Getting Creative

I’ve always fancied writing a book. I’m told I write well and on the three occasions that I’ve got a book underway – written over 50 pages is the tester here – people have said it’s a good read. 

I’ve got a theme for more than one story and here, I fear, lies the problem. One of the stories is a science fantasy thing, another is a contemporary detective story and the third is a big world story about spies and all that stuff.  They’re all very different and they conflict in my head. 

It seems the best writers stick to the knitting as they say. I love John Le Carre and all his books are spy novels, he never tries romance or scifi so maybe I need to do the same. But it’s not how my brain is wired. I know Iain Banks writes in two genres and I think Stephen King does too, but now I’m just proving my own point, my brain jumps about a lot.

For years I’ve written songs, many you’ll know, but that’s different. They’re short and the words normally come to me really fast – it’s the music that takes time. Writing a song is a process, there are rules and things that work; sorry if that bursts your bubble about song writing but it’s true, is that true of writing books too?

In wandering around the internet looking for articles on top writers I can’t see any pattern. They say you should have a beginning, a middle and an end but even that’s not set in stone.

Then there’s the typing and stuff…. John Le Carre writes long hand and claims that keeps his prose ‘honest’ whatever that means. Nobody can read my handwriting so that won’t work and my typing is crap. So I’m currently experimenting with voice to text system and it’s good to be able to tell you these are lousy too! I’ve now found somebody I know who is a full time carer and who types like stink, we’ve agreed a rate and she’s going to type for me. So we’re all set.

Of course the different genres will still be a problem but I can get underway faster and make headway into the book. I’m encouraged that this journey of discovery may now be ending and I’ve got the right system selected.

Now all I’ve got to do it write something people want to read. Could be tricky!

Lawyers - don't you just love 'em

Now Im not getting any younger, in fact the old bones are starting to creek and the aches and pains multiply by the day. So at Christmas last year I announced to my family and friends that I'd had enough of fighting the barons of the music industry and I was going to retire.

I've done alright over the years; won a few gongs and had a few hits, so retiring is about having had enough - I've got enough money so I won't be reliant on the State Pension. The once bright, dreamy music industry that I joined in the mid 70's has now been replaced by a corporate cow run by accountants and lawyers whose sole purpose in life seems to be to drain the life out of the industry and regurgitate safe product.

I can remember back in the 70's there was so much enthusiasm about. The offices of the big players (Sony, East West, Island, etc) were vibrant places full of eccentric artistic visionaries who were constantly looking for the next big thing. A & R (that's artist and repertoire to you darling) people spent endless nights in smokey bars across the country looking for talent and nothing was dismissed.

Now the offices are like legal firms; primarily because they're populated by accountants and lawyers. A&R is as rare as rocking horse shit and the labels look to their ever ageing big artists to churn out safe stuff that makes big bucks. Look at the Cher album of ABBA hits - what on earth does that add to the lexicon of music - which they push because it will net them a few hundred million dollars even after they've paid for all the Photoshopping that must have been needed to the old girl before they wheeled her out.

The industry does record new talent of course, but increasingly they rely on small producers like me to take home recordings and generate something acceptable out of the raw product. For me that's been fun; I have worked with some great new bands over the last twenty years some of whom are now big acts, but for the acts themselves the focus has moved from gigging, where you used to be spotted by A&R, to home recording, YouTube and Spotify. Only by generating interest on there do they get interest from the record companies.

So retirement seemed like a cracking idea. Get away from the shoddy corporate globalist enterprises that the record industry has become. Relax and get some sun. Chill and turn my back on the music world. But of course it's not as easy as that.

I have a business, I employ people, they have salaries, cars, pensions and whatnot. They also have wives and kids. Suddenly you discover that retiring is socially irresponsible because of all the harm I might do to other people, and somehow that's my fault!

So I decided to sell the business. I can't sell my own production and writing skills but there is a huge infrastructure behind that which I can sell and, with it, the security of the people who work for me. I also appear to have a ton of personal guarantees on every sort of finance agreement you can imagine and I need to get out of those as well. My accountant tells me all this of course, so I agree to sell rather than just walk.

Then the lawyers get involved........

In my many years of business (I've never been employed my whole life) I'm met some dicks. I've met arrogant dicks, lying dicks, duplicitous dicks and even dangerous dicks, but nothing compares to lawyers.

In my day to day business I don't deal with them. I have a PA and she does all that stuff. I also have a Head of Legal and whilst I've never really understood what he does I now realise he's been keeping these pretentious, vacillating bastards away from me for years. But now I have to deal with them.

As it turns out my business is worth quite a bit of money (eight figures) and there was a lot of competition to buy. So I had to get the lawyers in to handle the bidding process. I wanted to be able to deny any liability for who bought the business so it seemed like a good idea - it wasn't. Their recommended buyer at the end of three months was a Russian whose money was shady in the extreme and whose connections to organised crime terrified some of my staff. So I sacked him and the lawyers and started again.

In the end I'm selling to an old chum from the business. He's paying half what the Russian was going to pay but it's still a nice number and I know he'll look after my boys and girls. So, having done the deal myself I pass it to another firm of lawyers. Now I may just be cynical but it seems to me these guys over complicate everything to increase their perceived value and, by definition, their bill. I've been talked to like I'm 9 years old by some spotty faced 30 something in an expensive suit on more than one occasion, I've been kept waiting for over 30 minutes twice and yesterday, the climax of all this tragedy, I was told my logic was unsound by a kid of about 27 who couldn't even manage to tie his shoelaces! So I snapped, hauled him over the table and asked him to give me one good reason why I didn't hospitalise him. My Head of Legal (?) then came into his own talking me down from this precipice. The young prick dusted himself off and exited the room. The Senior Partner said we'd reconvene soon - I suggested when he'd found somebody old enough to do the job without having to take breaks every hour to phone his mum for support. And I left.

Today I've been told the firm is unhappy with me and unless I apologise to this twerp they will bill for what they've done and let me find other lawyers. I won't be apologising.

So I called my mate who's buying from me and suggested we let his lawyer finish the paper crap and I'll sign it. He said OK and that he wouldn't shaft me - I know he won't so that wasn't necessary. Evidently the bill from these clowns is going to be around £150,000 and whilst that seems a lot let's not forget all the childcare costs they must have looking after their junior staff. 

I'm now looking at completing the sale next week. My Head of Legal is staying quiet (he'll be my mate's Head of Legal soon and he isn't rocking any boats) and I'm working on trust with somebody I've known for 30 years.

So the lesson I've learned is that the world's second oldest profession is actually way more unscrupulous that the oldest. At least prostitutes don't talk down to you (well not unless you ask them to) and they're usually pretty transparent about the costs associated with their services (including the add-ons). Lawyers are leeches on society and business and I'm very glad I won't be dealing with them ever again.

It's war, let's just admit it

The tragic events in Munich coalesce with the atrocity in Nice to show a pattern, a worrying trend.

Whilst the Nice attacker seems to have been inspired by IS, the Munich killer seems more likely to have been a very worried young man who was fascinated by mass killers. Both had used the Internet to feed their anger, and whilst the motivations were clearly different they finally lost what little control they had of their lives and 'snapped'. But here's the thing....

The Nice killer had help - he had spent months planning and had sent more than 1,200 text messages to an accomplice now in custody, celebrating the Charlie Hebdo killings and the Bataclan atrocity.  By contrast the Munich killer was a true lone wolf; a mentally unstable young man who idolised Anders Breivik and chose the anniversary of his atrocities to go out and kill children. Nothing similar between the two. But they were both Muslims and that is what links them in the eyes of the far right.

IS have a strategy. To turn the west against Muslims and create a jihad. The right is rising all over Europe and, history tells us that never ends well.

