Just change the ‘battery pack’

She compared the new techniques to replacing a defective ‘battery pack’ in a cell that would virtually eliminate the chance of a severe disease in the child.

She said: ‘Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them.

‘She’ is of course the Government’s Chief Medical Officer ‘Dame’ Sally Davies, and she was talking about the latest ‘gee-whiz’ idea that is destined to remove the ‘tragedy’ of inherited disease from future generations through the Frankenstein process of swapping faulty DNA for normal DNA in the future mother’s egg.  This process would of course result in a child who has three parents’ DNA in their own make-up. A process which could not happen in anything else than a scientist’s laboratory and test-tube. A process which can only be described as unnatural in the extreme!

We see ourselves today as being on the edge of unreality, with the ability to shape a whole generation of children ‘in our own image’, and it is not, in my own humble opinion, a good place to be. It could be, and indeed is being argued, that if we can remove the very chance of certain deformities and life-threatening conditions before the child is born, we should do everything we can to remove any such chance. But we have to accept that we, as members of the ‘human race’, are the product of millions of years of evolution, and those thirty-odd strands of DNA which are the target of this obscene research have evolved over millennia, and they should remain unchanged; because how are we to know the end result of altering DNA strands which have been built over millennia?

We were told when abortion was first discussed in both Westminster and the salons of the ‘chattering classes’ in Islington and Notting Hill that the only reasons for the abortion of babies were to

be  of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;, or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or  the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or  the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

I do not believe that those reasons can be tabulated as against today, where we have virtual abortion on demand! It could well be argued that the only person to be considered is that of the future mother, and I for one lean towards that argument in reality, but, and it is a big ‘but’, the safeguards have been virtually diminished as to be non-existent.

We are told that the possibility of the so-called ‘designer baby’ is not possible, with all the checks and balances and assessments to be built in to the system, but we all know whjat happens to the ‘Checks and balances’ when politicians are involved, as well as when ‘Cheques’ are involved as well! The argument for this DNA swap to be undertaken is that the future children of a holder of such DNA will be free of the possibility of the illnesses or diseases or disabilities which may occur if the DNA had not been altered. I would counter with a simple argument of my own, one which is not heard as much as the many arguments opposing it; but which is just as valid: if the mother is found to have these ‘defective genes’, why not go down the route of not procreating children in the first place, and then there would be no further chance of a child with a mitochondrial disorder in the first place?

Granddad’s portrait





I reckon my five year-old grandson has captured the total ‘Je ne sais quois’ of my face and features, although strangely missing out on the full beard and moustache which I have worn just about all of my life. He has caught the white hair, but somehow my eyes have been ‘greened’; perhaps because my Grandson knows of my devotion to all things ‘Green’!

…in your name….

In the light of some recent disclosures regarding the escapades, either real or alleged, of our Security Agencies, as well as the huge assets of the American NSA, I would like to bring to your attention some statistics from a more local outfit, namely Durham County Council. They were amongst the many who were clamouring to gain access to our data, both private and public, so that we might be ‘better protected’, through the ‘SNOOPERS’ CHARTER’, allegedly killed off by Nick Clegg, but is reported as being returned to life as being ‘IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY’. Now I am not decrying the activities of our Secret Services, who already have a heavy job to do in controlling and slapping the wrists of all these tiresome Muslims who insist upon their right to bomb, maim and kill us because their Religion demands it, but, one side talks to another, so we should be at least concerned.

I asked our local Council in 2011 various questions regarding their activities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which the Government has given them the power to covertly view, record and monitor our e-mail, phone and general behaviour.

Their reply, which was very illuminating, stated that, from 2007 to the end of 2009, there had been a total of 225 requests for surveillance operations. As they are now able to bring requests together into a block, (for statistical purposes only, you must understand ‘sarcasm alert’) there were a further possible 270 actual surveillance activities authorised to proceed. So, you may well ask, of this substantial number of intrusions into the private lives of residents of County Durham, how many resulted in prosecutions?

Well, the reply, taken verbatim from the Council’s letter to me was for a grand total of ONE.

Our response: There has been one successful prosecution which went to court in March 2011. This was a fly tipping offence caught on a covert CCTV camera.

So thats all right then?

My Lords, etc., etc.,……………

When I was a much younger man, the House of Lords’ membership was that of hereditary peers. Their birth denoted their ability to walk into and work in that august Chamber, but at the same time, there were many remarkable minds voting and advising within the Lords. Then came the legislation which allowed the ennoblement of people who had served their country well, and they emerged as Life Peers. The theory was that Britain had the best deal because the new Peers would be scientists, engineers, academics, but nothing is ever clear or perfect, especially within the murky world of politics.

After the gerrymandering of the Labour Government years, when the hereditary element was virtually cut to a tenth of its previous number, the Life Peers were almost exclusively appointed for political means. Otherwise, how can the ennoblement of complete non-entities such as Floella Benjamin, a t.v presenter; John Prescott, universally acknowledged as the worst disaster to hit Westminster; as well as Baroness Uddin, who was forced to repay £125,000 she had fraudulently claimed as expenses: along with many, many others of equally bland or sordid pasts be explained? The Lords has become the second home of failed or useless politicians, from all three parties. And it is a truth that they, these hacks, these useless appendages who think so highly of themselves, believe that they deserve to be ennobled, and to sit in that once great Chamber and deliberate upon what Law is left to oppress us as a Nation.

As a typical example of this brand of complete failure, I present Anne Widdecombe, formerly of the House of Commons and ‘Strictly Dancing’, naturally. She was quoted as stating ‘she was a natural candidate, but Cameron vetoed me because of my support for hunting’. She ‘expected to become a member of the House of Lords because ‘thats the way it works’. I used to have some time for Anne, mainly because she spoke her mind in the House of Commons, but I see she  has joined on to the pile of lepers waiting for preferment, in the belief she deserves it. Just a little bit sad.

Its a long way from ‘excellence in thought and deed’ to ‘its my turn now’! I would remind all  readers that these people determine our Law, ands we should be proud of our representattves. Can anyone, these days, claim to be proud of the House of Lords?