Tuesday, 29 October 2019


There are a lot of disingenuous hangers-on in the Grenfell story, who are trying to use the incident and the victims and their families to further their own political agenda. It's how the Left work, but doesn't make it any less disgusting.

For me, the underlying issue that makes this a scandal, is that this is Britain. I don't care whether some of the victims were illegal sub-letters, or illegal immigrants, or straightforward Londoners, no-one should be let down by this country in that way.

We should have proper rules, properly enforced to maximise the safety of buildings. Apparently, petty corruption is now a thing here and this is what it leads to. Also, when did we agree to neuter our fire brigades? I don't know if Danielle (Dany!) Cotton was just promoted because she is a female, or if other senior officers are just as stupid and unqualified for rank as her and so she fitted in well.

But her decisions on the day and her comments since leave no doubt, she is well paid for a job she cannot do. It is also clear, that her main concern over the Grenfell tragedy is herself and her image. I found her statement to the inquiry simply unbelievable. She is clear and concerned with details about how she turned out for the incident, getting there, not wrenching control from the officer running the incident (magnanimous), but when it comes to the fire and decision making on actual fire brigade matters, she suffers a loss of memory (that she hopes "will come back someday").

There have been complaints from senior fire officers and the Union that even at this distance from the event, the government haven't told them what to do about the 'stay put' policy. Presumably this is because the fire brigades no longer have any input into fire fighting? Cotton in fact, makes a deal of her concern and recognition of the dangers her officers faced.

But she seems to have no concern for the tower's occupants or the safety of her officers as she sticks rigidly to protocols, regardless of what is happening in front of her.

'Stay put' was evolved as a fire strategy as tower blocks were required to adhere to building regulations that each flat would be a fire secure unit. They were basically fire proofed boxes and generally only the flat where a fire starts and perhaps one other are affected. So those occupants get out, everyone else 'stays put' and the Brigade deal with the fire.

At Grenfell, because alterations had been made (and presumably signed off by the council) these cells were no longer effective containment blocks. There is lots of bleating (driven by activists) about the cladding being responsible and with the speed the fire spread up the outside of the building it is clear it was partly to blame.

But the fire also spread rapidly through the internal structure. Why was this? Serious questions exist over exactly what was done and being done to the building. And I agree that to report on the actions of the fire brigade ahead of investigations into the causes and thus the nature of the fire they were facing, is wrongheaded.

But the whining of 'Dany' Cotton about how she wouldn't change anything if she had her time again, or not knowing the protocol needed changing is self-serving cant. She knows, because even I do, that a tower block should not burn like that, therefore something unusual was happening - get the people out and plan how best to fight a large building fire that is out of control.

I don't mean to suggest this would have saved everyone, because the fire escape planning for the building was also predicated on the 'stay put' policy. Stairwells full of smoke and a single route, make it difficult for fire officers to get in passed those escaping, to help others.

I'm sure that an audit of the actions of the fire brigade in accordance with political correctness would find little to fault, but this fact directly led to the inaction of idiot senior officers and the hopeless procedures in place to actually act as an emergency service.

This is the outcome of Left ideology in action and such an ideology rests on a massive bureaucracy, which I'm sure, as I write this, is busily finding ways no part of the Establishment takes the blame for what happened.

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Making Decisions

First, I want to establish a ground rule (ironic, as you will see). Politics has come to be characterised as falling into two and a bit camps; Left, Right and Centre. This has been disrupted and corrupted, as it is supposed to represent polar opposites in ideas. But if we go to extremes, Stalin, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Left. Hitler, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Right. So that's not working.

Clearly, we can agree that people who want to tell you what to do (and possibly engage in a bit of murdering) are Left. The opposite then, would be people who want you to be free and don't go around killing other people.

State control, nationalised industry, high taxes, lots of rules and regulations, conformity. This is the Left. Small government, low tax, light regulation, liberty and personal freedom, that would be the other end.

Clearly, we have a solid candidate for the Left today in Corbyn and his cronies (no suggestion of murdering, but very keen on people who do), but we don't have anyone brave enough to stand up for the Right. Oh, we get a bit of it, but then they run scared and apologise for saying something sensible. Terrified of what the Left might say.

The Left have created a 'narrative', which is their version of the truth. They opted for a narrative as it doesn't actually have to be the truth. They explained this away by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, just your truth and my truth. To which someone said, 'kick a rock and you'll see what's true'.

Consequently, a child born a boy, doesn't have to be a boy, if he chooses not to be (although the activists of the Left will help him choose). Rape victims must be believed, regardless of evidence and a hate crime is a crime if the victim says it is.

George Orwell's book 1984 was lampooning Left ideology, pointing out its dangerous stupidities. It wasn't supposed to be considered a manual of how things should be.

