THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

A mum who lost her son to a genetic condition when he was only two-years-old has set up a charity to support others. Nikke Hewitt depended on Disability Living Allowance and Carers’ Allowance to survive while giving round the clock care for Edward ‘Teddy’ Hewitt.

When he tragically died the allowances also stopped, leaving her grief-stricken and needing to find a source of income.

Nikke, of Eastwood, Essex had given up her job to care for him, but many parents or families don’t have the strength to get a job right after losing a child. It takes them longer to get a job or harder to keep the job they already had.

This, in turn, increases the pressure which is put upon them and as a result, they slip into a darker kind of depression, and then it’s an unending downward spiral.

If a company forced a grieving parent back to work after two weeks, there would be an uproar, but because it’s a Government department, there’s no sympathy, no compassion for that person who’s just lost a child, they do as they want and simply toss them back into the lions den, and more awareness of this has to be raised.

Nikke was able to find work inside two weeks of Teddy passing away but she shouldn’t have had to because this mother lost her son, and there are many other families that have lost their child that are forced back to work by the relentless Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

How do they sleep at night, I’d be having nightmares for that family that had just lost their child, and shame on our government.

Spurred by her own experience, and that of others, she chose to set up the Teddy Hewitt Foundation. The foundation will aim to lobby Government to alter its policy about removing benefits after a loved one dies.

Teddy’s father and Nikki’s partner, Richard Hewitt, is also taking part in a charity cycle ride from Little Havens in Benfleet, Essex to Amsterdam to raise money for the children’s hospice. They gave Teddy astounding care and love throughout their stays at the hospice in Benfleet, Essex, and they were incredible through Teddy’s final days with and the aftercare and help that was received will never be forgotten by the family.

Donate at: gofundme.com/little-havens-to-amsterdam-ride

Nikke Hewitt gave up full-time work to look after her son, and when he died, the money stopped spontaneously, there was no leeway what so ever. Nikke was required to return to work straight away. It takes a long time to grieve when somebody dies, it doesn’t matter who it is, but when it’s child the adjustment can take a long time, and those that have never lost a child could never possibly understand, it’s not like your pet dying and your sad for a few weeks and then you get over it, the loss of a child never leaves you, and when you do feel a little relief from it, you then end up feeling guilty that you did something for yourself.

There needs to be a period of help for parents to adjust back to a normal life before returning to work, and also some kind of bereavement counselling for parents that’s free to the point of need.

A parent that has given up their job to look after a child that has been ill for a long time and then dies is really difficult, they not only have to learn to deal with the death of that child but then has to fill that vacuum because that void has been filled for years with looking after that child. Just going back to work is not always the answer, and everybody copes in varying ways, but whatever way they cope, they also need support.

As I said anybody that’s never lost a child would have no idea whatsoever, it’s not like losing your dog because that child is your flesh and blood, the parent has looked after the child who has bee poorly for years, all day, every day, giving round the clock care, medications, and they might also have other children to look after as well.

Anybody that has lost a child needs a certain amount of grieving period, there’s the funeral to sort out, and also the money to find for that, it’s all part of that grieving period. Not only that, she gave up a perfectly decent job to look after her son and depending on how long a person is out of work, it might be pretty difficult to get back into the workplace because of the amount of time they’ve been out of work.

When someone loses a spouse they become a widow, when a child loses a parent they become an orphan, but when a parent loses a child they get nothing to help with that. Both a widow or orphan would get support from our government, so why not a parent?

Boris Johnson is a very funny man at times, sadly, he frequently puts his foot in his mouth which gets media and public attention. Clearly, he’s a supporter of free speech, and you’ve got to love his repartee, and it tells you a lot when Rowan Atkinson seems compelled to ride to his defence.

But while Rowan Atkinson was seeking to dress Boris up in fairy lights of comedy, there is the fact that Boris Johnson did, in fact, offend letterboxes, comparing them to Burkas. Should Boris Johnson be made to apologise, well, possibly to those poor letterboxes, after all, they’ve been a traditional component of our culture for a pretty long time, and the Burka has been here in England comparatively less time.

Boris, however, said that he had an out-and-out aversion to the Burka, so obviously it wasn’t a joke, and now we’re not laughing, and there wasn’t any punchline, and Boris Johnson has an abundant and magnificent history of disparaging and undermining women, regardless and sometimes because of their attire.

He wrote about his “Tottymeter” at a Labour conference, making women feel embarrassed, and then advised his successor that when dispensing with the publisher Kimberley Quinn, he stated, “Just pat her on the bottom and send her on her way.” He’s also written about female drivers, and taking them from behind, and spoke of Volleyball players in London 2012, about them glistening like wet otters.

He further said that female students only frequented university because they had to find a man to marry, and lastly stated that Hillary Clinton resembled a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.

You could dismiss this as mere banter, but while he was the Mayor of London he axed the position of Women’s Advisor, and cut £90,000 and five jobs from the Domestic Violence task force, and fought over funds used to tackle rape, and abolished a childcare unit for single parents – no wonder he can’t find a woman to love him, after all, who would want to be with a man with narcissistic tendencies.

More recently, he has spent two years undermining Britain’s second female Prime Minister and further made his situation worse after a British mum sat languishing in an Iranian prison, and he had to atone for his careless chauvinistic comments.

And in his private life he’s not managed to be faithful to a single woman he’s been publicly and romantically linked with, give it up Boris, no one wants you. In brief, he displays no sign of being a feminist, clearly, his mother never breastfed him.

No woman in a Burka has yet robbed a bank, although men have put on Burkas to cover up their identities while carrying out crimes or retreating them, and as far as I know no woman who usually prefers to conceal her face has not blown anybody up in Britain, but the people that have done so are male, and in many instances are born to Christian families. A point that’s worth bearing in mind when someone declares it’s the women in Niqabs we need to worry about.

Political correctness has gone mad because political correctness demands us to be considerate of other people, but isn’t that simply the habit of good manners anyhow?

Clearly, not everybody has good manners, and some people are simply inbred narcissistic neanderthals, step up to the rostrum Boris Johnson, and don’t get that microphone stuck in your mouth…

Calling people names is allowed, and disparaging attire preferences is somewhat prevalent, but it’s also pretty rude, and while we all have the autonomy to be rude to people we all, usually, don’t display most of this rudeness because we have either courtesy or compassion towards other people.

So, even though I may very well think that Boris Johnson is fat, obnoxious and piggish, I might think about it but I wouldn’t relate it to his face because I have empathy and compassion, and I’m guessing that if I did say it to his face, and I have the right to do so, I choose not to because they’re offensive and rude and might injure his feelings, if he even has any.

I guess covering yourself with a Burka could imply that they’re not prepared to blend into British society, and is a security issue, and if they’re allowed to wear a Burka then why do British people donning hoodies have to have their hoods down when going into any store?

But there’s no legislation on assimilation into British culture, in fact, I’m not sure there’s any legislation in any country that declares that people have to integrate. The fact is, kids are going hungry in the school holidays, the NHS is falling around our heads, and we’re worried about Burkas, really?

There’s a rational and well-intentioned drive to contain offensive factors in society which has produced a culture of exceptional dogmatic and testing strength, it’s what you might call the new narrow-mindedness. It’s a distinct, and powerful want to suppress the uncomfortable voice of descent.

Many people say they’re not narrow-minded, say the softly spoken man, profoundly educated, liberal-minded people, and people appear to respond shrewdly and say they’re really wise words, and yet if you think about this seemingly inarguable observation for longer than five seconds, you’ll understand that all that it’s advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another.

The latent unfairness of free speech is not addressed by arresting people, they’re addressed by the problems being expressed and dealt with preferably outside the judicial process.

The best way to build societies resistance to free speech is to acknowledge much more of it.

We’re not slaves, nor should we have to bend to our employees and everyone in government is a public servant and they’re our servants because they work for the people, and they should have to answer to us, and we’re entitled to tell them off if we have to.

