If you want rainbow icing; do it yourself!

Readers will hopefully remember my post on the ‘gay cake’ saga, both in the United States, as well as here in the United Kingdom. Well, the UK Supreme Court has just ruled, as has been announced within the last hours, that  Ashers Bakery did not discriminate in any way by their refusal to bake a cake which was to hold an iced message supporting same-sex, or ‘gay’ marriage. The complainant wanted Ashers to bake and ice him a cake which was to speak a message supporting homosexual marriage, and Ashers Bakery stated that, in terms of their own religious beliefs, they would not go against the teaching by which they live, by completing the order.

The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, supported the stance of the Christian bakers, upheld their defence that they did not discriminate against their customer because he was a homosexual, but that they were unable to produce a cake with a slogan which went against everything in which they believed.

Lady Hale stated:- Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.

The complainant, Gareth Lee, disagreed with the verdict, stating: I’m very confused about what this actually means. We need certainty when you go to a business. I’m concerned that this has implications for myself and for every single person. The original decision to turn down his order had left him feeling like a “second-class citizen”, he said.

Not at all, mate: what you are really saying is that you didn’t get your way this time, but you will no doubt try again with another baker, printer or confectioner, and drag them through the courts until you gain the verdict you bloody want!

A prominent gay spokesman, namely Peter Tatchell, whom I have always admired despite his sexual preferences, mainly because he speaks his mind; stated:- “This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

Meanwhile, the bitterly upset Gareth Lee is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Awww; diddums!

The ‘difference’ with Judge Kavanaugh was Senator Collins

The senior movers and shakers within the Democratic Party watched the end-game. They watched as their ever-so-carefully-coached female witness sadly spouted forth her testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee. They also watched as their plots fell apart. The witness, her voice cracking with emotion as she recalled the moments when she fought against the Nominee for the Supreme Court as she alleged he tried to rape her.  But she couldn’t quite convince the Senators as they sought to distinguish how she could clearly point that wavering, shaky finger at Judge Kavanaugh, the Nominee; when the alleged attempted rape took place. Yet she could not remember where the alleged party took place. Nor when it took place. Nor how she travelled to the party. Nor how she got home after the party. Nor who the other people were who attended this pre-party party. She stated that Brett Kavanaugh turned the radio up loudly to cover his actions, and her screams. She did not explain how she could hear over the noisy radio as the Nominee and his buddy laughed as they stumbled down the stairs from that bedroom.

As the Nominee himself accepted, “I understand and accept that she was probably assaulted; but I was not at that party, I did not assault her!” No equivocation, no ifs, and’s, or indeed but’s. The Democratic Senators gathered around that horseshoe-shaped bench obviously believed her; after all, she was their witness, the star of the show. This was immediately obvious from the smarmily creepy way they all welcomed her to the stand. The Republicans? Well, they had decided to give all of their allotted questioning time to a professional, to a female prosecutor, presumably because they obviously knew that a combined partisan battering by a majority of male Senators would not strike the note which was desired: that of unstitching the statements made by the witness, and of proving that she was lying, and was therefore guilty of perjury. She made inroads into the testimony of the witness, but, in the terms used by many legally-trained observers; she never laid a finger on the witness; but her telling queries in the areas of where the assault took place, as well as the strangely-adroit queries regarding the witness’ knowledge of polygraph testing; will stand up for later enquiries. No series of questions actually made a difference.

The Democratic Party activists really didn’t understand what their vile threats were doing inside the mind of the one woman who made that difference.

All the greasy words of praise emanating from the Democrat side of that bench, and the muted questions of the Republican Senators’ prosecutrix; pale into insignificance against the clarity, the honesty and the courage of Senator Susan Collins’ speech, when speaking on the Senate floor during the cloture debate. She deliberately explained why the allegations regarding the sexual conduct of the Nominee were not the basis for her decision; but instead the legal oversight history and the documented deliberations of that same Nominee were behind her decision to vote for the Nominee to become an Associate Justice of the United States’ Supreme Court.