So we can write about our outrage, we can tell each other Muslims are peaceful (the vast majority are) but that will not solve anything. The intellectual classes always want to debate the issue, they want to deride anybody who makes a racist remark, they want to show their intellectual superiority and make 'clever' remarks. It doesn't work, it never has worked and it never will.

Our priority must be to stop the rise of the right. What threatens our hard earned freedoms and democracy is the right, not IS, if war comes to Europe it will be them, not jihadi warriors, we bring Europe to its knees.

 It must also be to help those displaced by war. But we must accept that our current strategy isn't working. More atrocities will follow, more innocent people in Europe will die, we must make a decision.

This is also compromised by the intellectual classes outrage when a missile goes astray and kills innocents in IS territory. Whilst IS kill anybody who gets in their way (and at the Bataclan commit appealing atrocities too awful to discuss) we have to listen to calls for enquiries.

I believe the time has come to obliterate IS. And if that means innocent people who live under their regime die then so be it. The world must resolve the menace that is radical Islam wherever it rests in the world. We have the power and if we also had the will we could do this.

Radical hate preachers who live amongst us need deporting, Mosques must not be places of radicalisation. Our freedoms are used against us and IS must laugh as we deny what happens around us (the BBC is being ripped apart by its luvies as they simply cannot bring themselves to report facts when Islam is involved).

 But we must accept we are at war, civilian casualties are a consequence of war and freedoms at home must be compromised. We, as a continent, worked hard for our freedoms, we deserve to be able to keep them. German women should not have to dress differently in order to avoid rape and sexual assault by Muslims who are guests in their country, neither should they have to witness the German press being regulated by the government in order to suppress the truth. You and I should be able to go shopping, watch sport, enjoy alcohol without having to worry about being blown up.

The vast majority of refugees displaced by IS live in camps; in Lebanon and Turkey - yet here they roam free - because that is our way. But it doesn't work. Yet Germany, with its history, can no more build refugee camps than it can admit it's universal welcome to refugees is a disaster.

So what to do? It's time to stop being PC and start kicking back. It's time for the world to accept we are at war and act accordingly. We must destroy radical Islam wherever it exists. We owe it to the peaceful Muslims who live amongst us - they have a right to not be stigmatised. We owe it to ourselves. The time has come for action which, whilst unpalatable, will put the might of the civilised world against the perverted violence of IS. If we accept it's war we will win. If we continue to deny the realities around us and try to debate our way to reason, we will lose.

A referendum. It's complicated

We are now going to have a referendum on the EU. Now we all know Cameron is a lefty right winger (keep up I've only just started) so he's going for the YES vote and will, no doubt, use fear of change again which worked so spectacularly for him in both the Scottish thing and the General Election.

For him and his Tory pro-EU block (all of the Cabinet apparently) it's an easy run, or so they think. I mean nearly every job in the UK will be lost, nobody else wants to play with us, the EU is fabulous really and look a Greece; I know Greece is irrelevant but watch them use it.

Over in Labourville the problems are being chewed over by what's left of their front bench and "it's complicated" comes to mind.

In the Scottish Independence referendum Labour and the LibDems stood alongside the Tories and look where that got them. If Labour do the cross party thing this time (and get the Yes vote they want) will we see UKIP taking them to pieces in the north next time round? It seems that is the view from their tactical team, so they'll be staying clear of the Tories and running their own campaign.

UKIP of course have some considerable armoury. They won the European elections and got millions of votes (if only one seat) in the General Election. there will be many hoping the YES campaign wins the day and the backlash sees them with over 100 seats in 2020 - others don't see the need for a protracted fight and just want to spearhead the NO campaign.

But they have problems too.

The Tory back benches are crammed with MPs who want out but they are unlikely to stand shoulder to shoulder with UKIP. There are also Labour MPs who will emerge on the NO side and given their colourful rhetoric about UKIP that doesn't sound like a marriage made in heaven.

The difference with the NO campaign, however, is that it will be organised. Somebody under 50 (who couldn't vote last time round) will emerge as the mouthpiece and Carswell can drag both left and right into that scrum. UKIP will plough their own furrow no doubt but I believe Carswell will take the view that it's best to be anywhere where Farage is not.

The YES campaign will be fragmented, lacking direction and with differing messages coming from the right and left. That will be coupled with an array of 'concessions' that won't amount to a bag of beans and no matter how hard Cameron tries to play the fear card I'm not convinced the country will fall for it again.

The fears of the SNP ruling England were very real, the true nature of Red Ed's politics were also a concern and Cameron's "let's leave things as they are" message was persuasive. But will that really work with the EU?

We know the Mail and Sun will run stories every day in the run up about EU stupidity (there's a lot of it about) and I'm not even sure the Mirror will support staying in that enthusiastically - it's the paper of the working man after all and millions of them voted UKIP didn't they?

If, and it's a big if, the NO campaign can stay positive they will win. The problem of course is UKIP which runs a wholly negative campaign; ridiculing the EU, banging on about stupid laws, sovereignty and Britishness. It's all clap trap and not really part of the argument.

If the NO campaign focuses on immigration and trade, both in positive ways, they will get their message across. The lie that the UK will crumple, out in the world on its own, offends most British people, and the fact remains that the EU need us as a trading partner. If they want to close their borders to us then so be it, they'll have to do that to the USA and China as well.

And with no German or French cars to buy over here we'll all be choosing Nissan and Honda so that's just fine. That, of course, presumes that the current EU agreements on vehicle sales don't apply equally to us as they do to other countries.

In simple terms Cameron can get the (EU subsidised) CBI to bleat all he likes, he can bring big business into his camp, but the vast majority of voters will see through it.

And of course, by then he'll have most of the big banks saying they're off if we stay in the EU because of the banking regulations tightening.

Let's be clear, if we vote to stay in, the EU will then expect to roll us over into the grand EU project they are already planning. They are also planning to legislate to make any more such referenda illegal so this truly is a one time opportunity.

But with both campaigns potentially being a mess who knows what will happen. A huge character will emerge - like Ms Sturgeon did - but who that could be? Of course, if Boris decides he's in the NO camp it will be him and give him the shoe horn he needs into Number Ten. Some may say that's a good thing........

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a British politician, popular historian, and former journalist who has served as Mayor of London since 2008 and as Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. He was born in 1964 and was too young to vote in the last EU referendum

Eurovision - where do we go now?

So after another memorable night of Eurovision, people are saying the UK failure is a disaster, that it’s all political and nobody likes us, that there are blocks that vote for each other, that we should quit this club that doesn’t want us as a member. And we pay for it all FFS!

But hang on just one minute and think about it.

The song was performed by a Voice contestant who didn’t make a single chair turn and a bloke from a Rolling Stones tribute act. It was written by two guys, one of whom is in his late 50’s and who’s only real claim to fame is that he wrote the theme to the National Lottery and another who’s music can only be found on free sites. What did we expect!

The music industry is huge in Britain, we utterly dominate worldwide (if you think the US holds that mantle then you don’t understand the industry) and the fact that almost all the acts speak English and write/sing in English tells you everything you need to know about what happens in these countries on the other 364 days of the year.

But our dominance, the fact this country has a vast music industry engine, that many people have worldwide reputations for production and writing, has it’s consequences.

I’ve been lucky to earn my living in the music industry all of my life. I’ve written a number of hits here and in the US, but they have also been hits all over Europe. In fact I had a song that made number one in twelve EU countries a few years ago and never charted here. The pressure on me and others like me (there are lots of us) is to find what is new.

Who would have thought two years ago that kids in clubs would be dancing to country and western music, or that Caro Emerald would suddenly make jazz fashionable. Here, writers have to be constantly refreshing what they do, we have to be at the front if we want those in the industry to listen.