Rowan Atkinson was not totally right, free speech should not be offensive, but it should be there so that we can have our opinion that we need to get across to the government, and without it, we’re nothing more than cattle.
What happened to our freedom of speech, now if you say what you think you get arrested for it but everybody should be empowered to free speech so long as it’s done in a dignified way.

Rowan Atkinson’s views were neither philosophically new or particularly well thought out because hate speech usually results in humiliating behaviour and lots of injuries. Look at Brexit, that ended up with lots of hysteria over immigration which led to an increase in racialist crimes.

Boris Johnson made a remark that women bearing Burkas resembled letterbox’s, and that ended up in Islamaphobic attacks, and that sort of free speech ends up pissing people off.

Rowan Atkinson appears to be living in a vested, white male, Western bubble, saying that free speech doesn’t necessarily have to be inside contextual boundaries, but some free speech can create more prejudice, harm and brutality.

Insults are rude and some people would like to see a lot less of them, but who determines whether the words on billboards or opinions that people have are insulting? People themselves, the police or judges? Or should it ever be a criminal matter at all?

But under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the police and the courts can determine if you or someone else might feel offended.

Do we actually require the police and the courts to dispense with insults? Should we not simply accept that the risk of insult is a fair price to pay for living in a society which values free speech?

A man stood up in the middle of London and crooned a tune about a guy who killed his girlfriend in a resentful rage, the lyrics appeared to accuse it largely on the girl. Watching the vocalist from a nearby spectator stand was the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and much of the Royal family.

They waved and even hummed along with the song, “Why, why, why, Delilah?” Some of them also shook tiny Union Jack flags to support this delightful little song of death, “I felt the knife in my hand and she laughed no more”.

But one question arises, why did the police not immediately arrest them all, the Royal family, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop under section 5 of the Public Order Act?

Don’t be silly, you say, but it would be any more stupid than a student being detained under section 5 for saying to a mounted policeman that his horse is gay, or somebody being charged and convicted, then cleared on appeal for delivering what was reported as a daft little growl and a woof at two labradors or someone holding up a sign outside the Church of Scientology in central London saying, Scientology is not a religion, and that it’s a dangerous cult.

Then there was the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, arrested and charged for roaring slogans and illustrating posters denouncing the oppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people by Islamic governments, throughout a demonstration at a Hizb ut-Tahrir rally.

And an evangelical Christian preacher who was convicted and penalised for holding up a home-made sign that, with the slogan “Jesus is Lord”, blazoned: “Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism.”

All these are actual cases of British police exploitation of a law so loosely worded that it invites such abuse. That is why a campaign to amend section 5 was recently launched by an unusual alliance of Christians, atheists, gay rights activists and politicians of all stripes.

But if we want a clear, protected stand for freedom of expression in Britain, we need to go further.

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act states a person “is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.

There are two points wrong with this catch-all wording. First, unlike section 4 of the same act, and Britain’s law on provocation to hatred on grounds of faith or sexual orientation, it does not need proof of an intention to create harassment, alarm or distress.

The standard is very “likely to”. Who determines what is “likely to” be caused harassment, alarm or distress? On the street, the police do. Then, the Crown Prosecution Service may then decide not to prosecute, or the court may toss the case out.

Then there is the word “insulting”. The government has denied its extraction partially on the grounds that the courts would have the odious business of identifying between the merely insulting and the abusive or threatening, but why shouldn’t we be allowed to insult so long as it doesn’t end up in threatening or injurious behaviour?

The reason we shouldn’t be allowed to insult is because as grown-ups and being more mature than a child, we can take the various insulting behaviour, but as children, it’s deemed as bullying, and that’s solely what insulting behaviour is, and there are specific aspects of this behaviour that is tolerable and some that’s not, and we should be able to differentiate between the two.

To make this country’s free speech laws fair, benevolent and harmonious, we should not only remove the word “insulting” from section 5, we should abolish section 5 in its entirety. Maybe, we should further remove the word “insulting” from section 4, although that quite rightly dispense with genuine menaces of violence.

We should be able to identify what is a wrong intention, and what someone might see as insulting, another person might not, and we have to identify what is said in malice and what is said as a joke.

Four eyes, big nose and ginger minger are frequently said as a joke, and many people don’t find it offensive, on the other hand, there are those people out there that might, depending what context it’s been said.

Ethnic prejudice is not acceptable and we’re supposed to be living in a mature multicultural society and we should be accepting of those that live in it, after all, we’re all human beings, but that doesn’t imply that we aren’t allowed to have an opinion, so long as it’s not done in an ugly way, but as I said before, what some people might feel is offensive another might not.

Times have changed, people have changed and our culture has changed. Ethnic prejudice is at its pinnacle, along with sexual orientation, and there are various human diversities that appear to be a problem now, but pain and distress to another person is not acceptable, particularly if it’s done with hatred.

There are various ways that we can still have free speech as long as it’s done in a dignified way, and to not cause infliction to others. Sadly, standing up for free speech usually means supporting those people who say unacceptable things, and free speech is good, but it doesn’t give license for people to post insulting stuff on their websites.

Prejudice, sexism, and homophobia remarks are not acceptable forms of free speech, along with slanderous smears, and if I spoke poorly of someone’s children, I would expect to get punched. You can’t provoke, you can’t mock somebody else’s religion, racial background or sexual orientation.

Numerous people will disagree with me and that’s their choice, everybody is allowed their opinion, but there are some things that clearly shouldn’t be mocked, and there is an abyss between reprimanding someone’s religious and political views, and inciting hatred of people because of some innate trait such as race, colour, sexuality and so on is not fair.

Many people might make a poor pun or a slip of the tongue, but sometimes as human beings, we tend to engage our mouth before we engage our brains. That doesn’t make us bad people, it simply makes us foolish, and usually after reflecting about what we’ve said we realise we made a really bad mistake.

We should treat others the same way that we would want to be treated ourselves, but many of us don’t because most of us are the sheeple of society and we follow everybody else and focus on what they’re doing because most of us wander around with their brains permanently attached to their arse.

Oops, did I say that out loud…

We live in a new society now, and whether we like it or not, we need to work it out before we destroy each other, but of course, that’s exactly what our government want. They put the fabrications out there, and we believe what the media tells us instead of investigating it for ourselves, then the seed of poison is there… there’s that apple again from that Garden of Eden, and the more we’re told we can’t do it or we can’t have it the more we want to do it or the more we want to have it.

The trouble is we don’t live in no Garden of Eden, this is not Utopia, and the more autonomy that we have the more damage we will do, we want to eat that forbidden fruit and we are encouraged to say those forbidden words.

Then you have Snow White’s stepmother who is really wicked and vain (our government). You can picture them all assembling there in parliament with their mirrors, asking who’s the fairest of the land, and of course, that mirror never lies!

We’re a magnificent country of great people that our government are really jealous of, and they’ve turned against the people, and now they’re turning us against each other with that poisoned apple, and we all love a little candy, and if it smells sweet and tastes sweet we assume that it is sweet.

If you shout fire we all believe there is one, but that doesn’t inevitably mean there is a fire, and that’s what we all do, we run like demented twats with everybody else, and that’s precisely what our government are doing, they shout fire and we all believe it.

Some people tend to believe what they’re told, you get cartoons of Jews with enormous snouts and coloured people swaying from trees, and Scottish people depicted as robbers and drunks, and we all chuckle and make fun of it, but not all Jews have big long noses and I don’t ever remember seeing anybody swaying from a tree, unless you’re Tarzan, and I know some very charming Scottish people that have never had a drink in their lives, but we accept this because we’re told this is so, it’s called conditioning, and with this happening, what could possibly go wrong?

Because this only has traction when there’s a broader social support for it, and Jews having prominent beaks encourages resentment against people, it’s like someone saying that a gay person should be thrown off a building, and everyone goes along with it.

