch-Brown, a fierce critic of Bush when British delegate to the UN, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Americans clearly see Gordon Brown (no relation!) as staffing his Foreign Office with people who, though of course not anti-American, are certainly anti Bush and anti Iraq War.

It is rumoured, despite the 'special relationship' supposedly with Britain, that Bush aides are putting out 'nicey-nicey' feelers to the new French Government of Nicolas Sarkozy, who has expressed admiration for the US and its policies. The Bush camp is almost desperate to find support from any quarter as the influence of the President crumbles.

Gordon Brown, when interviewed, has steadfastly refused to use the rhetoric of 'war on terror' nor will he endorse Tony Blair's oft expressed fears about 'the dangers of radical Islam'. Brown has always been a man who has shunned sound-bytes and attention grabbing, and this is one reason why the Blair style of leadership,which he accommodated back in 1994 as necessary to put the Labour Party back on the map, became more and more wearing on his patience as time went by.

I don't believe Brown is any more complacent or any less concerned about the threat of militant Islam than was his predecessor, but I also think he believes in working away to deal with the problem, as a government should, putting the right steps in place but without 'pumping up the volume'....and I think he is absolutely right.

Meanwhile the British have reduced their troop numbers in Basra to virtually the size of a garrison.The government is taking soundings from the military on how long such a garrison force can assist the Iraqi forces without becoming more of a problem than a solution. I suspect they will say 'not very long'.

It would not surprise me greatly if the British broke ranks with the United States fairly soon and announced a deadline date by which all British troops will be brought home. If that happens the pressure on George Bush will be even greater than it already is..for the symbolic effect of that decision if nothing else.

It looks as though Bush may end his Presidency as a complete hostage to outside factors, the lamest of lame ducks unable to carry any foreign policy of significance. Its a far cry from the heady days of the first administration and the wonderful opportunity granted to his advisors from the far right of the Republican Party to use 911 as a pretext to stamp American military influence across the globe.

Maybe he should have listened more to the caution of his old man rather than to Cheney, Pearle and Wolfowitz. He has only himself to blame.

Hallelujah! Gambling's not the answer to urban regeneration!

Today in a little heralded about-turn which had no prior publicity, our new Prime Minister Gordon Brown has thrown out Tony Blair's super-duper answer to urban regeneration - building super casinos. Well he hasn't thrown it out just yet but the official comment is that the 'project is on hold subject to detailed review'.



Well I don't care how they frame it, Brown has given Blair and his project a massive raised finger..and good for him! I could never understand the logic of 'regenerating' a poor and run down town centre by providing sophisticated gambling facilities in it. The theory was that it creates employment for a large number of people. It also creates the opportunity and temptation to bring more financial hardship to families already struggling to maintain employment and a standard of living.

OK I realise to some people I will be seen as a 'nanny state' ist and a moraliser but this was one of Blair's super schemes for which I could never see the remotest moral logic. Brown was helped earlier in the year when the House of Lords threw out the proposal for 17 super casinos and forced the Culture Secretary to think again, but it is pretty common knowledge that Brown disliked the scheme anyway.

Lets hope that this is the end of any attempt to turn Britain's poorer towns and cities into a mini Las Vegas with all the horror that implies. Britain's towns don't need gambling, they need an infusion of capital to promote modern technological jobs which are competitive and stem the tide of work drifting overseas to India and China.

Gladiators of the highest quality

I used to think I could play tennis. Not all that well but well enough to wield a racket in club tournaments and even win the odd game here and there. I always knew I was never within a million miles of the guys at the top of the tree who played the game at a standard I could only dream of...but I did think I was vaguely playing the same game.

Over the years there have been some amazing tennis champions..and forgive me any women readers if I stick to the men here...players like Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Sampras but I don't think I have ever before seen a Wimbledon final where BOTH players..Numbers 1 and 2 in the world..played tennis over five nail biting sets in which they took the game of tennis to new heights. It made me feel like never picking up a racket again.

Yesterday's Mens Singles Final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal must surely go down in history as one of the most amazing feats of mutually sustained excellence that a tennis arena has ever been privileged to exhibit. The game was played at a speed which took the breath away and the excellence of shot often played at speed and at full stretch was simply amazing.



That the two respect each other greatly was evident in the warmth of feeling at the end of the match and, particularly, when Nadal, who must have been bitterly disappointed after playing well enough to beat any other player in the game EXCEPT Roger Federer, made no excuses and said he was delighted with his own game, he had played 'great' but that his opponent was the finest player on earth.