In the 60’s and 70’s the vibrancy of the music industry came from bands who wrote their songs, they created new sounds and the world listened and copied. The 80’s were about the obligatory chorus key change, the 90’s about weird timing signatures and acoustic dominance, this century has been about introducing older styles of music with modern twists.

So it’s no surprise that the Swedish entry merged the country influences from a year or so ago with the constant Eurovision need for a catchy, pumped up chorus. It was a new development wrapped around a winning formula; but it was behind where the industry is in the UK right now.

Our difficulty is getting writers to create stuff that is out of date (in their heads anyway) when the industry is always demanding the next new thing.

In the last five years we’ve seen disco, electro pop, Country, bluegrass and jazz form the basis of worldwide hits (I probably forgot something here so apologies) and this year and next we will see traditional R&B making a big comeback with the disco feel finding slightly better forms than Niles Rogers can create - the reinvention of Deacon Blue will also see effects in writing.

But Eurovision will always reflect what Europe likes right now. And we are the innovators, we are currently writing what Europe will like in 2017, and there lies the problem.

I wrote for Eurovision a lot of years ago with varying success, but I wouldn’t do it now. If I dare say it we need to hand that job to somebody who is living and working in continental Europe not here. There are plenty of those and I have no doubt quite a few of the songs last night will have been produced by Brits (it is production that makes hits not writing), it may be some were written by Brits too, but I don’t know that.

So let’s not beat ourselves up. The biggest selling tunes in Europe in 2015/16 will, as always, be British. British acts will continue to dominate the thinking of the business and, even when stuff is from Belgium or Holland (the other big dominators of European charts) the guys who do it work here or operate within the UK music industry.

We do just fine, Eurovision can be a huge platform for European artists (the Swedish guy who won last night is a big hitter across much of Europe) but it adds nothing to British acts who tend to break Europe as a function of breaking the UK and without a great deal of effort to be honest. Europe craves British music, they are followers of what we do.

It is rare to see any innovation within Eurovision simply because European writers tend to follow not lead. The one possible exception last night was Latvia and that song may well surface in UK clubs after a bit of production by a decent brit. The rest will never be played here - they are out of date and simply not where our musical tastes are.

That doesn’t mean we should leave Eurovision, they need us to keep the momentum going. But we should let younger songwriters and unknown artists use it as a platform. In fact we should force those running our entry to limit the ages and experience of those involved.

Let’s look at who wrote it this time.

Dave MIndel writes jingles and is in his 50’s. His most famous tune is the one used for the National Lottery.  But at least he has some ‘success’. By contrast his (younger) co-writer Adrian Bax-White can only be found on free music websites. An old bloke and a trier - do we think that’s going to work?

So maybe the selectors limit the age of writers to 25, look for some new talent and the industry could then support that with yet to emerge artists who are equally young and enthusiastic. I am mentoring a 13 year old girl at the moment who will be a huge country star in the next few years - there are many like her about, let’s give them the platform.

But what do I know. I just work here……

What might have been

Maybe I start this latest blog with a contentious point; I think the Liberal Democrats are, in the main, honourable operators in the political framework.

Now before you start jumping up and down, I want you to forget the last five years, when they have found themselves embroiled in a battle with their coalition partners, and think back to how you viewed them before that. They were popular, they talked a lot of sense, and they were nice, sensible folk. Sure some of their policies were crackpot but surely thats allowed when you are a fringe party with no chance of power - isn’t that what opposition is all about for the little guys?

When the election results came out in 2010 I thought they would form a coalition with Labour. They were their natural partners and despite the fact that Gordon Brown was the worst Prime Minister this country had ever seen in terms of personality, he was one of the best when it came to his understanding of economics and what was needed for the world crisis. Brown was an inclusive PM in that he talked to other world leaders - he was, after all, hailed in the USA as the man who had found the way to save the world from its excesses.

But Nick Clegg made the (honourable?) decision to climb into bed with his arch enemies. And so began a hate relationship that has gone very badly for the LibDems. The Tories have managed to lay claim to the recovery and are now hijacking all the stuff the LibDems forced them to do and saying they were their ideas anyway.

So what would have happened if Clegg had forged a deal with Brown?

I think Gordo was on his uppers, he was massively unpopular, seen as a baffoon who couldn’t handle the PR stuff, but his own party felt he’d done a lot better in terms of seats than anybody had expected. He even offered to resign as part of the deal, offered a change of the voting system to PR without a referendum and (it now seems clear) much better ministerial clout to the LibDems.

The country would have a very different shape now if Clegg had done what the majority of his party members wanted him to do and joined with Labour. We may well have seem Miliband as PM; a man who is desperately unit for the job, BUT we would have seen Danny Alexander as Chancellor and Clegg as the front man in all but name.

The cuts would still have had to happen but there would have been fairer tax provisions and fewer tales of woe amongst the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The LibDems believe in collective responsibility and that might just have permeated society a bit more - we might all now be a bit more willing to help each other.

I’m a reader of Ayn Rand and she believed selfishness was the key to economic and societal success. She was brutal in her condemnation of socialism and wanted the free market to rule everything. She was also a very eloquent lady. I do believe light touch politics works best and Labour and the LibDems have a track record of loving the nanny state, but to be honest, there are only so many constraints you can put on people’s freedoms before they kick against it. I still believe Any Rand is right but maybe the country has an intrinsic social conscience that she never acquired.

I cannot second guess how a collaboration between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg would have gone - I do believe the recovery is largely an act of big business and enterprise and would have been much the same no matter who was there. I also believe, however, that the LibDems would now be set to win a lot more seats (we’d be having our first PR election remember) and the Tories would be being ravaged by UKIP (if they hadn’t merged by now) - we would be accepting that we were looking at five more years of a Labour/LibDem coalition from 2015.

Ironic really that if Nick Clegg had read a little more Ayn Rand and been a bit more selfish (for the collective LibDem movement) rather than doing what he thought was honourable, he would be in a better place now and I think the country would have done just fine.

When, in years to come, clever folk write books about Nick Clegg’s legacy they will recognise he tried (and failed) to change politics forever. I doubt we will see any party get a majority at this election and we’ll see more pacts and arrangements. I do believe that the UK will be worse off as a consequence and the LibDems may have to try to walk whichever party they decide to support back into the middle ground. But the ‘coalition experiment’ was in the main a failure because, I contend, Nick Clegg backed the wrong horse.

Makes you think don’t it………

Send in the Crusaders

It's said that a quiet majority of Pakistani Muslims in cities like Bradford, Rotherham, Birmingham and Manchester, broadly support what ISIS (or whatever their latest name) is trying to achieve. To some there is unease at their tactics but it is a fact that the Koran states that all infidels must be conquered, given the chance to convert to Islam and, if they refuse, beheaded.

There have been lots of discussions over the years about what bits of the bible mean but no such discussions take place within Islam. The book is clear as crystal, it's words unambiguous, it's instructions clear. So why should we expect Muslims to condemn ISIS for doing exactly what the Koran demands?

And there is history on their side. The use of extreme force, inhuman violence and gut wrenching brutality has worked before for a religion and succeeded in turning it into an all pervasive power across the globe - I speak of course about Roman Catholicism.

The RC religion was borne of controversy and violence. After 300 years of persecution the Christians who lives in Rome (and who were a very small sect within the overall Christian faith) dropped lucky. The Emperor Constantine was thinking about his sins - he is widely regarded as the worst of all Roman Emperors - and as all top folk did he went to the muses seeking absolution. The fact that his transgressions were so legion that they refused him tells you a lot about the guy, so he went in search of another religion that would assure his forgiveness and absolution. After a lot of searching up popped the Roman sect of the Christian church. They offered him absolution (when nobody else would) in exchange for his promise to wipe out every other Christian sect. Given his talent for butchery (this is the fella who raped and murdered his own mother and sister remember) he readily agreed.