Saying that Islam is satanic is the same as saying that Jew’s eat babies or that they have horns growing out of their heads which is simply bullshit and pretty offensive to people, and even though it’s not inciting hatred, it’s really mean-spirited and gets up people’s noses, and I guess if you’re a Jew that wouldn’t be really hard to do, that was a joke by the way, and I am a Jew, and I’m entitled to make fun of myself! As for babies, I couldn’t eat a whole one.

The problem with free speech is that its impact is much controlled by the media, who pick stories that bolster their own beliefs, or is questionable enough to sell more newspapers, but of course, the output of the media is ultimately defined by the readership and viewership, the lower the output ultimately reflects on the population’s beliefs, prurience and shallowness.

Sadly, newspapers are simply toilet paper that you can clean your behind with, which once upon a time was precisely what it was used for after inspection… not your behind, the newspaper!

Now the internet is a public forum and some newspapers support free speech with a comments box, which I really think is a great idea, at least they can slag each other in writing and not in person where there would end up being fisty cuffs, or handbags at ten paces, after all, there’s nothing more demeaning that somebody brawling in the street over some political agenda, racism or somebody being gay.

A fragile 96-year-old grandad was dumped at his home by a hospital driver with no-one to care for him, and it was Cliff Schofield’s horrified daughter Jane who found him slumped in a chair still wearing his hospital clothes.

It’s utterly sickening, surely this hospital driver had a duty of care for this person he was taking home?

Retired steelworker Cliff had been taken to the hospital and kept in after he fell, hurting his back and cutting his hand. The following day hospital workers told Jane he was going to be released so she hurried to the hospital with clothes for him.

When she got to the hospital her father was gone and the nurse that she’d talked to wasn’t there and none of the other staff appeared to know anything about it, and when she got back to his house he was inside, curled up in a chair far too small for him.

A few feet away was a bigger armchair with a cushion but they had appeared to have simply dumped in the first chair they came across without any consideration for his well-being.

He had been left there for 30 minutes before his daughter Jane got there, and had that been somebody who had no relatives to care for them, they would have been dumped there and nobody would have ever realised it.

Jane and her husband Brian, of Rotherham, South Yorks, were so angry they took a photograph of Cliff slumped in the chair and sent it to the hospital. Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust apologised for the inadequate care and said it was investigating the incident.

The NHS doesn’t stand for the National Health Service. It stands for the NO HEALTH SERVICE. This is an absolute scandal and it’s not the first time an ageing person has been discharged with no-one to look after them. What was the hospital driver thinking to leave him like that and what was the hospital staff thinking to discharge him in his hospital gown? Has no one got any brains these days?

Sadly this is yet another illustration of how the frail and elderly are handled in this country, and these hospitals are what makes Victorian workhouses look like a heavenly paradise, and the probability of an inquiry into this poor mans care will be composed of a brief meeting, a couple of finger-wagging letters and a gritty mouth excuse from an army of administrators who don’t really care.

Valuable lessons need to be learnt here, but next time this happens they’ll wiggle out of these situations better than before and before the media gets hold of it, and our sympathies should be with the people who deserve far better than the bungling and inept NHS they’re lumbered with.

Of course, all of this will get swept under the rug as their spreadsheets are considerably more valuable than some old person, but one day they will also get old and then they’ll actually see how their practices harm people if we even have the NHS by then.

When you consider all the things these vulnerable people went through for us, the war and all of the other deprivations, and yet money is spent without a thought for them, and then there are those people who are old and disabled and are discharged from hospital and sent home, left on their own, waiting for home care for hours on end, arranged by the hospital, but they still have to wait for the home care to arrive, so they can’t get out of bed or go to the toilet, then they try to get out of bed, fall and end up being rushed back into hospital.

And then you have the carers who believe that fixing an elderly person a boiled egg or a slice of toast is adequate for their meal because when you reach a particular age and have no funds the NHS simply drops you because you’re too much time and trouble for them, and it’s easier for you to go away and die.

My mother who has sadly passed away now became an amputee. When she came out of hospital she was really depressed and although she had been seen by a Social Worker to be assessed, the lady stayed for an hour and did her assessment and left.

Some weeks later my mother threatened to kill herself because she was so depressed, so the first thing I did was call her doctor out and then phoned the Social Worker, her response was, “What do you want me to do about it, my jobs done.”

I obviously complained about the Social Worker and asked her to give my mother an apology. I was told that would never happen, but I was adamant she was going to get one, it took weeks of threatening them with legal proceedings and finally, my mother did get an apology, in writing.

Because of bed blocking in hospitals, NHS beds cost more so they want people out as soon as possible, it’s almost like a human food chain. The NHS and councils speed the placements through and normally don’t do it correctly and with little care. Then the council and NHS refuse to accept responsibility to fund the care provider, so it’s about time someone examined this side of things as well.

Some elderly patients are being discharged from hospital but on the day of their discharge end up having a fall before they leave the hospital, they get checked over and still end up getting shipped off home, usually in pain and distress but are given pain medication and are sent on their way, only to find out that they were sent home with a busted hip.

If you strip away the layers of this disgusting act, it all boils down to the fact that there are no funds in the pot, and something needs to be done at a greater level and fast because the system is failing us, but really, it doesn’t matter how many layers you strip away, this idiot hospital driver, if he had a brain would have known not to leave such a frail man on his own in a chair.

For hospital workers, communication appears to be a genuine problem. When my mother had her leg removed, many weeks later I was notified that my mother was being transported to a rehabilitation hospital. I don’t drive and I’m disabled so I had to rely on friends to take me.

Once I got to the hospital I then realised that they’d sent my mother to the wrong hospital and in fact, the hospital was not for rehabilitation. I went to the nurse’s station and spoke to a rather haughty nurse, who told me that my mother was being sent home in a few days.

I explained that my mother had not been evaluated, no one had been to her home to assess it to see what she would require, her attitude was that she actually didn’t care and it had nothing to do with her. I went back to my mother’s ward, I took her front door and back door keys off her and then went back to the nurse again.

I stood in front of the desk and raised my voice slightly because I didn’t want to get booted out and told her, “So, how will you get my mother into her home?.”

“With her keys.” She responded.

I showed her the keys and told her that my mother doesn’t have her keys on her, so unless they’re prepared to break in and create havoc to her home which is unlawful and an offence she would not be going back home and they were going to transport to the correct hospital, I also flashed my Press pass at her in which her attitude improved a little.

By the following day, my mother was on her way to the right hospital, but there are countless elderly people out there that don’t have families and simply get put in an ambulance car and sent home, some with no care put in place at all.

This is disgraceful, our elderly should not be handled like they are a nuisance, they should be treated with decency and reverence, we all get old.

Of course, I might get called a troll for writing this article because in some countries there’s no health care at all, and some might say that we should be grateful for what we’ve got, but we’re not in another country, we live in the United Kingdom, where once the NHS was considered the greatest in the world, in fact, it was talked about all over the globe because it was celebrated, now it’s no better than the third world, particularly when we couldn’t care less about our elderly.

Third world nations might not have good health care, that’s really an understatement, they have little or no health care, but they do have families that will care for them in times of need, not that I’m saying that families in England don’t care for their loved ones but we don’t always get the time or have the time to help out because of work commitments, and some don’t have any family at all, but in a third world country, if there is no family, then somebody else in the community will look after an elder person, we don’t appear to have those kinds of morals anymore.

Now, an elderly person would seemingly be better off in jail, at least they would get fed, cared for, prioritised for medical treatments and you’d have a Social Worker to take care of your needs.

The NHS is shocking really, we know it’s free and we all bang on about how proud we are of it, but if you’ve actually needed it, you’ll know it can be a very frightful experience. The trouble is, the more we bang on about it, the more motivation it gives our government to make it private.