'Woke' is supposed to define people in the know, but in fact describes the opposite; sheep, repeating the most obvious falsehoods. Very Orwellian.

'Safe spaces' are no such things, they are hideaways for people who are so lacking in understanding and social skills, that they cannot contemplate a contrary opinion. Common in universities, you have to wonder just how people, supposedly there to learn and debate, have such narrow views and are unable to accept other views exist. Perhaps it's something to do with the input of their Left ideologue lecturers.

And of course, the greatest demonstration of the dangers presented by Left ideology currently, is Brexit. For some, maybe we can call them traditionalists, it is the result of a democratic vote that has decided we should leave the international organisation that, for some reason we asked to run our country. Pretty much the ultimate outsourcing.

But for others, the losers, it is not that simple. So a litany of reasons as to why the democratic result has to be ignored have been unleased, including, that it isn't democratic. The whole reason that parliament is in a mess is because the losers won't shut up and act like adults, but are a majority in parliament. Plus the little twerp Speaker breaking the oath of his office.

410 constituencies voted Leave, 240 Remain. 148 Labour constituencies voted Leave, 84 Remain. 247 Conservative for Leave, 80 Remain. But in parliament, only 160 MP's are for Leave, out of 650. An outrage of course, but why should they care? Are they not better than us? Certainly seems to be their opinion.

Then there is Political Correctness. Invented to stop anything being debated, as Left ideology doesn't stand up well to scrutiny.

Or Climate Change. There is absolutely no science at all to support the assertion that we, through emissions are affecting the climate. The theory is sound, but we understand so little of the way climate works, that it is impossible to predict. But our emissions, seemingly huge, are inconsequential compared to the size of the 'system'. All the alarmists have is their crooked computer models, which have already been proven to be hopelessly wrong.

But 'the science is settled' and must not be debated, or further investigated. Why would that be!? Why, for the first time in history, should we not apply the scientific method to a problem of science?

Because Left ideology doesn't stand scrutiny.

The next time someone tells you something, think about it. Is it true? Because, if it has some benefit to the Left, it's probably a lie.

Tuesday, 3 September 2019


We know that the BBC is not a useful or reliable source of information on world events and hasn't been for a long time now. We have always known that Channel 4 is beyond a joke on every level, which leaves Sky. I find myself wondering, during the ridiculous and fraught times we are currently living through, whether someone at Sky News would actually die if they even attempted to address a political subject in an unbiased and objective way. Personally, I see no value in the personal view of lard bucket Boulton, who has never hidden his deep love of Left ideologies.

Similarly, the Political Editor seems completely unable to deliver a coherent sentence, when all she is reporting on is a wholly positive piece of information about the Tory government, or its leadership.

So, let us look at what is happening; the government of the day voted to have a simple in/out referendum on our continued membership of the EU. The MP's voted to honour the result. MP's voted to trigger Article 50 and MP's voted that if we could not get a decent deal from the EU, we leave on the terms laid out under international WTO rules. Already having all the EU regulations in place in this country of course, there is absolutely nothing to fear in this route (unless the EU act viciously, which would be confirmation of just how right we are to be leaving).

MP's were elected (85% of them), on manifesto's that promised to deliver 'Brexit'. However, a childish group of MP's, doing their best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation, are attempting to overthrow the will of the people. They say any other move is un-democratic. Let's examine that. Parliament is a structure devised to contain a group of representatives of the people to enact laws that represent the desires and will of the people. Parliament handles the 'big stuff', projects and relationships at the national level.

If they annoy the people, they are removed at a General Election. The MP's however, think that the only democracy in this country is what they vote for in the Commons, the people are irrelevant. If they didn't think that, their current shenanigans wouldn't be possible. They would just do what the sensible British people want and act reasonably. Fat chance; our current MP's, or many of them, think that they are back in the old days of rich landowner MP's being the only people with a say.

Even then, many of those old MP's weren't as stunningly thick and grabbing as the current crop.

Parliament never had the legal authority to join the European Union, which is why Heath lied about it so comprehensively. But having handed control of this country to a foreign power, our MP's somehow refer to their local council as a sovereign parliament! The common sense of the British people, once they realised what the EU is about and how our politicians have been misleading us, ordered the government to get us out.

Why would anyone want to stay part of a declining economic area, that is corrupt to the core, a political answer to a question that passed into history decades ago and that has been holding back the otherwise dynamic British nation with its cramping regulations and protectionist tariffs? Well, vested interest is the answer. Money and advantage for many and naturally, as a bureaucrats paradise, all of the Civil Service is delighted by its inertia and corruption.