The Roman Catholic Church was founded in a blood bath of Christian persecution by a guy who just wanted to get to heaven and was being told by the RC's that this was the way to do it. It's estimated that in the next twenty years Constantine butchered over 300,000 Christians who wouldn't adopt the RC version of events. Most wouldn't as the RC faith is contrary to scripture, adorating Mary, and was also at odds with many other parts of scripture (they later rewrote the entire New Testament to fit their version).

From their base they expanded across Europe thanks to Roman patronage and then, when the New World was discovered they sent their top man Torquemada there to 'convert' the Aztecs and Mayans. This was achieved again by wholesale massacre. In Mexico they butchered the top 6,000 elders of the Aztec people to show their force - publicly executing the leader in horrific fashion and killing his four wives and sixteen children in front of an appalled people.

Of course they had also encountered the Cathars in Europe two centuries earlier and the horrific brutality they exercised there is significant in terms of ISIS today.

The Cathars were strict followers of the New Testament. They condemned Rome for its temples, pomp and extreme shows of wealth. Rome's response was to destroy them. Cathar settlements would be surrounded and left to starve for several weeks. Then they would enter, line the men up on one side and the woman on the other. The children were herded into the middle where they were spit roasted (alive), then the women were gang raped until they died. Finally the men were beheaded. It's estimated that over a half million Cathars were murdered. Rome prevailed.

The tactics of Rome against the Cathars showed levels of brutality never seen before or since - until today. ISIS seem to be copying what the RC Church did with historical precision. And it's working of course. They control vast tracts of Iraq and Syria, their rule is absolute and totally accepted. Everybody in their region is now Muslim. If fact cold logic says they've done a very good job. And one suspects they will continue to do so.

ISIS was born out of the glorification of the various terrorist sections, by people who wanted to make fundamentalism the true religion. This is exactly what the RC Church did under Constantine. They removed the ambiguity and created one Christian faith - even if it was totally at odds with everything Jesus had said - and that faith survives to this day as the worlds biggest religion.

ISIS can look to the success of the RC church and legitimately hope and aspire to be as successful. Islam is an evangelical religion as was Roman Catholicism; spreading the word with brutality and fear works - ask the Pope!

Perhaps the west thinks it can stop ISIS, perhaps it can, but it will pop up somewhere else, converting as it goes. Pakistan will be next, and China will also see its docile Muslim community rise up. The next 100 years will be about religious wars, and Islam will be the biggest region in the world by the end of it. How that effects us remains to be seen.

Diplomatic efforts and nation armies certainly won't stop it so maybe give the job to the one organisation that is as brutal and determinedly self preservationist as ISIS - maybe we send in the Roman Catholic Church to short them out. It's brutality when conversion opportunities arise is way beyond what ISIS could dream of.

You might think me flippant but I am a bit serious here. The chance to confront Islam as they did in previous centuries would be accepted by Rome. Conversion and perhaps a glimmer of hope that they could finally wipe out a religion that they see as being borne from the drug and alcohol fuelled delusions of a Paedophile from the Yemen (a pretty accurate definition as it happens) would be very attractive. If they were given clearance for a 'no holds barred' approach they'd be up for it and they would prevail.

During the Crusades Rome fell down because of manpower issues. Here they would have technology so superior the numbers wouldn't matter. And let's be clear, the west would like to see the back of Islam, it's always been that way.

First we'll do the diplomatic stuff, send in Arab troops and British planes, but none of that will work. Trust me, what's needed is the Catholic Church with its gloves off.  

A little dilemma

I've been having a bit of trouble recently with politics.

You see, I've voted Labour all my life, until the last GE. With Nasty Gordon in charge I couldn't bring myself to vote for him or the party. He is a Marxist as are his supporters who had risen through the ranks (the two Ed's being the most prominent) I didn't like what I saw.

To be honest me not voting didn't really matter. I was living in one of the safest Labour seat in Britain, my participation could be excused.

But now I have a real dilemma. I live in Hove which could go either way. I must vote next year but who for?

Instinctively I don't like the Tories; there is a smell of sleaze about them, but when they formed the current government I had to admit that they, the right, were the right people for the job. Had Labour got in the cuts to public services would not have happened, they couldn't have made their core voters redundant, benefits would have gone unchecked and they would have battered entrepreneurs, business and the Middle class. Marxists don't ever manage to see that the private sector makes the money that pays everybody's wages - they don't get it.

I have no time at all for the LibDems. Quite frankly Nick Clegg makes my flesh crawl. His is smug, insincere and a showman - none of those qualities belong in politics.

So what's left?

Labour are poised to pull off an electoral victory despite the plain fact that their policy announcements so far wouldn't work, don't add up and only effect the efficiency of Britain's internal market making thousands redundant and losing our export leverage. Their policies pander to their magical 35% who they know will vote for them - public sector workers, those who live on benefits and, of course, former foreign nationals. I have to conclude that the shunt to the far left that Ed has presided over is a disaster area for the UK. And they continue to say they know better than us - so no referendum.

I cannot vote UKIP - they are a party of strange people who hold views I find disturbing.

I cannot vote Green - I have watched them destroy public service provision in Hove, I would have to be insane to vote for these idealistic children.

So I'm stuffed! I will vote of course and I will vote tactically to preserve the recovery and stop the Marxists from destroying this country in the same way they're destroying France. I will vote Conservative, and in doing so I will shudder.

Had David Milliband won the race for Labour leader I don't imagine this would be a difficult decision. He is Blairite and centred, but he didn't and he won't be back anytime soon. Others are now pointing out that the Trades Unions, in gaining central power once more over Labour have sunk the ship, all I know is if David was running the shop Labour would now have a 20 point lead. Sad really.

So, against every instinct I have, against all my principles, I'll vote to keep the present government in power.

Never thought I'd say that.........

Christmas!

Whether you like to admit it or not, Christmas is now coming up fast on the rails and will soon be among us.

It's a strange time for me; for many years, as a musician, I worked over Christmas and saw it as a mega pay day. I was sober on New Years Eve as well (can't play with any alcohol in my system) as you lot all partied.

I've also never been one for the joy of present giving to be honest. In most cases we give people stuff they don't really want and, in doing so, spend money we can ill afford.

I know what you're saying now "grumpy bastard" but truly I'm not.

When I worked I loved Christmas. All the effort that went into parties and New Year was excellent.

Prior to working at some extraordinary venues where money seemed to be no object I had struggled through the Christmas of 1978. Hard times with no money sleeping in a bedsit waiting for the big break. That Christmas, in London, was supposed to be dire. On Christmas Eve I walked the West End watching people having a great time when I didn't even have the price of a pint, my Christmas Dinner was an egg mayo sandwich and half a pint of milk.

But, strangely I enjoyed it. Maybe it was the pain I enjoyed, I've no idea really, but I still have fond memories. I was alone in London, I didn't see anybody or even speak to anybody for the five days surrounding Christmas. Yet somehow it seemed safe and comforting. Nobody had any expectations of me and I had none of them. My friends up in Yorkshire were partying like crazy but somehow I was happy to be alone. I'm weird I know........

Now I'm retired I don't work at Christmas or New Year. I have them at home. Normally mum would come down but with her passing in the Spring it's just me, my wife and whoever from her family turns up (which is currently looking like nobody).

I love to cook at Christmas, I do the lot, all the trimmings, that stuff.

But this year there'll be the two of us so I found myself looking at the Waitrose Christmas food catalogue and thinking I should let somebody else do the cooking. Now this does seem weird.