Of course, most people will tell you that the NHS is free, it’s not free we still pay for it through our taxes, and because we pay through our taxes, we expect a pretty damn good service, which is not what we’re getting. We were once proud of our NHS, so what happened to it, and this once proud country of ours?

Of course, people are living longer and there’s the demand for more medical intervention. I for one wouldn’t mind spending a few pounds more a week in taxes for my NHS so long as I knew it was going into the coffers for the NHS. The problem is it doesn’t, they jumble it around various services to make the money go around, although it doesn’t work that way because in the end one of those services ends up with less than it should do, i.e the NHS.

The problem is many of our nurses now are imported and are contracted by agencies, many of them don’t have particularly good language skills and therefore can’t understand instructions correctly, and that’s when we end up with serious problems, people being left in dirty bedding, being fed when they’re nill by mouth and then end up with pneumonia.

Neighbours informed the council after they noticed huge piles of raw meat being chopped up in the yard of a residential address in the London borough. There was no information as to whether the family had killed living animals at the property or were simply cutting up their remains, but a woman at the location affirmed meat had been cut as part of Eid celebrations.

One of the two most important holidays in the Islamic calendar, Eid al-Adha took place this year between August 21st and August 25th. The five-day Islamic celebration rotates around prayer and ritual animal sacrifice.

A Dagenham resident, whose flat looks onto the courtyard in which animal remains were seen being slaughtered, said: “It seems one of the least hygienic places to prepare meat, and they were using an old rag to wipe their tools.”

But Ramadhan Foundation chief Mohammed Shafiq insisted the family had done nothing wrong, and while Muslims in many countries purchase, keep, and kill their own animals before splitting it into portions for Eid al-Adha, this is typically done by butchers and in abattoirs in Britain, with halal industry advisors advising that failure to adequately abide by the stringent Qurbani guidelines would constitute a “crime against Islam”.

Animal carnage on the streets is normal in various Muslim nations, with the streets of Dhaka, Bangladesh turning red with blood earlier this month, but relatively secular regimes such as Egypt’s cracked down on the custom this year, citing concerns with public health and the spread of infection.

In Paris, there was the rescue of 32 sheep found in the garage of a pizzeria in one of the densely migrant-populated areas of Paris, France ahead of Eid al-Adha, and while ritual halal killing is totally legal in France, the law expects it to take place at a recognised slaughterhouse, so the sheep were taken and sent to an animal shelter.

 

 

 

 

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy condemned the phenomenon of people from migration-background communities “slaughtering sheep in the bathtub” as long ago as 2007, and it’s utterly sickening that in a country like the United Kingdom where we respect animals, and where we certainly don’t want them to be in excruciating pain.

What are the government and the RSPCA doing about this? Nothing as per usual, yet if you were to chain your dog up outside and leave it howling for a day or two and you would be thrown in prison for animal cruelty.

Double standards continue on apace in double standards Britain.

Our government must implement the Rule of Law, and people who are in England without legitimate documents, or anyone who believes the law does not pertain to them for whatever reason, then we’re on a really slippery slope.

This is the United Kingdom, and people that come to the United Kingdom have to live by our laws, not Sharia or any other non-indigenous customary law, and if they don’t like the way that we live, then they can always leave.

The government and our police force must start waking up to this fact pronto because with every day that passes and they don’t implement the law, then they’re closer to a savage revolution, and it’s going to get pretty nasty really quickly, and the first in the firing line will be our government, and its many agencies and PC Plod should start considering escape routes because they’re the ones that are going to observe the repercussions.

It appears that our government has long since tossed the law out of the window and have been Halalled into submission.

We used to have great fundamentals in place for animal brutality and the British people have had a long-standing for good animal management and animal rights, but now the worst people get for animal brutality is a written adult warning and an embargo for up to 5 years from keeping an animal.

Our government professes to care about the United Kingdom, but they’ll sell you out at every chance they get, and the government were much simpler to get at ages ago, but now they have their nice high railings and well-armed police, it’s almost as if they knew they’d seriously need them one day.

And they use terrorism as the ploy to get those railings installed, taking no notice of those high profile revolutionaries who only have death on their minds, while further encroaching on our freedoms, and they keep us preoccupied, so that we don’t open our eyes and look at the small details in the picture, because then far too many would notice that the panorama is dangerously distorted.

The Ramadhan Foundation chief Mohammed Shafiq insisted the family had done nothing wrong, but they acted like they were above the law, and they may have done nothing wrong in a Muslim country, but in Britain, they have violated the law and must be prosecuted.

To improve things all existing Members of Parliament should be removed because their sure as hell not going to leave on their own, not when there’s a position at the golden trough in the House of Lords or a gold plated pension.

This is why their own lands of origin are complete with third world infections and diseases, full of untaught barbarians that know no better, and when they come from an unsanitary country, they bring their shoddy life with them, along with their beliefs, and if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

This was brought into the United Kingdom and housed by a dangerous regime that endeavours to call itself our government. These people were brought to the United Kingdom by the courtesy of our government for cheap labour, and then they can’t wait to send us our ever-rising tax bills in order to house these people, not that we want to tar everyone with the same brush.

The very fact that this is occurring in our country can only be blamed on our government who was and still is complicit at what’s going on.

Some of these people are barbarians, not just to animals, but to human beings as well, and we’re getting pretty close to it being past twisted banter, and we shouldn’t actually be that horrified by our idiot government who let them in. What the hell did they expect?

Our government knew what would happen and they allowed it to for the sake of cheap labour, and now these people who were once poor are loving it because they can come over to the United Kingdom, work for less pay and endless hours and still be able to transfer funds over to their relatives.

It’s not really menial work anymore because they get twice the sum of money they would do in their mother country. They’re okay, they’re grinning all the way to the bank.

The difficulty is that when I write these columns, other people who read my articles have pretty similar beliefs, so I’m reporting to the converted, but how knowledgeable are the sheeple out there?

Our government is supposed to serve as the protectors of the people and our country, yet they’ve made idols of the wolves and allowed them a protected standing.

Some would say that it was blatantly apparent that these people never had any plan of blending into our modern western culture but I don’t believe that’s the case. Most of them did blend into our western society, they opened stores, and some even became extremely prosperous and have put back into our society.

Some realised they had a future here and fought really arduously to get it, and then the government decided that things were getting a tad too snug, and they threw the cat amongst the pigeons. The government don’t want unity in the United Kingdom because peace is counterproductive but conflict is prolific because it depopulates.

And our British laws are nothing, except when it can be used against the British people.

We understand that every religion has a different belief and code of conduct, and that’s great so long as it stays in their country of origin. Not all religions are peaceful, then there are many that are peaceful and if you want meat because you wish it to be Halal, then get it from a damn butcher like everybody else.

Your backyard is not an abattoir for murdering helpless animals whilst your next-door-neighbour looks out of their window and can see it. We’re not a nation at war (at the moment, any time soon though), and we’re not being put on rations, there’s loads to go round, but it has to be slaughtered humanely, and if you want to ritual, then damn well do it somewhere else.

 

A social worker handling cases in North East Lincolnshire has been dismissed after posting Facebook remarks reprimanding parents, children and her bosses. Joanne Thomas posted repeatedly about her work in public posts including ruinous remarks about her casework and delicate information about families she was dealing with.

In one post on her public Facebook feed, she moaned about having to dispense with nightmare parents and demonic children while another called a manager a ‘f***tard* and families contacted Grimsby Live raising concerns that she had been brazenly discussing the work that she had done with them.

Joanne Thomas, also identified as Jo, had been employed through an agency by North East Lincolnshire Council’s children’s services. She has presently been removed from her post with the council. The council said the remarks were upsetting for families and had acted quickly after concerns were raised, and it has urged the agency that hired Joanne Thomas to investigate the matter.