Second only to Senator Collins’ speech, I would link to the four minutes and twenty six seconds of Senator Lindsey Graham’s blast, aimed directly at the Democratic Senators ranged against the Nominee. Now there is a man who speaks from the heart

All readers, I urge you to read the Senator’s speech, linked below. It is a masterpiece; and a true example of how Lawmakers should respond to a taxing decision. Readers, I give you: Senator Susan Collins:-

Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

IF YOU LIE JUST ONCE, YOU ARE INDEED A LIAR FOR ALL TIME.

“So, tell us, Mrs. Blasey Ford, why did you turn down the offer of a free flight to Washington to answer questions put to you by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding your allegations of sexual assault by the Supreme Court Nominee?

 

“I have a terrible fear of flying.”

 

‘So, tell us, Mrs Blasey Ford, how did you travel from Palo Alto, California to give your testimony today?”

 

“I flew on an aircraft.”

 

“Once again, Mrs. Blasey Ford, When you first made your allegations public, how did you travel from your holiday residence to Washington, and then onwards to your final destination?”

 

“I flew on an aircraft.”

 

“And, just once more, for the record, Mrs. Blasey Ford; when you travel all over the world in the course of your work and studies, do you go by ship, or travel by InterState coach within the Continental United States?”

 

“No, I fly in a jet aircraft.”

 

‘So, we can infer from your replies, which are of course all given on Oath and peril of Perjury, that its okay to fly for work, or for holidays, or indeed to see your folks; but when it comes to meeting with Senate representatives who wish to test your memories of thirty-six-odd years ago; your well-documented ‘fear of flying’ just kicks straight in?

 

“Yes.”

 

“So, Mrs. Blasey Ford, let us now turn to this famous polygraph test which you stated that you took in a conference room in a Washington hotel?”

 

“Certainly.”

 

“Was the polygraph session recorded? Was there a standard, sealed video camera recording the session, as is normal?

 

“No, there was not.”

 

“Was there an audio recording made of the session?”

 

“No, there was not.”

 

“When the polygraph session commenced, was there a series of standard questions posed to you, to establish baseline responses from you to the questions?”

 

“No, there were not.”

 

“I am sorry to repeat myself, but no camera, no audio, no standardised response questions: nothing at all? In what form did the polygraph test take place?”

 

“I read out a statement, handwritten by myself, and the man conducting the test asked me if I was telling the truth; and I replied in the affirmative. He also asked me if I was lying, and I replied in the negative. I am not a liar.”

 

“Thank you, Mrs Blasey Ford, for those most complete and comprehensive answers! I have nothing further at this time!”

 

Updated. Washington Times Poll results:-

Poll: Do you find Christine Blasey Ford credible?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure
  • 189 (6%)
  • 3125 (91%)
  • 115 (3%)

Google. Too big to fail: or too big to regulate?

As an Internet user now for over twenty years, and a computer-literate man for ten years before that, I welcomed the true start of the Internet as we know it, with Netscape and Internet Explorer being the vehicles which commenced ‘access of the ordinary into the extraordinary’.  Dial-up connections were pathetically slow, but users got used to the slow download; but technology moved onwards, and a combination of ever faster processors and better connections and faster access made the spread of the Internet ever faster. Then came a newcomer, a company with a funny name, extracted, it was claimed, from the word or term googol, which is 10100, otherwise known as writing 10, and then zeroes until your arm gets tired. Commencing and launching their company ‘start-up’ literally in a garage, two computer geeks worked out the famous algorithms which searched for information faster than imagination could realise, and then place those searches ranked by earlier use, on the user’s screen: they called it Google, and so commenced the rise and rise of the world’s most popular search engine, and the company, behind it.

As with all growing companies, especially digitally-based ones, there was literally no horizon in view as they spread their activities. They took the basic idea of e-mail, known by PC users; and transformed it into free to use G-mail, used today by a large section of the computer-using public: they also took the idea of an online diary, hashed around a while, and came up with the idea of Blogger, an online every day web log. Google’s electronic empire went ever further, and, because it was now growing ever-more profitable through online advert sales: its industrial muscle grew ever larger. Google’s ethical stance was mirrored in their Company motto, ‘Don’t be evil’, and in the early years of growth, was seen to be effective for their ethical stance in withdrawing from the extremely-lucrative China market, because they would not bend to the authoritarian rules of that Communist Dictatorship. More of that particular stance later.