Having everything delivered, just warming it up. That's not Christmas is it! Well it appears it is. And this is what I have to look forward to for the coming years.

So suddenly Christmas isn't a time for self flagellation, nor a time for work, it's just a dead spot in the diary.

And that's sad. I have no intention of becoming one of those sad bastards who goes on a cruise (I worked cruise ships for five years). Or of finding some romantic restaurant where we can be crammed in with too many other people whilst the staff stay happy and the chef shows how much he loves producing standard Christmas fair instead of his normal fabulous creations. Staff working Christmas Day while folk party just love it!

So I guess we could climb Kilimanjaro or walk to the North Pole but it's just not me. We could lay on a beach (sounds a bit better) and take in the rays somewhere obscure but none of the above floats my boat.

Christmas will be rubbish this year, got to fix it for next............

Thinking myself thin

Over the years I've collected a few additional pounds. I dislike being overweight intensely but struggle to deliver on my occasionally formed pillar of good intentions. So I stoically hold on to the extra 20 or so pounds that straddle my middle and strangle my self confidence.   

Travelling back from Greece on Friday I encountered all manner of shape and size. From the worryingly thin (is she ok do you think) to the grotesquely fat (shouldn't she be made to buy two seats) and I begin to wonder if I am alone in my self flagellation about the undesirability of my shape. Am I the only one being emotionally destroyed by my fat cells?

To be honest, I know I'm not alone, there are loads of people who constantly delude themselves about their ability to govern their weight and then suffer emotional humiliation when they finally realise they simply don't have any power over it at all.

But what I do marvel at are the hoards of overweight folk who seem utterly content to be porkers. 

On the plane I sat opposite two girls in their mid twenties, both massively overweight and already, at such a young age, having embraced the black leggings look - fat of face, chubby of hand and enormous of arse. There was also a simply huge woman, so large she could only navigate the centre aisle sideways and then with a squeeze; I have no idea which poor sod sat next to her but it must have been excruciating. And yet, all these ladies seemed happy and relaxed. They showed no embarrassment for how they interfered with 'normal' folk trying to go about their business and (probably) showed no embarrassment when exposing their flab on the beach.

Yet my obesity causes me angst everyday. I look at myself in the mirror and think about what used to be. I constantly beat myself up for not sticking to my food goals, I insult myself verbally (in my head) I refuse to buy new clothes even though the ones I have are falling apart and I can afford a new wardrobe. None of this does any good.

My wife tells me I look fine (I don't, she loves me so she lies) and just to be content like all these fat folk we encounter every day, but I can't and she knows it. I'll just have to read a few more rubbish science papers and quack diet books before realising that all I have do is eat less and move more. How simple is that! Well, regrettably, it's nigh on bloody impossible. But we live in hope.

So, over the next few weeks I'll rediscover that counting calories is the thing, that eating as much as you like as long as there's no carbs really sheds the pounds, that fasting every third day is our natural state and reflects our primeval diet, that staving yourself for even one day panics your body into storing fat and makes you more inclined to illness. Of course what I won't do is admit my angst to my mates.

You see, whilst women seem to talk about their weight worries openly and constructively, men don't. If I admitted my concerns to my drinking buddies down the pub they'd look strangely at me and then say "well lose some weight then you fat twat" or some other highly constructive words.

And I can't do with the power thinkers either. Middle aged men in Lycra (MAMILs as they are wonderfully called) are simply hummungeoius twats who seem to have anger issues and a point to prove. Then there's the guy who's 60, still runs 5k everyday and is built like a whip - am I alone in hoping he dies before me so I can look smug?

The fact is I, like most men, don't understand what we can do to change. Unlike women, men have no stomach for nonsense yoyo diets that plainly don't work. It needs to be simple. 

I have to get back in shape for my own sanity and I've resolved to do the following:

steer clear of carbs, they are clearly evil. I'll also dump the starchy stuff

exercise a bit. Not running that's just dumb, but I'll get back in the routine of doing sit ups and lift a few weights

swim, I like swimming and there's always the chance of seeing something pleasant in a bikini so we can live in hope

Sleep more, evidently getting a good nights sleep is good for your metabolism. Don't know where I read that but who's going to argue

And stop eating sweets, chocolates and biscuits. Tough one that

You'll notice I didn't mention beer. That of course would be a step too far towards being one of those sad thin people who can get into skinny jeans but have nowhere to go once they've done it.

Probably the three fat ladies I encountered on the plane are lovely, bubbly sorts. When they're not eating that is........

Smoking is good for you?

I'm a smoker. I like to smoke. Unfashionable I know but there we are. I've stopped three times since starting almost 40 years ago, once for 12 years - so I don't take shit from 'former smokers' - I simply tell them they're never out of the woods.

The first time I gave up (3yrs) it was in protest at the price of a packet having gone up to 50p, given they're now about nine quid that seems churlish but it mattered at the time. The second time (the long one) was when my kids were little and the last time was six years ago (2year abstinence this time).

I won't be giving up again (unless they make it illegal) and here's why

During my life I've seen smoking move from being what everybody did to being something that pompous twats now feel able to moan about. I can't smoke indoors because Roy Castle's wife invented passive smoking and big business loved this trashy pseudo science so much they created an agenda that GP's then happily 'confirmed' by bending health figures. I am clear, and so should you be, that passive smoking is a myth - it's like the tooth fairy, it makes some people happy and others slightly wealthier.

Airlines loved banning smoking. Like businesses it reduced their cleaning costs but, in the case of airplanes it allowed them to turn down the air circulation systems - the air in the average airline cabin is now ten times as dirty as it was when smoking was allowed on planes- but the airliners save a fortune while you catch colds.

I also used to get terrorised by my GP. He's a fat lad and I finally snapped and said that whilst I was 20 years older than him I'd be prepared to race him down the seafront and I guessed I'd win. We don't discuss it anymore, I still smoke and he's still the size of a house - we are both comfortable with our existence.

Then there's the stuff about how we smokers cost the NHS loads of money. This also is a terrible lie. We die early, the savings in geriatric care and pension provisions when added to the tax revenue on cigarettes actually amounts the five times what the NHS has to spend on us. We are not a burden we're a revenue stream!

My dad smoked, he was a professional - 80 Capstan Full Strength a day (for the uninitiated trust me that's serious smoking). He loved life, liked his beer,worked hard and died of cancer when he was 69. My mum neither smoked nor drank, at 86 a consultant told me she had the heart and lungs of a lion and would live to be 100. Twelve months later she didn't know who anybody was except me but her internal organs were still going to take her through another 10 years or so.

I decided I'd rather go like my dad - that's when I started smoking again.

So I smoke, I like smoking. I won't be preached at or have some prick screw their nose up when I spark one - good chance I'll break that nose for you if you push it too far. 

Every year 'science' decides they got something wrong. Generally after we've paid them lots of money for their shit research and bad advice. Suddenly chocolates ok, global warming is bollocks and low fat diets are the wrong way to lose weight.

I'm living in hope they'll realise one day that smoking is good for you. But I'll probably be long dead by then......

Scotland the brave or Scotland the dumb?

So there are rumblings in the Westminster jungle as the Scots head for the polls. Interestingly I think the man who has dedicated so much of his life working for a "better Scotland" as he perceived it, Mr Alex Salmond, may well have put the kibosh on the place in more ways than he can imagine.

Perhaps he's right in his conviction that an independence vote leads to a brave new world of prosperity and internationalism, but all the signs suggest he isn't. Whether it's the Bank of England, the EU Commissioners or the UN, nobody seems to think it's a good idea on any level and, surely, all these smart folk can't be wrong?