Joanne Thomas continually posted about her work, provoking replies from her online Facebook friends. In one she said: “Today was not great, back to back meetings, nightmare parents, demonic children and sh***y drivers.”

Raging about another case, Joanne Thomas states of one mother: “Moronic cow shouldn’t be allowed near kids.’ An additional post was extremely critical of a large family stating: “A busy day trying to work out the family dynamics of a family with xx children, not all the same parents but hell I was confused but the amount of different names and relationships of adults involved.”

She further had a constant practice of referring to the families that she was dealing with as “drunks and druggies” and constantly called her bosses and the families “f***tards”.

There were also posts where she named the place of the families that she had been dealing with, as she discussed how her bosses ordered her to return a child to their parents that she considered to “not want her”, calling the parents “awful” and even slating the child, calling her “gobby”.

In one post made, Joanne Thomas was challenged by one woman who said: “Inviting the public to comment on families’ private concerns must break rules on professional conduct.”

Joanne responded: “No it does not.

“I did not name anyone, I did not mention an area and who said it was about work! Stop stalking me.”

In another post, Joanne, who was involved in family work and court cases, stated: “Today I hated my job!

“I had to return a *-year-old and a *-year-old to their mother, an alcoholic, who took an overdose in front of them.

“The * year-old was so distraught at having to go back she soiled and then wet herself, she wrung her hands and sobbed.

“I hope those that made the crappy decision have the same nightmares I will now have.”

One person who had Joanne as their social worker contacted Grimsby Live to display their displeasure that she had been wantonly discussing their casework in social media.

They said: “I was shocked to find that this woman had been openly talking about the cases that she is handling involving my family.

“While we were not mentioned in some of her most critical posts, it was easy to tell who she was talking about based on the times of the posts and the fact that she says ‘today this happened’.

“A social worker can have so much power over issues that affect families right to their core and for a social worker to talk so critically and biased about families is just wrong.”

The posts are deemed to have breached stringent rules on professional behaviour for social workers. When North East Lincolnshire Council discovered the posts, she was promptly withdrawn from working with them. The council has further urged the agency to begin a full investigation into the posts.

A spokesperson for the council stated: “The person concerned is not one of our staff, but is employed by an accredited agency the Council uses to help support its work in this important field – this is normal in many local authorities to ensure we’re able to help the most vulnerable of our residents.

“We weren’t aware of the posts, but as soon as we were informed, we took immediate steps to contact the agency and remove the individual from working with us.

“We have also asked the agency to undertake its own investigation into this issue as there’s an expectation that staff working for them understand and adhere to Council policies as required.

“To do that, we offer support and advice to both agency employees and our own staff to ensure they’re able to carry out their jobs in often very challenging circumstances.

“We understand how upsetting seeing comments like this can be, but any families that might have been affected at this time can be assured that we’ve acted swiftly to deal with it. As this is likely to be subject to an investigation by the agency concerned, we can’t comment any further at this point.”

Sadly we’ve not all been fortunate enough to have been brought up with parents who set a great role model, but this lady was supposed to help them, not hinder them, and Social Workers know the sort of people that they might be working with when they sign up for this position.

To be a Social Worker you have to sign an Official Secrets document because Social Workers are dealing with private stuff and also have to appear in court, and you could go to jail, however, Prosecutions for violations are very rare with less than one a year going to court.

What a wicked woman, although you could kind of understand that she might be upset by what’s going on, these children are normally the victims of societies wrongs, and clearly when there are people like Joanne Thomas complaining about the children, where she was supposed to protect them, and obviously she couldn’t stand the children either, what future do they have in life?

She shouldn’t have been giving such a critique on her work with dealings in such things, it was evil, and she should have been thinking of the children, but it appears to put more importance on protecting the natural family unit, be it a single parent and many children, perhaps many fathers, or the more traditionally nuclear family, than the real well being of the defenceless children, and we’re aware there are family units caught in a circle of replicated failures that lead to anti-social and illegal behaviour, but that doesn’t mean we can plaster it all over the social media.

A person with this much authority over people should not be distributing probably vulnerable families dilemmas for the people to comment on. People have difficulties from time to time and have to let social workers into their homes and their lives.

There is a level of trust that comes with some jobs and this is certainly one of them, and safeguarding and Data Protection are paramount when professionals are dealing with vulnerable clients, and now we’re going to be spending money on tribunals et cetera, wasting money to support this woman win her case in court and it’s shocking.

If this woman wanted to be a whistleblower, there were much safer ways of going about it, but obviously, this was not the case because you could see that she despised her job and the families that she worked with.

No surprise families don’t like or trust social workers, not when they do stuff like this. This woman was in a position of trust, and if there was a problem, she shouldn’t have sounded off to social media, she should have sounded off to her superiors.

Some of these families have real difficulties and require assistance, but why would you want to trust somebody like this woman?

Sadly, children don’t pick their parents or the neighbourhood that they grow up in, and this woman was dealing with families, some of who are a danger to their children. Not all families are a danger to their kids, some simply require a helping hand, and this woman should have been supporting them, but instead, she was crippling them by putting stuff on social media.

Everybody is allowed their own opinion, but when your working for Social
Services as a Social Worker, your role is to look after those families, that was her duty and if she didn’t like what she did, then perhaps it wasn’t the best career for her, and she should have left it to those people who do care enough to support them.

And Facebook was clearly not the right forum to be addressing those matters and was not professional at all. She was dealing with social work situations, and to be discussing those cases, whether she named and shamed them or not was unacceptable.

Her remarks might have displayed the reality of some of those clients that she had to deal with but she had no license as a Social Worker to discuss those clients over social media, plus if she had a problem, she should have taken it up with her bosses, not everybody all over the globe.

Social media is a public domain, which means that most people can see what you put on there, and this lady was fully aware of that fact, the problem is social media has become an obsession for countless people. Joanne Thomas conveyed her views to the public domain of Facebook and now it’s out there for everyone to see, and calling parents moronic and children demons are not fitting for a Social Worker to say on social media.

An assortment of experts at Harvard University did a study unveiling that Peppa Pig is one of the principal causes of autism amongst kids.

This animated movie has gained large success. There are various toys, t-shirts, and several other things with this character. But, the mystery still continues. Is this cartoon character suitable for children? And experts from Harvard University have said no.

According to experts, there is evidence that confirms an increase in adversarial, snide, questioning, confrontation, and discourteous conduct in kids which happens when watching cartoons such as Peppa Pig.

Peppa is downright rude and her parents allow her to get away with murder. There is an episode where Peppa and her brother George refused to tidy their room, but then their parents made it into a game, and when they finished, the kids trashed the room again, laughing insolently.

These are the individual characteristics Peppa possesses:

Suffers from the syndrome of superiority;
Inappropriate behaviour;
Imposes ideas regardless of others’ opinions;
Impolite;
Competitive (it does not know how to lose);
Intolerant;
Disrespectful
Envious;
Arrogant;
Proud

There are parents who complained that their kids mimic the behaviour of Peppa and her brother George, and some of them even banned the cartoon from being viewed in their homes.

So, be extremely cautious, all you parents out there. There is nothing unique about Peppa Pig, and the same applies to all the other programs.

Around 80 per cent of the brain evolves throughout the first few months until 3 years old. In case they spend a bundle of time viewing the TV, they will mimic the patterns of behaviour that they observe.

Overindulged children, a harassed spouse, a hostile father-in-law and a mother in need of Prozac, it might sound like a new family on EastEnders’ Albert Square, but it’s really Britain’s most prominent family – Peppa Pig and her mob.

She stamps her feet, harasses her brother, makes fun of her parents, falls out with her friends, whines when she loses, pokes out her tongue and frequently exhibits profuse amounts of rebellious behaviour. So, when you read about this malfunctioning Peppa Pig toy spouting swear words, you can’t help but feel it’s merely a natural progression from Peppa Pig’s on-screen presence that is causing children to act up.