The two geniuses who started Google were the true “wunderkind”, and, when Google went public, their worth skyrocketed them into the billionaire status known only to a very select few. Google became the favourite of NASDAQ and NYSE, and, because no-one had ever seen anything like this pair, and the giant which they had spawned, no-one suspected that they were secret Left-leaning little dictators-in-waiting, with ambitions not only to dominate the world’s search-engine usage and results, according to their secret algorithms: but also to inflict their beliefs and politics upon an unsuspecting mountain of users, whether ultra-liberal, centrist, right-wing or whatever. The Google workforce, seemingly overwhelmingly liberal by viewpoint, were the perfect means by which to promote the ‘Google’ way of doing things, and no-one seemed to notice the unswerving behemoth which operated in the shadows; mainly because the outer ‘shell’ was massively used, subscribed to: and very, very profitable. Their Stock Exchange values kept rising, and even the odd blip, which occurred when the European Union fined Google $5 billion for its ‘Anti-trust’ operation of its world-beating Android on all mobile phones using that machine system. Seems the EU didn’t like the way the Android system pushed ‘Google’ search to be used in preference to any other search engine provider. Google paid the fine, and promised to be a ‘better buy’: possibly because the $5 billion was the equivalent of 16 (sixteen) days trading for that monstrous organisation.

Readers would have noted that I referred to China.

Google had set up shop in China four years before the breach, offering a version of its services that conformed to the government’s oppressive censorship policies. At the time, Google officials said they’d decided that the most ethical option was to offer some services—albeit restricted by China’s censors—to the enormous Chinese market, rather than leave millions of Internet users with limited access to information.

But the 2010 attacks prompted the company to reverse course. Instead of complying with government requests to filter its search results, Google directed all of its Chinese traffic to the uncensored Hong Kong version of its search engine, a move that left the company vulnerable to being completely shut down in China. Indeed, Google’s services became inaccessible to most Chinese users within months.

So Google pulled the plug on their China operations, stating they would not abide with the ‘Censorship’ imposed by the Communist Chinese. They kept mumbling on about ‘Freedom of Speech’, and ‘Values’; and we believed them!

But three things have occurred which puts an entirely new, and possibly sinister spin upon Google, and the operations of that corporate behemoth.

  • An ordinary Google employee wrote a damning review of Google corporate philosophies, and the approach to anyone who dissented from the Left-leaning ‘Groupthink’ encouraged by the management team. Google engineer James Damore was fired last August after he wrote a controversial memo arguing that Google had gone overboard in its efforts to promote diversity. He generated widespread outrage by suggesting that the under-representation of women at Google was a result of women’s lesser interest in software engineering—rather than discrimination within the technology sector.
  • Jack Poulson, a senior research scientist at Google, has quit the company in protest over the tech titan’s development of a censored search engine for China, claiming it represents a “forfeiture of our values.” According to the Intercept,Poulson “raised concerns with his managers at Google after the Intercept revealed that the Internet giant was secretly developing a Chinese search app for Android devices.”  ‘After entering into discussions with his bosses, Poulson decided in mid-August that he could no longer work for Google. He tendered his resignation and his last day at the company was August 31,’ it was reported, adding that he is possibly one of FIVE employees to leave the company in protest.
  • An insider at Google downloaded a ‘Google TGIF Groupthink’ discussion, recorded just after the Trump election. It is pretty hard to listen to all the knee-jerks and sad stories, but some of the statements are worth repeating:-

Co-founder Sergey Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists. Brin argues that like other extremists, Trump voters were motivated by “boredom,” which he says in the past led to fascism and communism.

VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker argues that supporters of populist causes like the Trump campaign are motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”

CEO Sundar Pichai states that the company will develop machine learning and A.I. to combat what an employee described as “misinformation” shared by “low-information voters.”

(00:13:10) CFO Ruth Porat appears to break down in tears when discussing the election result. (00:15:20) Porat promises that Google will “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.” (00:16:50) Stating “we all need a hug,” she then instructs the audience of Google employees to hug the person closest to them.