Federer now has eleven grand slam titles, he has equalled Bjorn Borg's five successive Wimbledon victories and he is now gunning for Pete Sampras' record 14 victories in grand slams. He could have been excused for being entirely self possessed after yesterday's victory but he said 'I was lucky today..it could have been either of us..but what about this guy? He is only 20 and I can only imagine how many titles he is going to win'

I know it's 'only a game' in the wider scheme of things but sometimes it lifts the human spirit to see two men who are at the very pinnacle of their sport, go head to head and produce a match of such amazing quality...and at the end of it pay tribute to each others talent. There is so much petulance, anger and downright churlishness in much of what passes as sporting behaviour that games such as this deserve all the accolades they receive.

Flying the flag for Britain!

One of the small decisions Gordon Brown has made in his, to date, brief spell as Prime Minister is one I heartily approve of. He has scrapped the years old stupid law that allows government offices to fly the Union Flag on only 18 days of the year. It is now allowed for any building to fly the British national flag permanently..and a good thing too.




There have been critics of this decision..predictably. There are those who said allowing the British flag to be flown from every building by anyone encourages the sense of isolation already felt by our ethnic minorities who see our flag as the symbol of right wing white intolerance. My answer to that is a rude one...total bollocks!

The fault lies within our society that we have allowed a situation to develop where we seem to have become ashamed of our own national flag. The British are so reserved about ostentatious displays of nationalism that we have allowed, through neglect, our national flag to become identified with right wing groups like the National Front and the British National Party, and done nothing to stop it.

The answer to this is to liberate it - allow everyone to see the Union Flag for what it is supposed to be - an all inclusive symbol of our United Kingdom with all its faiths, cultures, religions. Its a British flag not a Protestants flag or a white man's flag and I really don't understand how we got into this bind, but the way out of it is to fly it proudly - on every Office building - and let every British citizen realise that it's THEIR flag too.

A bitter pill to swallow

Several unpalatable truths which emerged from the failed car bombs attempts in London and the equally failed attempt to explode a car full of explosive into Glasgow Airport did so as a result of catching the two men in the Glasgow car, setting a chain of links into motion. Both men were doctors working in our National Health Service, and soon the police linked to and arrested another 6 people, doctors or nurses, who were of Jordanian or Iraqi background and who worked in the Health Service.



It has become clear that we can no longer suggest that the only likely car bombers are disenchanted teenagers from the ghettos, seduced into radical action by the local Imam. Now we have professional men working in our health service who, in their spare time, are trying to kill us. Whether or not these men have been 'turned' since their appointments or whether Al Queda has cunningly taken advantage of Britain' fast-track specialist doctors scheme is something the police are investigating.

What is clear though is the threat to the UK is constant and growing. It would help greatly if we stopped supporting war crimes like the invasion of Iraq, but no one should blind themselves to the fact that we have, not only a minority of Islamic youth seething to become heroes and blow up the country in which they were, possibly, born but we have a vicious and dangerous enemy prepared to send in people from outside using any means at their disposal.

I hate to sound the 'Bulldog' spirit but whatever means they try will fail. Britain has survived the blitz and 20 years of the IRA. It is not going to be thrown into panic by Islamic terrorism. A far bigger fear, and one which must be resisted at all costs, is a backlash against the majority of peace loving Muslims in the UK which will benefit no one except the bloody thirsty barons of Al Queda, providing them with another source of disenchanted recruits. We must never allow that to happen.

Smoke free at last!

I posted in April about the impending legislation, then already in effect in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, which was to be introduced in England on July 1st - an end to smoking in public places. Well yesterday it happened and I went into one of my favourite pubs for lunch.





The atmosphere was so much better, no more the second hand cigarette smoke drifting through the lounge - just pure clear air. The pub in question, called 'The Dog' on the Hagley Road in Birmingham has always been a nice place to eat and drink with a 'no smoking' section of which I always availed myself.

Today was even better. I popped into my local, 'The Bell' and the difference was enormous. Here is a small pub, dating back to the 1700's, a lovely old coaching inn with lots of character but with a very low roof and no capacity for expansion or change. A pub which, if health considerations had ruled a decade ago, should long have been a no smoking pub. Instead the clientele lit up with gusto and, when trying to eat a meal there, the place often felt like a kipper factory....but no more. I walked in today past the 'Smoking is illegal on these premises' sign and what a wonderful difference the law has made. I could drink a pint without a catch in my throat, a slight burning in the eyes and a general sense of distaste for the smell of smoke. Wonderful and overdue.



Oh I know I'm regarded as a 'health fascist' by some but I'm happy with that. I see that some clowns are taking this law to the European Court as a breach of human rights. They haven't a hope in hell. Soon people will all get used to this and wonder why we ever allowed the foul practice in public in the first place!