Young kids can’t distinguish between fantasy and reality, and if a two-year-old believes that if it’s okay for Peppa Pig to poke her tongue out when she’s angry, then it’s okay for her to do the same, and of course, its not only two-year-old’s who are sucked in by what they see on screen, you can see the impact of television on kids of all ages.

Studies have found time and time again that shows promoting hostility or violence reinforce that behaviour in kids, particularly when they’re at school, and we’re noticing a trend towards disruptive, rebellious behaviour in response to cartoons like Horrid Henry, who is a rude, aggressive, defiant cartoon character.

And it’s been found characters, like Barbie, for instance, form children’s thoughts about body perceptions and gender stereotypes from the age of five, and everything, including TV needs to be done in moderation and TV and screen time must be monitored with all children.

You can’t prevent kids from watching TV altogether and kids need downtime as grown-ups do, and parent should be taking control, but it’s far easier to let your children sit in front of the TV for a peaceful life, the problem is the more they see these cartoons, you don’t really end up having a peaceful life because they’re conditioned by this drivel – Monkey see, Monkey do!

Even adults find it pretty watchable. When my grandchildren used to come round, they would watch the cartoons and then later they would leave and I would still be there watching the cartoons. It’s a bit like the Ipcress Files with Michael Caine, if you watch it for long enough, you end up being repressed by what’s on the screen.

Of course, the Ipcress File with Michael Caine was a novel written by Len Deighton, which was published in 1962 and very spy fantasy at the time.

IPCRESS means the Induction of Psycho-neuroses by Conditioned Reflex Under Stress, which essentially means an automatic response established by training to an ordinarily neutral stimulus, comparable to Peppa Pig, and although really fiction at the time it was written, now we’re seeing that automatic response in many things that we see on our TV’s, not only children’s programmes but also advertising we see.

Five minutes with Peppa Pig guarantees a break during a 12-hour shift with your children and that five minutes can feel like a two week holiday, but you’d be silly to overlook the fact that your children could grow up like Peppa Pig, and that would be a life sentence.

Sadly though, the dysfunctional Pigs are no worse than countless other British TV creations. Ben and Holly on Channel Five are being raised by Nanny Plum, so gloomy and cynical she makes Jack Dee look like he’s high, so why are we Brits so bent on creating anti-role examples for our children? Click to an American show and you’ll see Mickey Mouse, Dora the Explorer and Handy Manny tripping over themselves to do good.

When my children were younger I would sit them in front of Sesame Street, it was a great instructional show for children, of which you don’t see so much now, now it’s all non-educational and often violent.

Taking your children away from children’s TV might mean that you don’t get your five minutes respite in the middle of the day so that you can have that quick shower, but less Peppa Pig and more Mickey Mouse or Postman Pat will hopefully transform our children into better people.

As for Peppa Pig causing a child to become Autistic, well, there are loads of arguments on what causes Autism. Scientists speculate that a defective gene or genes might make a person more prone to develop Autism when there are also other factors present, such as a chemical irregularity, viruses or chemicals, or even lack of oxygen at birth, and in rare cases, Autistic behaviour they say might be caused by Rubella in the expecting mother.

There are far too many dodgy children’s programmes out there. Let’s look at the Tellytubbies, which I hated the most, and while it presents patterns of collaborative play, surprise, and simplistic joys that are mild and pleasant, the creations can still be a little irritating to parents watching it with their children, and this combination can be somewhat bizarre.

Some critics feared that the character’s use of babbling in place of whole sentences would negatively harm a young child’s ability to communicate, and in 1997 many parents objected to its “goo goo” style and said the program was a bad influence on their children.

Taxpayers will pick up a £2 million security bill for Eugenie’s nuptials, and the lesser royal will get married at the same venue as Harry and Meghan.

It really is an abuse of taxpayers money, and the security expenses for Princess Eugenie’s wedding have more than doubled amid heightened terror concerns since she announced her engagement in January.

Extra firearms officers may have to be enlisted when the ninth in line to the throne marries tequila brand ambassador Jack Brooksbank on October 12, and Eugenie, 28, who carries out no royal obligations, has nonetheless decided to marry at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle where Prince Harry married Meghan in May.

Dad Prince Andrew was thought to have demanded a similarly glitzy ceremony for his younger offspring with Sarah Ferguson, and the Duke of York has insisted his daughter’s marriage must be a huge event to be remembered and wants everyone to get on board to commemorate the joyous pair.

Despite warnings about the additional security problems it would create, Eugenie and Jack are determined to enjoy all the splendour of an open-top carriage procession down Windsor High Street, but it means dozens of officers must be used to explore the route in advance.

Drones will also be prevented from circumnavigating over the castle for the entire weekend. The same strategy was used for the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but Eugenie’s wedding was originally estimated to cost about £750,000.

The elevated costs due to officers’ overtime, cancelling of holidays and the demand for additional patrols, and in these times of increased security risks, it’s irresponsible for a lesser member of the royal family to have a high-profile and highly public wedding.

This may be the time to examine the role and expense of lesser royals, but Eugenie and sibling Beatrice, 30, announced this month they simply want to be recognised as real. But it truly is an insult when you’ve got people sleeping rough and seized by hunger that people are revelling in this gross misuse of taxpayers money – NOW, THAT’S REAL.

They’re as far as it’s possible to be from being real normal people. No one else gets their wedding paid for by the public pocket when they’ve got the means to do it themselves, and Police sources stated there’s no knowledge of any menace or indication of any dangerous anti-monarchy demonstrations, but nothing will be left to speculation.

The immense security operation will be conducted by the Met, Thames Valley and the British Transport Police. But amid increased terror concerns in London after the Westminster attack, other teams are understood to have been requested to possibly help out as other units are required in the metropolis.

Eugenie and Jack, 32, who is the UK delegate for George Clooney’s tequila brand Casamigos, will entertain 300 guests including dozens of celebrities such as Clooney and his lawyer wife Amal, who were at Harry’s wedding too.

Model Cara Delevingne, actress Suki Waterhouse and supermodels Kate Moss and Cindy Crawford could also attend, besides vocalists James Blunt and Ellie Goulding, and pop star Robbie Williams and wife Ayda Field, whose daughter Theodora Rose will be a flower girl.

Beatrice will be maid of honour and Prince William’s children George, five, and Charlotte, three, are supposed to be a page boy and flower girl, and invites have also been stretched to 1,200 members of the public who will view the event outside by a live feed.

Jack’s and Eugenie’s parents will pay for the wedding and reception, and expenses for security will be shared by different police units and the local council but all other expenses for the marriage will be met privately.

But, the taxpayer cops it again and we don’t even get a slice of the cake, but if the Queen wants to attend then let her pick up the tab, otherwise simply send them down the registry office for a quicky, no doubt the divorce will be even quicker.

But really? How long do the British taxpayers have to pay for these freeloaders who pop out children like rabbits that we’ll have to keep for generations? Although we shouldn’t believe everything we see in the newspapers and did Andrew actually say what’s been attributed to him? And did he actually necessitate a huge wedding? But then he does have a notoriety of using his royalness to get freebies and it is said that he insisted on his daughters having royal titles, unlike Princess Anne who actually wasn’t that worried.

This is the family that never stops taking money from the peasants, and we are still looked at like this by the aristocracy. They hang out for every penny and yet they’re not short of a penny or two, but they don’t like using their own funds because the taxpayer is the sacrifice.

The tourists don’t come here for the Royals, they come here to observe our distinguished English antiquity, and millions of pounds are being spent on weddings and garden parties for the wealthy and famous while our homeless sleep on the streets and the government believes it’s a great use of public funds while our councils are having to cut vital services.

How callous is the royal family, the people aren’t interested in the wedding, they don’t want to fund the security. The people didn’t ask them to get married in this opulent way when they could have had a modest, more private wedding and if they want a huge bash, then the Royals should be funding it so that our taxes can be used for what theyre supposed to be used for. We don’t see on our council tax bills any mention of royal weddings on there!