(01:01:15) A Google employee states: “speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege” and urges employees to “go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country.” He urges employees to “discuss the issues you are passionate about during Thanksgiving dinner and don’t back down and laugh it off when you hear the voice of oppression speak through metaphors.” Every executive on stage – the CEO, CFO, two VPs and the two Co-founders – applaud the employee.

‘Don’t be evil’, the old Corporate Logo, has long ago disappeared. And in its place?

Either the sub-liminal message:-

  • Don’t Get Caught

or

  • Don’t vote Republican; cos’ they’re all evil!

Nike: just don’t do it!

Twitter/Colin Kaepernick

Manufacturers of sports apparel, whether it be shirts, shorts, leisure wear, trainers, running shoes, Hoodies & Sweatshirts,  Jackets & Gilets, Trousers & Tights or Tracksuits: have to be very aware of two things when marketing their products: does the product do its job, and is the sports ‘star’ or ‘celebrity’ associated with, or fronting that marketing campaign for their product likely to promote warm feelings towards the maker, the owner of the trade mark; the one thing by which the manufacturer is associated with.

Marketing is almost a separate entity when it comes to selling your wares on the open market; the entrepeneur or sales director might know everything about how his products are made, what the cost-per-item is, and whether the product suits the buyer from a viewpoint of ‘what’s cool, bro?’, or gets feedback from ordinary people buying that particular product. Industry has to be so careful of the ‘image’, projected by the person or ‘personality’, because the image of ‘I’m wearing a ‘XXXX’ watch on my wrist’; and by projection, maybe the prospective buyer will be wooed into spending a large lump of his available ‘wonga’ on a similar timepiece in the faint but possibly illusory hope that he too, like the watch-wearing personality, will be rich, famous and excelling at golf / football / running / swimming / acting or whatever. Alternatively, if the viewer sees a sportsman wearing the brand in question, and also see that same sportsman or actor succeeding, the idea maybe to get that same viewer to get off his fat behind, and get active, all whilst wearing the brand of trainer, or tracksuit, or whatever is being advertised.

But I write today about one specific, very famous manufacturer of trainers, shoes and all the other gear in the shopping list available both online, and in stores all across the globe. The name? Nike. The image? Clean-cut, healthy, combative, striving to do better: you must get the idea. The listings of individuals, clubs and companies associated with this global giant encompass 12 pages on Wikipedia. Their hold and breadth of sporting and exercise equipment is without parallel; truly a monster in international corporate terms. Many companies would consider the sacrifice of their first-born just to steal a slice of Nike’s grip on things ‘exercise’. And who can blame them? The Nike ‘Swoosh’ is known and Nike: just don’t do it!acknowledged worldwide as one of the truly global ‘brands’, and Nike have made very few errors in terms of their association with ‘celebrities’ and instantly-recognisable names. There was a small tremor when the Penn State College sexual abuse scandal erupted, which saw Joe Paterno named as a co-conspirator along with convicted Jerry Sandusky, who got 30-60 years in jail. Paterno died before the trial, but Nike, who had named their ‘child care facility’ after Paterno; only hastily removed Paterno’s name after former FBI director Louis Freeh’s damning report emerged. Another small spike in the Nike freeway emerged when they withdrew their sponsorship from Oscar Pistorius, possibly because he was indicted for murder.

NIke must have been breathing huge sighs of relief that they hadn’t signed sponsorship deals with the footballer Ryan Giggs as Reebok had: as it emerged, through the veil of injunctions, counter-claims and injured innocence; that he, despite having a stunner wife on his arm (hence the family man image) that he had affairs with various whores as well as an eight-year relationship with his brother’s wife.

Nike also had to wend their way through the assault organised by, amongst others, FashionUnited who pushed for a larger slice of the huge cash pile to go towards the rock-bottom wages earned by the people who sew the shirts, trainers, etc. Critics asked that

“knowing that the labor cost of a t-shirt produced in Indonesia is hardly 1 percent of the price, it seems logical to me that the labor cost can be increased a bit, right?”

was returned with a backhand reply to the effect that NIke always hoped that suppliers paid the ‘living wage’ and more, wherever the item was made.

