So it is with some enthusiasm that I draw your attention to the name and actions of Dr. Hans-Christian Raabe. A more unlikely Don Quixote than this man one could not imagine or create. A German national, he has lived and worked in Manchester as a G.P. because he likes working for the NHS, and because he sees the problems caused by drugs in and around Manchester, he has long campaigned with a charity which helps drug addiction.

But he did something really stupid recently. He volunteered for an unpaid position on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). So the trawl began to unearth something, anything, which his opponents could use against his appointment. Why does this mild-mannered man have opponents? Because he campaigns against the legalisation of drugs of any kind; because he speaks out in the face of the liberal elite which is marching to a very different drum-roll!

From the maelstrom of accusations and insults whipped up when he was appointed to the council in January last year, another grievance against him emerged. His opponents exhumed an academic report he co‑authored in 2005, while he was living in Canada, linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

The report, a collaboration between several doctors, was written when the Canadian Parliament was debating whether or not to legalise same-sex marriage, to which Dr Raabe — while  he is not against civil partnerships —  is opposed.

‘The paper summarised scientific evidence, which was in the public domain, and it was one paragraph, mentioning homosexuality and paedophilia together, which — so the Home Office tells me — caused them “embarrassment”,’ says Dr Raabe.

The offending paragraph states: ‘While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there are a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles.’

So now he has two strikes against him; the first is that he speaks out against drug use and legalisation, and now the larger crime seemingly against everything held so dear by the liberal self-appointed elite amongst us, which is to state that he is of the belief that homesexuality finds much in common with paedophilia.

So Hans-Christian was dismissed from his post with the ACMD before he had been able to attend a single meeting. And then he decided to sue!

For Dr Raabe, there is a moral imperative at stake.

‘There has been such enormous resistance to my sitting on the ACMD panel that I feel it is a matter of principle to challenge it,’ he says.

‘Besides, I see so many people, especially the young, whose lives are being messed up by drugs, I feel that to sit back and do nothing about it would simply be wrong.’

He might not win his post back; if he does he will be vilified from pillar to post, he certainly will lose his anonymity, but I do so wish him the best of luck!

Fair enough, the bad guy is truly a scumbag, but the Law is the Law, and I sometimes wish we had something of similar value in Great Britain.

If we had the protections afforded by those precious documents, we wouldn’t have witnessed this disgraceful perversion of the Law, and we would still be governed under the ‘Double Jeopardy’ rules

But I do tend to get just a little heated when only half the facts are lauded and pushed at the buyer, and the other half are quietly swept under the thick carpet. A good instance can be found in the columns of a travel writer in the Sunday Times (obviously no link) where he was asked to provide details of independent backpack travel through China. So Mr. Green goes into considerable proposals for backpack travel through this vast and fabulous (his adjective, not mine) country, with organised backpacker-style journeys readily available. He rhapsodises about the well-known tourist traps spots such as the Terracotta Warriors, or the Great Wall. Hostels and cheaper hotels are also covered, so he doesn’t leave much out of his writing.

It is a great pity that Mr. Green does not go into the other side of the marketing aisle, as it were, and after pushing aside some of the undergrowth, also tell his readers about the things which visitors to China might also see, or rather not see, if they walk about with their eyes only a little wider than normal.

They might see the People’s Security Police as they rough up and arrest any one who dares to even contemplate protesting against the overweening power of the Chinese Communist Party. They could attempt to travel the miles to visit  ‘Chen Guangcheng’ the blind activist, but would also have to navigate past the echelons of Security Police who are determined to keep the activist ‘safe from harm’! They might check what happens when anyone attempts to speak out about the multitudinous abuses of basic human rights, but they are also advised to ensure that they are well-protected with medical insurance.