The Queen needs to put her hands in her pocket and pay for the security of her own family and putting the money to one side, it’s further disturbing that while security personnel are in Windsor guarding the wedding party, it’s leaving other parts of the capital open to terror strikes.

Whilst it’s conceivable that higher royals have security paid for by the taxpayer, asking for such a large wedding sets a pattern for all other lesser royals and displays a level of arrogance on Prince Andrew’s part, and because the princess performs no royal obligations, she hasn’t gained the people’s support, while children’s services are being stricken and multiple families are being driven to use food banks, therefore, Prince Andrew should do the honourable thing and foot the bill for security himself, as it’s customary for the brides parents to fork out for the wedding traditionally.

The taxpayers money is being wasted and Princess Eugenie’s father is more than capable to afford the security for his daughters wedding, and if he can’t support it, the wedding shouldn’t be so excessive, particularly when public services are being cut, families are fighting for medications which could improve their lives for the better, but the government won’t finance it, and then you hear about this atrocity and it makes the blood boil.

And it is an atrocity when people are dying on our streets from starvation and having no place to call home, particularly when many of those people are our war heroes, have served their country and then get treated like they never existed.

No doubt there will be countless people out there that are offended at the extravagant misuse of taxpayers money, but it will be hidden because obviously, the royal family think they’re far better than us peasants, talk about being delusional, and they might be loved by some, but they’re clearly not loved by everybody.

The church that they’re getting married in is in the grounds of Windsor Castle, so why not just close the gates to everybody who is not immediately included in the debacle, then there would be hardly any security required aside from when they depart for their honeymoon.

We constantly appear to be meeting the bills for a small collection of overprivileged rich people while others in our society have to use food banks, and the Royals are little more than a Prince and Princess Disney fashion extravaganza.

Why should the taxpayer have to pay the bill, we’ve not been invited, and we don’t even know the bride or groom, and Princess Eugenie is not a working Royal and has no relationship with the people, so the public should not be funding her wedding.

They should either cut the procession and related security or fund it themselves. This is the sort of behaviour that makes even Royal supporters doubt the importance of a Royal family, and we should not expect much public attention to this wedding.

All this checking and restraints that will be done because of individuals that want to be on the grounds on the day of the wedding is simply self-indulgent drivel, and if Princess Eugenie wants all this indulgence, then it should be funded by her parents, they should cough up for it, not the public purse.

Boris Johnson seems to have moved on from the row caused by his remarks on women donning the burka after he dodged the subject in his latest Daily Telegraph column. The former foreign secretary came under attack after writing that Muslim women who don face veils resembled “letterboxes” and “bank robbers” in his column.

Yet, he decided to shift his attention to plans to boost house building, despite strong debate among those supporting him and those offended by his comments.

Mr Johnson instead called for reductions to “absurdly high” stamp duty and warned of construction firms decreasing the number of new homes by “land-banking”.

The politician declined to acknowledge reporters’ inquiries about his comments on the Burka as he returned to his Oxfordshire home following a holiday in Italy. He did, nevertheless, emerge from his home to offer them cups of tea.

He is yet to respond to accusations of Islamophobia as well as Theresa May’s demands for an apology.

A former advisor to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon is amongst those supporting Mr Johnson. He stated the former London mayor had “nothing to apologise for” and that he should not “bow at the altar of political correctness”.

The Republican strategist pointed out that Mr Johnson’s comment argued against outlawing full-face veils, as Denmark has done.

Mr Bannon told the Sunday Times: “His entire argument revolves around not wanting to ban the Burka, but arguing that he agrees that it’s an oppressive garment and that there is no scriptural basis for it in the Koran, which is true. I think the substance got lost because of his throwaway line.”

The remarks come after Mr Johnson’s father Stanley Johnson said people should be “grateful” to his son for putting the matter of banning the Burka “on the table”.

He told Sky News that much of the criticism was “synthetic indignation” that had been “whipped up” by his opponents. Yet, Conservative chair Brandon Lewis told an independent panel to investigate Mr Johnson following accusations his remarks defiled the Tories’ code of conduct.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, a supporter of the former cabinet minister, said there would be “open warfare” in the party if Mr Johnson was harshly chastised over his Burka remarks.

He issued the warning in the event the former foreign secretary is suspended in such a way that he can’t take part in a future leadership contest.

Mr Bridgen told the Sunday Express: “If Boris is suspended it will be open warfare in the Conservative Party. If Theresa May dares engineer a leadership contest while Boris is suspended it will be World War Three.”

But a former close aide to David Cameron, Lord (Andrew) Cooper, attacked Mr Johnson of “casual racism” and “courting of fascism”.

“He will advocate literally anything to play to the crowd of the moment. His career is a saga of moral emptiness and lies; pathetic, weak and needy; the opposite of strong,” Lord Cooper said.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) stated that Conservative MPs’ backing for Mr Johnson over his remarks on women dressing in the burka had “shone a light on the underbelly of Islamophobia” inside the party.

Fair play to Boris, he has his own views and we shouldn’t need to atone for our beliefs, although sometimes we should keep our beliefs to ourselves and not express them in society, he’s only stating what most of the British public are thinking.

The problem is, people are frightened to say anything because everything is classified as discriminatory, and this country has double standards.

Whatever happened to free speech?

The problem is not the Burka as such, but in such places as Banks, Airports et cetera we need to see the faces of people. There are various places that people are not permitted to wear hoodies, so why are people entitled to wear Burkas?

This is just a storm in a teacup and today’s news will be tomorrows history, and Boris Johnson is a rather funny man and likes to banter, and there’s nothing wrong in a bit of banter, comedians do it all the time and get away with it.

But Burkas and Niqabs are really clothes of oppression. They were designed as a way to prevent women from being part of society, to prevent people from even seeing them, but in the United Kingdom, woman are part of society, this is the 21st century, not the 1850’s.

Boris Johnson might have his own views and that’s great, but we keep banging on about the Burka, and really it’s getting a tad tiresome now. It’s time to move on, and this sustained harassment of Boris is getting tiresome, and he’s only echoing what most people think.

Perhaps Boris Johnson should give more airtime on the hundreds of children raped, but apparently ridiculing attire is a greater crime than violating children, and if we’re going to ban Burkas it should be for security purposes only.

It never ends as Princess Diana’s then manservant has continued spilling confidences about the life of the deceased princess, but previously Mr Burrell was accused of stealing Princess Diana’s belongings from Kensington Palace, but the matter was ultimately dropped when his lawyer reportedly gave the police a 39-page report with specific data about Princess Diana’s demand for her lovers, but this statement was part of a legal plan to make Prince Charles drop the court case against the former servant.

 

In the explosive book Rebel Prince, written by Tom Bower, Paul Burrell alleges that the deceased Princess used to ask the Prince to cancel public appointments so she could meet with her man of the moment – seems a bit dramatic and somewhat unlikely, although not entirely absurd.

In his own book, the former butler claimed that Princess Diana had nine secret lovers, my she was a busy girl, including a novelist, a sporting legend, a Hollywood actor, a musician, a politician, a lawyer, an entrepreneur, and billionaire businessman – hardly enough time in there to have a crap!

The Real Housewives of Sydney star Lisa Oldfield spilled some details from her chats with Burrell, and according to her, he reinforced that the princess used to date Canadian singer Bryan Adams, he said that he would sneak the rocker into Kensington Palace in the boot of his car, quite comical actually when you think about it.

In 2003, Adam’s girlfriend at the time backed up Burrell’s words. The former Bond girl Cecilie Thomsen had been dating the rock star for 12 years and she claimed that one of the reasons why they broke up was Adam’s affair with the late princess.