Many Scots prefer the "Devo Max" idea but all this chatter about Scotland has educated great swathes of the English middle classes who now realise that they actually pay for Scotland's current socialist empire and are now being told to pay even more.

The thing is, Scotland delivers Labour governments for the UK; without those northern MP's we would be blue to our core, BUT general elections are won and lost in the leafy English suburbs whee the middle classes drink tea. Neither Labour nor Tory will ever intentionally alienate them as to do so is to kiss goodbye to power. And the middle classes of England are now chattering.

If Scotland votes YES today, which seems unlikely now, then none of this will matter. The UK can relax with added prosperity from no longer subsidising the Scots and the Tories can be certain of being in power for a long time.

But the likely result is that Scotland will vote NO. This then draws a battle ground which Cameron and Miliband should have seen coming but for some reason didn't. There will be calls for an English Assembly with the same powers as Scotland and Wales. The formula that gives Scots over a £1,000 more per head in state spending that in England, will be scrapped. In short, Scotland could see it's socialist universe collapse.

Ironically our esteemed leaders, camped out in Edinburgh, have promised the earth to get a NO vote - Cameron in particular seems to have forgotten that we don't have a Presidential government system here - they have made promises they can't keep and that's dishonest.

I guess my belief is that today will be a turning point for England more than for Scotland. Either way they vote the Scots are heading for hard times (ironically had they shut up and just got on with things they would have been fine) with less public spending. England may well be the big beneficiary and a slight political change on the part of Nigel Farage could see leverage being created for an English referendum to leave the UK and EU; one that I think will provide a YES vote.

So, Mr Salmond, one way or another you've stirred up a hornets nest and I'm pretty sure your country will be the big loser.

Life's weird isn't it?

Why all this fuss about Scotland?

I know that tomorrow is a momentous day for Scotland. They'll be deciding whether to stick with us lot or bugger off into the sunset. But why all the hype on the sunny side of the border?

From what I can see, whether Scotland leave or not, things won't change much on our side. Of course we lose the oil revenue but we subsidise the Scots massively and I'm pretty sure financially we'll be better off.

We'll also never have a Labour government again and we could debate whether that's a good thing or not, but, whatever your view of it, the English always vote Tory so that's just democracy in action.

If they stay then I can't see that ending well. The YES campaign is quickly turning into a guerrilla movement with violence and mob rule being claimed (some hype and hysteria I'm sure) and that won't go away surely? Do we get the Scots version of the IRA being formed? Also by staying they will start the demands for an English Parliament with the same powers as Edinburgh, and it will happen - maybe not soon but it will.

If they go we just get on with stuff while they have an exciting time negotiating with everybody (UK, EU, UN, Tesco) and I would presume getting the rough end of the stick in most of those talks. But that won't bother us. Our economy will recover (probably quicker), we'll be more likely to leave the EU and the Welsh will still be unhappy.

To be frank I don't really care whether they stay or go. I view it like a relationship that's gone bad. If they go we'll both get over it, if they stay we'll rumble on wondering if we still like each other. Resentment will abound and the English will go for broke on asserting their authority.

It's one of those things that was probably better left unsaid. A bit like when your kids are teenagers and they annoy you (a lot). It's best just shutting up because you know they'll mature in a few years.

But perhaps our little Scottish teenager wants to move out. Find their feet in the real world. That hardly ever ends well does it?

Have I got the X-Factor?

I'm currently in a lovely little spot. It's hot, and the view looks out over a bay where little houses are dotted about like salt flakes on the craggy coast. Boats are bobbing in the harbour and the sun is kissing everything it can.  And I'm being paid for being here.

I sometimes wonder at my work. Is arranging melodies and teaching folk with Karaoke voices how to maintain their vocal chords through what might be a long and arduous competition really work? Should it really pay this much? In what way does this relate to reality?

But it's big business as I keep being told. The mighty boss man turned up yesterday to make that point. Millions of pounds of advertising revenue is reliant on this little singing competition. And of course, his private jet needs paying for.

It's pretty relaxed here. No cameras at this stage, just hard work for the three acts as they learn that being a professional artist is about a lot more than picking your favourite song in the pub - and that vocal discipline is everything.

I once worked with Celine Dion. She banged out huge numbers every night for 20 gigs in a row, always in control of her voice, never straining, never pushing to that point where things crack and break. Professionals learn how to do this. I've also worked with West End singers who are expected to give eight performances a week for months on end without once cracking the voice. It's a trick (like most things) and a discipline honed over years of lessons - believe it or not most famous singers have lessons every week - but here it's got to be a fast track to survival.

Most contestants on talent shows don't even understand the basics of singing. They have good voices but they don't breath correctly or in the right places. They can knock out one great song but not every day. Learning something that takes professionals years to master in a matter of a few weeks isn't easy and sometimes it's impossible.

So my job is a bit demanding. But it's still not a job really. Nothing horrendous happens if it isn't done. Nobody dies (although they might die inside a little) and I do worry that most of the contestants don't get the fact that this is a talent show; it's very rarely a path to music glory. If you want to succeed in the music biz then, just like any other vocation, you have to work at it over years. The instant stardom given by talent shows is short lived and often has tragic endings.

But I do enjoy arranging music and I'm good at it. The show now allows for 'alternative arrangements' so I'm having fun. Teaching people who generally can't read music and, as yet, don't have the discipline to practice enough, how to deliver something special can be funny but it's also exasperating.

But as they say in show biz - it'll be alright on the night

And before you ask, no clues will be forthcoming about who I'm working with or where. It's in the contract darling!

Time for a Liberal comeback?

I've always been interested in politics but, apart from a brief spell whenTony Blair was running the shop, I've always been pretty disaffected with all of the main parties. I can remember in the 70's chatting to some chums and saying the Liberal Democrats were ripe for a takeover - they had just about disappeared from sight and were holding their party conferences in a phone box - as I always felt grabbing hold of an established party was much better than trying to start from scratch; well, it worked for Hitler......

Then they started their great comeback. Post Paddy they had the drunk Kennedy in charge, then a couple of confused geriatrics and now the EU loving Clegg. But despite being largely rudderless they've grown into something of a force.

Of course the last four years have changed all that. After twenty years of upwards mobility they are about to implode on a grand scale at the next General Election. UKIP have claimed the mantle of 'establishment position' that they enjoyed for so long, Farage is the man of the moment, and the LidDems may well be lucky to have 5 MP's post 2015.

Of course the Liberal Democrats aren't Liberals at all. John Locke must spin in his grave every time Nick Clegg declares himself a Liberal - he isn't, he is a far left social democrat who loves Europe and the nanny state.

True Liberals would choke at the thought of the EU. Nick loves it so much because he worked on making it the behemoth it is today. He loves non democratic big state manipulation,  he is 'continental in thinking' (whatever that means) and he wants to pass almost all of our democratically hard won rights over to the boys in Brussels because they know best.

The Liberal Democrat audience and support is also fascinating. Middle class, slightly wealthier than most, politically aware, economically insulated; they seem guilt ridden by their own success and want to give something back. You'll find them manning food banks and volunteering for homeless shelter duty. Not that any of them have ever been anywhere near needing those sort of services. They are members of the Caravan Club, the RSPB, National Trust Members and many do actually wear sandals and socks at the same time.

They are the politically disenfranchised, those people Ayn Rand hated, the property owning classes who want to be chastised for their own success and feel the best way to assuage their guilt is to cuddle every unfortunate or oppressed minority.

They are teachers, vets, farmers, PR Consultants and Diversity Coordinators. And vast swathes of them are retired (usually from the jobs just mentioned). For reasons of history the LibDems stronghold is in the far north and east of Scotland. I think those folk haven't yet realised the LibDems aren't the Liberal Party, in fact they couldn't be further from Liberal values if they tried.