Finally, they might travel to the heart of Beijing itself, to see the ‘Birdsnest Stadium’, the ‘Forbidden City’ and all the other fabled sights of China’s capital; it is a pity that they won’t be able to see where five thousand students died in Tiananmen Square, because all the blood has washed away long ago, all the granite has been repaired, and absolutely no protests like this one in Hong Kong will ever be allowed, or even thought of, in the Capital City of the People’s Republic of China!

As we also heard, earlier in the programme, Gloria Morrison of Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA) , another of these pressure groups with not-so-catchy acronyms for their names, was arguing that the trawl of gang members carried out after a death was unjust, illiberal and probably fattening as well. She seemed to want either a repeal of the Law itself, or if that did not occur, a definite diminution of its effects on gang-related crime and murder.

As for the arguments, let me state that I am a sucker for any Law which puts all those who even cheered the killers on inside prison; my only dissent is the ridiculously small amount of time spent in prison by these wanna-be baddies! Lorraine gets my vote any day of the week!

We don’t need more prisons, we just need a large open space surrounded by multi-layered anti-personnel mines and a fence to keep the illiterate from trying to break in!

Where are the cries from the ‘Liberal Elite’ that government plans to deprive ordinary Englishmen of their freedom and property are as welcome as leprosy? These proposals are being made in all sincerity by people who are supposed to be Tories!

The question, as asked in the Economic Voice blog is quite reasonable; “‘How long before the elderly ‘volunteers’ become the elderly ‘encouraged’ and then the elderly ‘morally blackmailed’ being forced out because they are made to feel that they are not worthy to stay in the home they paid for?’

But there are adverts which grab my attention for another reason altogether; that reason being that they are false, they present a false picture about the product or the people they depict. In other, perhaps more blunt terms; they lie!

Watched the HSBC banking advert which features a Chinese family celebrating the New Year, or whatever? There are six children lined up to receive the blessings and presents from, presumably, their grandfather. But this family is unlike any family I know of in modern China. The same China which has, until perhaps last year, rigorously enforced the ‘Single Child Edict’ by forced abortions, imprisonment and even internal exile for daring to go against the ‘Will of the People’. That ‘Will’ of course, thought up and enforced by a bunch of criminal geriatric despots who routinely abuse the power they seized decades ago with the beginning of the rule of the paeadophilic Mao-tse-Tung and his henchmen.

Bank with HSBC? By all means, as long as you are happy with them playing fast and loose with the truth. As I have perhaps stated many times in the past, you, and you alone, decide where your cash ultimately goes,and whom it supports!

The ‘Iron Lady’ who caught the imagination of voters who were at least capable of ‘thought’, who stated that the Conservative Party would revive and invigorate both the Nation and the economy; came to power in 1979, and, as politicians who make promises do; forged a path towards her dreams of a Britain free from the stultifying embrace of governmental control, of a Britain who spoke for and on behalf of those who were threatened, of a Britain which was willing to work with a voracious Europe; but on her terms and none other.

The ‘Iron Lady’ forged a bond with President Reagan, and with others watched as the skeleton of Communism collapsed from within. She was informed of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands, and demanded of the British military only one thing, “when do we sail to regain British Territory?” Her attitude to Union power was best encapsulated in her statement ‘“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty.” Her policies made Great Britain formidable once more, and it was good to announce to any enquirer that one’s nationality was simply ‘British’ because that said everything!

The ‘Iron Lady’ is showing a bit of ‘rust’ in reality, as that gallant Lady, now some eighty-five years of age, is showing more than a little of the ‘wear and tear’ that time brings to us all. I watched this bad and false facsimile, masquerading under the Thatcher trademark, as it makes an attempt at showing the alleged mental decline of a confused and befuddled old woman in the very sunset of her years. Meryl Streep gives a sterling performance, aided by startling prosthetics and make-up, but as to the Lady herself; it is simply ‘No competition!’