Of course, it’s all he said this and she said that and whether Princess Diana did have numerous affairs is beside the point and not actually that important now, unless your getting paid big bucks to spill the beans, so to speak.

Evidently, Bryan Adams wrote a song about the Princess of Wales, funny that so did Elton John, and I’m sure he wasn’t having an incestuous affair with the princess!

It appears that Paul Burrell is still making a living out of betraying his former employer and it’s become quite offensive. He’s still cashing in on Princess Diana and the poor woman is dead, at least show some regard for a person who can’t defend herself, instead of betraying her trust every time there’s a microphone in front of your mouth, and here’s a thought, why don’t you get a real job so you don’t have to support yourself with your hypocrisy?

Paul Burrell is a proper Yenta and he loves the media recognition and the money he gets for doing it.

Lisa Oldfield spilled some of the details for her in-depth chats with Paul Burrell from their time on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here, and they do love a bit of scandal on there, probably because they’re so bored of eating cockroaches…

It’s been 21 years since Princess Diana’s sad passing but that hasn’t stopped the scandals and conspiracies about her life from rolling about the gossip grapevine, even to this day, and there will always be ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The brazen ex-aide further opened up on how he slept among her clothes after her death, and how he declared himself her “rock” and gave her food that helped her throw up as she battled bulimia.

Burrell was paid £10,000 by Channel 5’s in Therapy, with a shrink questioning him at a rehab centre in London’s Harley Street, and he blubbered that’s where he would come with the Princess. That he would drop her off to go for colonic irrigation, drive around the block several times and pick her up.

He further became ghoulish as he reported sitting with the Princess’s body following her 1997 Paris crash, and he went on to say that he found himself in her quarters and could smell her perfume and that he could hear her voice, all appears a little disturbing, don’t you think?

Burrell must be running out of money by now, maybe there’s another book on the horizon, and how could her body be warm, she would have been in the mortuary for a start, and very COLD, not a particularly pleasant colour either, I would imagine.

He betrayed her confidence and he should have thought of her children as should have anyone else who was on the bandwagon with him. He’s a snake, same as all the others that make out they were her friend but were happy to tell all, and they’re disgusting and selfish.

Princess Diana would have been really sad by Burrell’s actions and really hurt, seeing him sell her story for twelve pieces of silver, and this is not the behaviour of somebody who was her real friend or loyal servant.

He was merely a manservant, and he wouldn’t have been entitled to butt in everywhere as this slimy man insists. He was simply a domestic, nothing more, yet he looks at himself as royalty. Clearly, he suffers from delusions of grandeur, and his victim is not alive to confirm what delusions he suffers from and the cheat that he truly is.

Paul Burrell was obsessed with the Princess and that obsession continues to this day, and it looks like he was seemingly in love with her, and if you challenged him he would have probably have died for her, but he was faithful to her while she was alive and deep down loved and worshipped her.

But genuine loyalty doesn’t end after death and he shouldn’t be benefiting from her death. Maybe it was a resentment thing and if he couldn’t have her then he would make sure he could profit from her death, but now he’s just a fame-seeking scamp, and it would have mortified Princess Diana if she were alive today.

But why did the man who promised to protect the Princess’s confidences end up sharing them with the entire world? Ever since her passing Mr Burrell repeatedly said openly and privately that he would never cash in on his position, but he did.

Eight months after she died, Mr Burrell wrote to a member of the public: “I will never tell my story, sell my secrets, or betray ‘my Boss’. It was an honour and a privilege to serve such an inspirational and unique human being. I would never betray the trust which she placed in me.”

Those who know Mr Burrell best believe he’s been driven by money, malice and fame. Mr Burrell is likely to make more than £2 million from book sales and newspaper serialisation. The Daily Mirror has paid him £500,000 in addition to the £300,000 he got for exclusive interviews with the newspaper after his trial failed.

In the months after the Princess’s demise, Mr Burrell was given a “special bequest” of £50,000 for his loyalty from the executors of the Princess’s will. Although there were no legal requirements attached to the gift, the implication was that it was for future, as well as past, loyalty. Some now think that this money was taken on false pretences and should either be returned to the Princess’s estate, or given to charity.

This man just hasn’t got any remorse, and he’s bleeding it for all he can, it’s pitiful, and he’s a Prima Donna with the quality and skill of a parasite. Who needs enemies, he’s a vile person and should have floated away gracefully, instead, he concocted the truth to get recognition and money.

Paul Burrell has completely misplaced his dignity, and he should have more regard for himself, and he should have taken Princess Diana’s secrets to his grave, but instead, he keeps cashing in on them.

However, Bryan Adams maintained that he was only ever good friends with Princess Diana. Whether they did have a love interest or not is beside the point now and actually nobody’s business

Historically, royals were not permitted to marry for love. Instead, they married strategically to gain territory, form international alliances, replenish the national coffers or preserve the purity of their bloodline. Of course, Edward VIII renounced the throne in order to marry Wallis Simpson, but it was only when the Queen gave the Prince of Wales leave to marry divorcee Camilla Parker-Bowles that royal love began conquering all.

That’s a pity though because by not allowing our ruler to marry for love, we’ve missed out on an entire army of consorts who might have just been good fun.

As fans of “The Crown” know, Prince Harry’s great-aunt, Princess Margaret, fell madly in love with her father’s former equerry, Peter Townsend, in her early 20s. He was a gallant war hero and presently would inevitably be judged a credit to the Royal Family. But back then, a princess could not marry a divorcee. Margaret went on to marry Antony Armstrong-Jones, and look how that turned out.

And for a really long time, Royal weddings were actually about as far from being a fairytale as you can get. Yes, there was a prince or princess involved, with lots of hoopla and some elegant couture, but historically, these unions were canny diplomatic ones.

Not passionate, Mills and Boon-style love novels, where some diamond-in-the-rough bourgeois got their royal piece of eye-candy, and really, Harry and Meghan would never have happened 100 years ago. Maybe even 50. It was never about love and until the early 20th century, royal weddings observed the same patterns and attitudes they had ensued for hundreds of years.

For almost one thousand years, these royal marriages were used for political ends, to help build alliances and gain territory, and in the course of a whole millennium, there were barely any royals who broke this pattern.

Even the Queen at the young age of 11 years old had five potential husbands scouted for her, and one of those five happened to be Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, whom she ultimately fell in love with, so that worked out perfectly.

But since then, her children and grandchildren have had more freedom to chose their spouses, but these preceding laws created problems for Princess Margaret because the Queen actually denied her leave to marry Captain Peter Townsend.

Of course, things have loosened up a little since then and Prince Harry has been permitted to marry Meghan who was a commoner, but there’s still little something forbidden about it, although I believe that Princess Diana would have been pleased that Harry got to marry for love.

Paul Burrell eventually admitted he was gay, and perhaps he did love her in a completely non-sexual way, maybe it was he that needed her and she was his rock and not the other way round. After all, he was married to a woman that he’d been with for a very long time, but he was gay and he had two children, so perhaps Diana knew that he was gay and knew what he was going through, bet she would never have revealed his secrets if it had been the other way round.

Perhaps he was envious and didn’t want to share her with anybody else because of that connection. Perhaps he felt cheated when she died because she was his only normalcy.

He confided in her often and she was his strength. You’ve got to agree it was a peculiar bond and somewhat stalkerish after Diana died. Diana was kind to him, and her one thing was that she was great at counselling various people in her life, including Paul who she counselled after his mother died.

He said that he wasn’t an intelligent man, that he doesn’t have any qualifications, but he believed that he’s been to a great university of life and that his principles were achieved because of the two women in his life. Well, he obviously didn’t have any principles when he sold his story for big bucks and had it scattered all over the tabloids, his principles must have been born out of money and notoriety.

But he did love her, he loved everything about her, but it’s all very I, I, I, me, me, me, I did this, I did that, which is all so easy when there’s no one around to dispute it and all pretty Jackanory.