The actions of the Remainer MP's are disgusting, anti-democratic and damaging to the country. Countries around the world must be shocked that such stupidity exists in the country they always thought a paragon of sense and fair play. Plus, the despots around the world must be in hysterics seeing us become ever more like them.

Notice that Remainers have never made a case for staying in the EU, nor do they offer a solution to the impasse in the form of an acceptable deal (they constantly say they are against all kinds of things, but are not trying to stop Brexit. I wonder if anyone in the country believes them?)

Iceland pulled out of joining the EU (they, like everyone else thought that joining whilst their country was broke, would save them - it's why we joined) and went on to rapidly turn their economy around, by acting in self interest. Greece suffered a catastrophic decline in their economy and it has stayed that way, because it cannot act in self interest, because it is part of the EU. Staying in shows their politicians firmly believe that Greeks are incapable of running their own country.

Britain needs to ignore people like Grieve and Hammond who believe Britain is a hopeless, useless country unable to stand on its own two feet. Britain is not only a very capable country, but once free of the shackles of the EU corpse, would become ever more so.

Monday, 18 March 2019

What Is May Up To?

It seems puzzling, doesn't it? Theresa May has made some pretty unequivocal statements about Brexit, Leave means Leave, we will leave on March 29th (108 times in parliament), carry out the democratic will of the people etc. But here we are, on the cusp of handing actual and real control of the UK to the EU. In, but with no say - which is what her 'deal' supplied for her by the EU, is actually about.

So what is May, clumsy, incompetent, weak? Let's look at what happens through the process and not what she says. Article 50 is triggered with no deal as a the legal option. She appoints a Brexit minister, who turns out to have no say or role at all in the process. May threatens her cabinet and surprises them with the EU's stich up deal. It is binned.

 May sticks with it. May says it is the best deal possible, which is probably true from her perspective, but not if you are supporting the UK side. She sacks any Brexiteer for any reason; four of her cabinet ignore the whip and it has no consequence whatsoever, because they are Remainers. One even resigns from his Conservative Association, but is treated as a faithful soldier.

May allows stupid little (bleating) votes of no consequence and then agrees to be bound by them, which she was not obliged to do. Because they disrupt leaving?

So what does all this point to? Only one thing. From the outset May has had no intention of delivering Brexit, doesn't care a fig for parliamentary protocol, the good of the country, business, the economy or democracy. She cares about the EU. Why would you be moved by the aforementioned list, when the EU, being a dictatorship, doesn't give a hoot for these things and being an acolyte of this institution, nor does she. Political power trumps all.

If her constituency party was run by people of character, courage and decency, they would recall her and have a by-election with the stated aim of getting rid of the embarrassment she represents to party and country. But I don't suppose they are Conservatives, either.

I suspect she called a General Election because she hoped that it would see more Brexit backing MP's lose their seats, more than she worried about her majority. She finally put the lid on any kind of real victory when she lurched to the Left, copying Corbyn's 'ideas'. Yep, she is a serial loser.

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Disgraceful; A Laughing Stock

Well, many parliaments around the world are based on the British model, but it showed just how bad it can be when stocked almost exclusively by self-impressed morons. Last night was a disgrace and will have made Britain and British politics the laughing stock of the world. Trump hasn't even come close to the haughty, hubristic tantrums on display here.

Here is the background. In the early Seventies, a Conservative(!) Prime Minister, Edward Heath, lied to the electorate about joining something called the Common Market. He told us it was a trading bloc and would make Britain a stronger country (we were, as all EU members are when joining, broke).

He knew though, as recently released government documents show, that the (then) EEC was a political project to unite all the individual countries of Europe into a single superstate, with a central government, and all the attendant structures such as tax, policing, military, laws, currency etc.

The EU has had as its abiding principle since its inception between the World Wars, that it should operate in secret and not reveal its objectives. Have you ever heard a debate about 'Europe'? Has its way of working ever been explained to you, at school, university, on TV? No. And that is very important to its success.

The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats, often referred to as technocrats, and has a pretend parliament to confuse the people of the various countries as to its operation. The MEPs can and do vote on laws proposed by the bureaucrats and can put forward amendments, but they will get the same law come back endlessly until they approve it. You can only imagine that when the single government is finally achieved this little farce will be deleted.

There is no common culture across Europe, no common language. We have different traditions and laws. Only the French and German traditions of attempting to subjugate Europe are permitted going forward though, with for instance, the (German) currency crushing the economies of the Southern European countries. There is no demos, but some politicians want an empire, so Europe will be balkanised.

Can you think of any example of a country, taking over several other countries and running them from a central government, which controls everything through laws and regulations? Yes, the USSR. How did that go?