But the latest news just down the turnpike is the signing by Nike of Colin Kaepernick, he of the large hair, the even larger opinion of himself; and the tumult caused by his kneeling during the National Anthem and Flag ceremonies at various American football games across the continent. Ostracised by the owners of every club, he has not played for over a year, but that doesn’t mean he has been out of the headlines. His ‘knee’ antics generated a huge pile of outrage at his lack of patriotism, especially towards the American Flag, revered almost as a religious artefact by many. Almost as high as the original pile was the flood of supporting comments, many agreeing with his outbursts and silent objections to the Flag which represented, as he saw it, the injustice done to fellow African Americans.

But the big question is, as far as can be observed, is whether Nike, in signing up Colin Kaepernick to front their 30th Anniversary logo and marketing push, haven’t shot themselves in both feet simultaneously, as, by bringing such a divisive person and personality into front-centre stage; seeing as he has (virtually) insulted and trampled all over the one thing which Americans have revered since the founding of the Republic. The Flag, along with that amazing theme which was the product of a mixture of a British drinking song, along with the verses penned by Frances Scott Keys to celebrate the defiant victory of an American defence of Baltimore’s Fort McHenry after a huge bombardment by the British, has retained the awe and reverence due the symbol of freedom which it undoubtedly has become. Has Nike made a mistake raising an anarchist onto its stage? Only time will tell.

For myself, I would have thought that Nike would have been better served if they had featured Alejandro Villanueva, who took an alternative viewpoint when saluting the Flag!

You dozey, self-centred, wilful, stupid; stupid woman!

What do you call someone who enters a place, a country; in the full knowledge that there is no real Rule of Law? What do you call someone who enters a place, a country; in the full knowledge that that same country is ruled by Muslim Mullahs, who care little for Western ideas, and even less for simpletons who claim they have DUAL- NATIONALITY? What do you call someone who, despite strong advice to the contrary, enters this country, knowing that there is no real protection afforded by a British passport, for the slightly weird notion of ‘It’ll be alright; I’ve got a British passport, my daughter has a British passport, and I’m only visiting my mother’? What do you call a mother who places her child in real peril by entering a country whereby the Foreign Office advises against all individual travel; warns against banditry, theft and danger to life and liberty if you f**k around with any aspect of their bloody religion, culture, sense of security; or even just plain, ordinary cussedness? What do you call a woman who, despite all the official warnings to the contrary, decides that ‘She knows best’; gets on an aircraft with her daughter, and flies in to this pest- and danger-ridden cess-pit?

The real name of this woman? Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Her real title? Stupid, silly, bloody woman.

The name of this demi-paradise? Iran, or, to give its exact diplomatic title the Islamic Republic of Iran. The clue to the behaviour of the people who slung this stupid woman into jail? It is in the word ‘ISLAMIC’.

Her equally stupid, idealistic and slightly moronic (because he expects Muslim clowns to observe Western creeds and ideas) husband was interviewed, and stated:-

‘There were real hopes that not only would her three-day furlough be extended, but that her permanent and unconditional release was also just around the corner.

‘We shouldn’t lose sight of what Nazanin has had to endure – nearly two-and-a-half years behind bars, eight gruelling months of solitary confinement without a lawyer, a deeply unfair trial, and also being subjected to a string of unfounded accusations from the Iranian authorities.

‘Nazanin is a prisoner of conscience who should never have been jailed in the first place.

“Prisoner of conscience’? Rubbish!  The Iranian mullahs who scrutinise all airport entry lists and visa application lists must have collectively rubbed their hands in glee (or whatever passes for humour in those twisted minds) at the sight of yet another idiot basking in the belief that a foreign passport somehow gives the holder the extra armour against the monolithic Islamic State of Iran’s collective hatred of Western ideas, ideals and very ways of life.

When this loser is finally kicked out of Iran’s prison system, probably because the guards are sick to death of her constant whining, and upon her return to British shores, the first visit of officials should be from the local Council, to determine if she really is as daft as she makes out to be; because if they are correct, the little girl should be immediately taken into care.