In short, the LibDems are a wishy washy bunch of PC riddled middle class suburban folk who sign petitions and believe that matters. They have no right to use the Liberal name.....

So here's an idea. Post 2015 they'll be back to having a handful of MP's, no power and a leader who's hitting the bottle. Time for a take over.

Drop the 'Dems' bit, go back to being the Liberal Party and pick up where Winston Churchill left off. Fight for minimal state, leave the EU, protect our country against immigration blight, be strong in the world.

Funnily enough, these are all things the Liberal Churchill fought for, they are also all things that Clegg and his clowns would oppose.

It's time to take back the Liberal Party and make all it's current MP's read the definition of what it is to be a Liberal every day until they quit and join the communists. Of course, Farage is a Liberal, he just hasn't worked it out yet........

Perhaps Enoch Powell was right

I have no religion or faith. Frankly it's brought about by a mixture of laziness and a love of history. Laziness in that I've usually got better things to do that worry about what happens after I die, and history because when you read about religion you see what nasty fuckers tend to make it to the top in that game.

Humans are unique amongst animals in that we understand mortality and we communicate verbally in complex ways. Easy then to see how human society will invent gods in order that they can invent the after life. It's just plain awful to think that 'this is it' isn't it? That when you're dead you're dead, so we to against everything that seems rational and obvious in the world that we see and talk about omnipotent beings and 'another place'. Utter bollocks the lot of it.

There have been, throughout history, religious sects that could unite the various dingbat sects. The Cathars who grew in the 12th Century believed that this earth was hell - a test for man, and that Jesus had been some kind of hologram who came to warn everybody about how shit this place was. It caught on and Christians, Muslims and Jews converted. Then the Pope at the time decided it needed to end and wiped them out; top class Roman Catholicing.

Religion causes most of the trouble in the world. If we all woke up tomorrow knowing there is no God and that when you're gone that's it, then most of the current wars across the globe would be pointless. Sadly so would the lives of many people so the religious bandwagon continues. In most cases it's pretty harmless. Sometimes it distils a form of decency into people who might otherwise be just plain nasty.

But, one religion stands apart. Every religion on the planet is based on suffering and love for fellow man conquering adversity - every religion expect Islam that is. The Muslim faith is built around vengeance and violence. Borne from it in fact. Their 'holy book' is a catalogue of violence, a misogynistic treatise of the superiority of man, the worthlessness of women and the need to kill all 'infidels' (that's you and me by the way).

The Christian book, the Jewish book, Hindu scripture and Buddhist thinking all preach peace - the Muslim book is all about hatred of none believers, how they are unclean and need to be destroyed.

Now this didn't matter too much until recently. The west rarely encountered Islam. But as we globalised and people started to mingle it became an issue - there are now 6 million Muslims in the UK alone and many millions more across Europe. Politicians try to tell us ISIS isn't Islam but sadly it is. Their fighters take their book literally and are no different to Cromwell's puritans or the Pope's Crusaders in simply wanting to see the Islamic faith followed properly. We call that radicalism, they call it fighting for their religious beliefs.

Muslims don't mix on the whole. They intermarry - Bradford Council recently published a report about child mortality blaming it's unenviable record on inter breeding amongst Muslims of Pakistani origin - they ghettoise city spaces, they keep to themselves. Only the intelligent ones move out into society and there are very few of them. When children start school unable to speak English and are them prevented from doing homework because they are too busy attending the mosque to learn the holy book, you have to be something special to get any GCSE's at all. Sadly the ones who do rise above the crowd and enter mainstream society then decide to use their skills to articulate the persecution of their fellow Muslims rather than to stand against the inward looking nature of Islam.

Muslims feel the rules of their religion surmount national laws. So they practice paedophilia, they abuse teenage girls turning those they see as unclean into slaves, simply because their religion allows it. Their 'prophet' married a 9 year old - what can you expect.

It's now become clear that their invasion of the Labour Party, populating local government alongside radically PC white activists of the worst kind, has allowed then to subvert UK justice, covering up their flouting of the law and leaving police and child services unsure as to what they should do. Let's be clear, they manipulated simpletons on the left and used their power to avoid UK laws they don't think apply to them.

The question is what to do about it. Any move to ban Muslims of Pakistani origin from public office would lead to screams of protest even if they have displayed reasons why it would be a very good idea. It's also hardly possible to repatriate people who are third generation British (and a bit fascist too). The only way this can end therefore is through the processes the Islamic faith dictates.

ISIS is finding it very easy to recruit in Britain. Those who are not going are supporting (a recent poll of Pakistani Muslims in Holland found 83% supported ISIS - nobody dare do such a poll in the UK) and that will lead to ISIS style thinking here.

When it comes it will shock the nation. Attempts to 'take' key cities and create Islamic States here will probably to swift and very bloody. It will happen out of the blue, organised but undetected until it's too late. Then they will be crushed - massively and swiftly - but only after politicians have dithered too long and the population at large have decided to take matters into their own hands.

The end of Islam in Europe won't be pretty, it will be horrific in its casualty rates and will inevitably turn Europe more right wing, but it will come. The reason is simple. Western society is hamstrung by it's desire to be engaged with all faiths, it's PC philosophies born out of the rise of socialism and the apparent ability of politicians on all sides to deny reality. As they have done in Rotherham,  Bradford, Rochdale and inner London, Muslims will exploit that and be forgiven for thinking the Islamic State inside the UK is possible.

It isn't of course, but our political correctness will take us there and it will be ordinary people, not the police, who stop it. But those days will be dark.

Perhaps Enoch Powell was a prophetic politician not a racist as the left loves to brand him.......

Scotland and her divorce

They'd been having relationship issues for some time. Whilst he merrily ran through life confident in his decisions and friendships, she was unhappy and felt she was living her life vicariously through him.

When she told him she was unhappy he patted her on the head and said he knew best. When she said she was thinking of leaving him he ignored it, bought her the occasional bunch of flowers, agreed to go and visit her mum more often but still wanted his dinner on the table when he got home.

When she started divorce proceedings he told her she wouldn't survive without him. He said she'd be 'nothing', her finances would be a mess, the cozy life she had now was all down to him and she'd sink into oblivion. He almost got to the point of threatening her. She wouldn't be getting the house or the car he'd bought her. All their friends would side with him.

She waivered, maybe he was right, what sort of a life would it be. But in the end she knew it would be better even if it was hard. So he made more concessions. He would give her more control over the finances, if she wanted the new toaster he'd let her choose it, she could even redecorate the bedroom.

But never once did he admit that he needed her. That he loved her and couldn't imagine life without her. That as a couple they were ten times better than the sum of their parts. He was a mans man, he didn't do that, admitting he needed her just wasn't in his lexicon.

Nobody knows what she will do. Maybe she'll decide to take the concessions and limp along for another few years. But he'll never change and deep inside she knows that. He's just not the romantic, sharing type and that won't alter. He's not a social caring chap; she cares about friends while he sees them as a means to an end - his end.

In a few days time she will decide if she's going to leave him for good. If she's brave enough she will have a tough time. He'll throw his toys out of the pram, make it tough for her, tell everybody else not to talk to her. But in a few years time she'll be a better person. She will do the things she values, she'll make new friends and find ways to be her own person.

He'll be ok too, but will have to realise how much he needed her and that she leaves a hole in his life.

The Scottish Independence referendum is in a few days time. Will she be brave enough to make her own way in the world or will she stay with the bossy misogynist for a while longer.

There's nowt so strange as folk........

Why I shouldn't have a dog

Nine years ago (approximate timings ok) a friend called me out of the blue and asked a favour. She lived in a shared house and had bought a puppy, the other residents were cool about it but the landlord was coming back to stay for six weeks and dogs were banned. I didn't query her logic in buying the dog - I'm not like that. So, she asked me if I could look after her 12 week old puppy for six weeks.