When another human dies, one who is unknown to us, we cannot feel the same grief because we have not invested any mental capital in the unknown’s life, and therefore we are divorced from the need to grieve for one who is, and now was, unknown. That fact is why I detest the false shows of emotion for people who have died in the full glare of media publicity. For example, the murder of Joana Yeates bore a whirlwind of public grief, with memorials planned seemingly all over Devon and Somerset, yet she was just an ordinary woman who died. Or was it just the time of year when nothing much else was happening, so the newspapers and the tv went berserk over this murder? I would remove, from my critique, any memorial or ceremony to those of our Armed Forces who died whilst on active service, notwithstanding the fact that we are, in Afghanistan; in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and for entirely the wrong reasons!

I write of grief, of death, for two reasons. The first is that old age and death comes for us all. The silly rituals of vain women the world over in their stupid and ludicrous search to regain the flush of youth in their appearance has me asking myself has the world gone mad? We have women supporting, with cash, a multi-billion dollar industry in cosmetic products, including the injection of what is a deadly poison into their faces in the hope that ‘wrinkles’ will disappear. And in a country not too far away, people are dying because they have only contaminated water to drink! We now even see adverts for men showing how they too can regain their toned skin etc., but only if they use Product A, or as a last resort, Product B. The reply to my earlier question is of course that the world has gone mad, but we haven’t noticed yet!

The second reason for writing of grief is to express my sorrow for the 18 million souls who still have to exist and endure under the brutal dictatorship of the North Korean military. The pictures of the seemingly overwhelming grief spatter all over our newspapers and screens, yet we do not see the other photographers, the ones who systematically photograph the crowds of ‘mourners’ in the hope of catching a ‘dissident’ who isn’t quite as grief-stricken as he should be. The garish and revolting ceremonies, for a ‘leader’ who was no more than a figurehead for a regime which holds around a million of its citizens in concentration and re-education camps, should be banished without delay to a history shelf, and only discussed when the North Korean nightmare finally ends, when a subjugated people finally get their own chance to settle their own lives, hopefully by ending, swiftly and brutally, the lives of their oppressors!

About seven years ago, the Commission bent under the pressure from animal and bird-friendly people, who tend to shout louder than most, and agreed that the old system which allowed crowded battery cages for egg-producing hens to be used throughout the Union would be outlawed, and new, environmentally-friendly group layer cages would be introduced throughout the Union by January 1^st 2012. The investment in the new colony-cage systems is reputed to be, in the whole of the United Kingdom, running into £billions!

All so far, so good. But this extra investment, by the law-abiding British egg producers, now is placing our egg-producers at a distinct disadvantage from our cousins on the Continent, who in over a third of the total European egg producers, have not even commenced changing from the now supposedly-outlawed battery cages to the new, and very expensive, colony cage system. And apart from imploring all users of liquid and other illegally-produced egg to buy and use only British egg in their cakes, dough and products, our useless Government cannot, have not and will not outlaw the importation of the low-priced product from our European cousins across the Continent. Why, because that would be against the Law!

So, Cameron, for the first time, showed a tiny proportion of intelligence as he stated that he, and of course Great Britain, did not wish to envelop ourselves in yet another Treaty which had not even existed even in a draft format when it was presented to the Council. Bitter experience, as with the Lisbon, Maastricht and all the other Treaties which promised one thing, and strangely enough ended with something entirely different, had shown Cameron that if he had signed, he would have been consigning his nation to evermore ‘collective rule’ by the ‘colleagues’ in Brussels.

So he walked away, and has been perhaps vindicated in a way perhaps special to the Brussels Dictatorship. Because the draft Treaty, when finally published, shows that it would become Law when nine of the seventeen nations ratified it, with no referendums or blocking Parliaments allowed to interfere with a decision of those same ‘Colleagues’!

I do not know how this oily crowd are planning to get around  Article 4.2 of the Treaty on European Union , but, rest assured, they will find a way!

Just think, if you will, of the uproar within the Westminster Parliament, never mind the so-called Eurosceptic newspapers, if they were told that, because the Prime Minister had signed up, they would not even be allowed a vote, because it would not matter!