Royal Navy? Protecting Brits? You must be having a bloody laugh!

ukdj

We are an Island nation. Our very history stems from the fact that, from the earliest days of trade, our national need for imports and exports have demanded a competent naval force to protect our island’s interests. From the ‘King’s Navee’ to the masterful force which was the Royal Navy in the years just after WW2, we have had, made and determined policy by the presence and actions of Navy warships.

The names cascade down British history’s ledgers: Anson, Hood, Drake, Frobisher, a dip into any historical archive shows that seamanship, service and above all, loyalty and dedication to the rigours and rules of the Navy handed we Brits a stacked deck almost every time our Island Nation was tested. Apart from the defeats by the Dutch Admiral De Ruyter, Britain, or rather England, ruled the waves as never seen before or since. The British Crown and Navy took on Napoleon in his various disguises as a republican general, and then a dictator masquerading as an Emperor, and virtually dictated the course of the wars fought at sea; ending with the defeat of the French at Trafalgar by the naval genius of Lord Nelson.

The Great War saw Britain’s Fleet take on the German Grand Fleet, and after Jutland, where the navies clashed for perhaps the only time, saw the Germans holed up in their anchorages, with the British Fleet guarding the boltholes. The Germans nearly succeeded in starving Great Britain with the U-boat submarine fleet, but once deterrent measures were introduced, the subs were denied access to the North Sea, and were defeated.

The Second World War saw Britain’s naval forces, as usual, emasculated by politicians who just did not want to understand that, although Defence does not win headlines, if properly funded, it wins victories. Our Navy was badly funded and run during the peacetime years, and when the great conflict began, naval forces were stretched to breaking point by stupid decisions made by politicians with ideas of grandeur.The Royal Navy was partly modernised in the second half of the 1930’s, but the upgrade missed HMS Hood (sunk with a single shell from Bismarck), HMS Barham (torpedoed despite alleged anti-torpedo upgrade) and HMS Repulse (sunk by the Japs after sailing without any air cover whatsoever). We managed to win through, partly because the Krauts made more mistakes than we did; but mainly because the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour, and America came into the war, and saved the West for the second time in twenty years. The calibre of the Royal Navy’s officers and men were such that a naval action between the destroyer Glowworm and the German heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper, a vessel ten times the size of the destroyer; and where the destroyer sank after attacking and ramming the Hipper, allowed the Admiralty to place the Glowworm’s captain to receive the Victoria Cross posthumously on the recommendation of the German Cruiser captain, and his captured log.

As I have previously written on the Royal Navy, and watched its long decline in both ships and men, I would point to two items; one very recent, the other many years back.

Captain E.S.F. Fegan, V.C. Royal Navy; the sailor who turned his ship, H.M.S. Jervis Bay, to steer directly towards the Admiral Scheer, a heavy German cruiser intent upon savaging the convoy which ‘Jervis Bay’ was protecting. Without any hesitation, this man sailed his ‘Armed MerchantMan’ in under the guns of this mini-battleship, and took his ship, along with all her crew, to their deaths; but the convoy was saved, as they scattered before the killer cruiser could catch them.

British fishermen legally went in to Channel fishing grounds to harvest scallops, but were set upon, harrassed and attacked by a much larger contingent of French fishing boats, outraged that the ‘RosBifs’ had the audacity to fish in grounds favoured by the French. The Brits called for protection from the Royal Navy, but to no avail. Of the FOUR R.N. vessels delegated for fishery protection duty, one is 8,000 miles away in the Falklands, HMS Forth is unable to sail because of the huge numbers of defects found after handover from BAe Systems the builders, (inclusive of electrical busbar connection bolts being GLUED back on after rupture),; one is in dock for repairs, and the fourth is in Norway at, wait for it; a Culture Festival.

Great Britain had been promised, by the Brexiteer politicians, that we can have and hold our own fishing grounds once more after ‘freedom day’. At the rate seen by this observer, all we shall be able to do to protect our own fishermen from the likes of the ‘effing French is to wave a white flag from a bloody ferry.