I didn't know the first thing about dogs but, given I always try to help, I finally said OK and Willey arrived. A bubbly Staffy who just wanted to be happy.

Over the next six weeks I grew to love his company. I made a fist of being the good dog parent and we got on just fine. Then I had to give him back. It broke my heart.

As you do, I decided I'd get a dog of my own. As I do, I ran up a specification (female, small, intelligent) and set off looking. I settled on a Jack Russell but then read they were a bit yappy. But after a bit more research discovered that if they were crossed the barking often stopped and the brains came to the front. Enter Izzy, a Jack Russell Lakeland Terrier cross.

I took her to puppy school, I learned how to make her do tricks and be obedient, we both excelled at it and our happy co-existence began.

Izzy brings joy to me everyday and I try to do my bit for her, but she's an old girl now and she's got fat and lazy. She never really liked walking unless it was somewhere new - her brains get the better of her - and now she really objects, so I drag her three or four miles everyday.

Then she started limping. One of her back legs was hurting her so she hopped on three legs - to the vets we go. I then get chewed out cos she's fat (about 3.5 kilos overweight he says) and the guilt trip starts. I put her on a diet, now she cries a lot and looks unhappy all the time, but she is losing weight. Cruel to be kind they say.......

Now I'm a musician. I gigged till I was 50 and spent 30 years underweight after my first appearance on Top of the Pops and seeing myself back on the tele. I guess I should be 12 stone but I went down to 11 (or under). Food became the enemy, and ironically bourbon became my friend. I smoked to stop hunger pangs, I drank to stop hunger pangs, I messed up my body so much I'm sometimes amazed I'm still here.

Then I retired from the stage......... and I put on weight. Now I'm a stone overweight and hate it. I'm vain and I don't like what I see in the mirror. I have money but I never buy nice clothes - I mentally bribe myself "you can have that when you've lost the weight" - but I don't.

So me and Izzy have a lot in common. We're both overweight, we both hate exercise, we both like food.

Because I'm a sentient being I can think it out, I don't do a great job of it but I know that as you get older the girth widens and use that excuse a lot. But she's a dumb animal and I'm supposed to make the decisions. I'm also under pressure from the vet who clearly knows better than me.

But I've come to an epiphany. I'm overweight, I smoke, I drink, I eat chocolate and it works for me. I know I'm probably cutting ten years off my life but so what. Being old isn't much fun and the spin put on it by fit 80 year olds is just so much bullshit. I'm happy to croke at 70 to be honest. And I think Izzy is ok with the same logic.

So, stuff the vet, me and her are going to get old and fat together and if he doesn't like it he can stuff it up his righteous arse. No more broccoli florets and carrots as treats- it's just not happening.

We all have a right to 'be' and quite frankly she's more intelligent than some of the folk I see on Facebook, so she has that right too.

But maybe I'm just not cut out to be a dog owner. Maybe I'm no good at it. Perhaps I should give her to somebody who will starve her into shape and let her live till she's 20. I'm suffering lots of self doubt now. And all over a cute furry white lady who loves me.

Izzy and I are a team, but does that mean we are fit for each other? Fucked if I know......

Gobshites on Twitter

Thomas Farriner is one of those blokes who did a little thing that affected a lot of people. On this day in 1666 he was baking bread in his bakery in Pudding Lane and took his eye off the ball for no more than a minute. A fire started, the rest is history.

Thomas's minute of distraction led to almost 85% of all the houses in London burning down - he wasn't that popular. One little spark caused disaster.

It happens all the time (admittedly not on such a grand scale) that a little thing leads to something big and very unpleasant. None of us realise that a few words, spoken after a beer perhaps, can have massive consequences for us and for other people. Discretion is the better part of valour they say, but we seem to live in a world now - and a Twitterverse certainly - where people shoot their mouths off at will and always say it's all about free speech.

But it's not really guys is it. It's just about shooting your mouth off cos you can. Twitter makes it easy - it's impersonal, writing insults has always been easier than saying them to somebody face to face. And I guess most of the people being thoroughly unpleasant on Twitter wouldn't have the guts to say it if stood in front of somebody.

Then there's the opinionated fools on Twitter who know little but say a lot. And insult with impunity. They read one tweet (let's not even bother scanning the persons timeline eh, takes far too long) and in they pile.

I suffered tons do bile recently. Louise Mensch is somebody I quite like, although her self publicist mentality is a bit hard to swallow. She wrote an excellent piece for the Jewish Chronicle supporting Israel, as I do, and saying that the recent Gaza conflict had been used by anti-semitics to voice their hatred of Jews. I happen to agree, and had tweeted many times that people like Dianne Abbot were simply a Jew haters who had used the conflict to reignite an age old left wing hatred. I replied to Louise that her piece was excellent and then made the point that it might be interesting (in the spirit of trying to say something positive) to explore the meaning of 'Semite'. I'll admit it was a complex point to make on Twitter in such few words but Louise got it and acknowledged it.

I then found myself deluged by Jews and Israelis hammering me as a Jew hater. They hadn't got it and hadn't bothered to see if I was on either side of the fence. I have condemned disproportionate response but supported Israel's right to defend itself against terrorists.

I tried to remake the point but they weren't listening. They couldn't listen as they weren't bright enough. Then in came the other camp, either twatting me for being a 'Jew lover' or thinking I was a supporter of their cause.

I despaired and eventually just ignored all of them.

One spark, taking my eye off the ball for one minute, led to a conflagration of immense proportions. And I felt helpless to do anything about it and also felt unjustly abused.

Thomas Farriner felt the same evidently. He took his eye off the ball, he didn't intend to burn London down. He expected to bake bread that people would enjoy. His life was hell afterwards as he knew he had started the fire, albeit that a French bloke got hanged for it, and he never really recovered.

I'll move on and will make sure I don't make complex points in an environment limited by 140 characters and populated by idiots and ingrates who speak before they think.

London actually benefitted from the fire and the city we enjoy today is largely the beneficiary of the disaster. So maybe I'll benefit too. I will try........

Hove is where the heart is

There's a new gents hairdresser opened on the High Street. Being somebody who still has hair (no mean feat at my age) I took an interest.

He's trendy, well he'd have to be operating in Hove, but in ways I struggled with. For a start he calls himself a barber - I can remember when that meant you got a short back and sides, parted on the left and you liked it - but no ordinary barber; this fella is an 'organic barber'.

That quite excited me. I had visions of organic hair cutting, evolving to the mood. I thought, maybe he has 6Music on the wireless and just goes with the flow. I guess you'd have to hope there wasn't any Leonard Cohen playing. Then a read on and it said he uses organic produce. Suddenly I was losing the will.

There is a gullibility here in Hove which can send folk bonkers for the latest fad. Be different, and expensive, and you've cracked it basically.

Presumably he uses shampoos and lotions that mix crazy stuff together. Quinoa and Cherimoya (it's an artichoke, look it up) and lots of other nonsensically named edibles. Perhaps he uses linen towels hand woven by monks from the Shaolin Monastery on Mount Song, near Dengfeng ( we've all been there). Certainly he'll have josticks and his chakra will be a thing to adore darling!

He also puts these 'inspiration' signs in his window. Today's was "if you face the sun the shadows will be behind you". This is, of course scientifically undeniable but what else it can mean exactly left me way behind. I look forward to more inane nonsense in his windows in the future.

The one thing he didn't have - anywhere that I could see - was anything that showed him to be a good barber. It seems if you're organic and wear a kaftan you can get away with murder.

  He'll do well here. It's not called 'Hove Actually' for nothing.