Something even as fundamental as the law divides us. In Britain, a traditionally strong, inventive and industrious nation, we evolved laws that constrained absolute monarchs and placed the law in the hands of the people. We vote for people to represent us in parliament and if they don't do what we want, they are chucked out at the next election.

In the EU, where the law is dominated by the French, the State owns the law and the people do what they are told. A short summary of this would be, in Britain everything is legal unless we decide to make it illegal, in the EU everything is illegal unless the State allows it.

This comes from the militaristic, empire building tradition of not just France, but Germany also. The French see themselves as the finest administrators in the world and so should run the EU, but need German money so tolerate them as a 'partner'. Germany think they should run it, because they pay for it and tolerate French input because there would be another war if they didn't.

So, with some inkling that the EU was too different, too bureaucratic and not functioning very well and with a suspicion as to what they were up, what came next, the British voted to leave the EU. The largest turnout ever saw 17.4 million people issue this instruction.

Parliament had pledged almost unanimously to action the result. Both Labour and Conservative candidates ran on a manifesto to honour that pledge. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, the mechanism by which a member informs the EU that they are leaving.

However, ignoring 17.4 million people, their own election manifesto pledges and in many cases actually defying the majority of their constituents, MP's decided that no one tells them what to do. Most MP's are 'Remainers' and want to stay in the bureaucrats paradise, the EUSSR. So they started wrecking the process.

The analogy that the Remain MP's are acting like children having a tantrum at not getting their way, is in fact so accurate it is beyond parody. Using a typical Marxist trick (all of them, even the 'Conservatives') the Remainers try to create a false narrative. They say that the Leavers have lied incessantly, blocked progress and want a 'hard Brexit'. That the referendum only voted Leave because of the campaign of lies by vote Leave.

Let's examine that. Leave MP's have consistently insisted and voted to support the will of the people, being the proper role of parliament, and have only blocked attempts to thwart that, which cannot be characterised as 'blocking progress'. The Leave campaign was not massively funded, but may have made some technical mistakes in using the funds, on occasion, that didn't amount to a hill of beans.

Remain however, had enormous resources; the UK government pumped money into it, as did foreign individuals of high net wealth and of course, the EU. Massive collusion and misuse of funds took place, which the Electoral Commission have no problem with, because they choose only to investigate Leave.

As to lies, currently Britain should be in a recession, at least 600,000 people should have lost their jobs in 2016 and the pound should be on the floor. This is what Remain promised would happen if we dared to vote to leave. In fact, there are at least 700,000 more in work, the economy is growing (faster than the EU) and the world is knocking on our door looking for trade deals.

The media is almost all on the side of Remain, so there is no proper analysis (phew, says the EU) and the BBC fanatically so.

Consequently the world is treated to the spectacle of a bunch of immature, entitled bigots acting as if they alone possess the knowledge and wherewithal to understand the blindingly simple concept of leave means leave. (Ask if they would like some money, they know the answer to that!).

Here is another question for you; Remain also tell us that we trade so much with the EU that we will be destroyed if we leave (they never go any further by way of explanation, you will notice). This presupposes that the EU will not buy anything from us after we leave. But how about this; the EU is possibly the most over-regulated, risk-averse structures in the world. How much stronger and bigger would the UK economy be now, if we had never joined, never been held back by the EU?

And to the final point. Remainers, like all children assert ridiculous things to confirm their position. May lost a vote yesterday (by 4 votes) and so now she is 'morally' obliged to take No Deal off the table. No mention of how the moral authority of 17.4 million people stacks up with those 4 MP's (or even the maybe 500 Loser, sorry Remainer MPs).

But here is the thing. There are common laws and there are Constitutional laws. When Tony Blair decided in his supreme arrogance to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor he was informed that it was a Constitutional position and not within his gift to have any say on. (And there was Tony thinking he was either an absolute ruler of perhaps a god).

This throws up a slight flaw in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joining the European Union (and they do call it joining, even though they mean the UK to be subsumed) By handing the power to make laws in the UK and indeed to change the very nature of our law-making, the government was handing authority to a foreign power - a Constitutional act and something that is not within their power.

Edward Heath wasn't just lying to make you think wrongly of the EU, he had to hide that we were signing away sovereignty, because to admit that would be to admit its illegality.

Technically, we have never been in the EU because it was impossible to 'join' such an organisation. (And the EU is an organisation just like the UN, or NATO or any other international body -except they don't get to run our country!)

Friday, 22 February 2019

The Arrogance Of Power

Fancy that, the people of a democratic country giving a clear and unequivocal message to their representatives and expecting that to mean something! We are very much in a post democracy democracy, and elections are just an old fashioned way of selecting MP's. These MP's then join the club in Westminster and, with no reference to their constituencies, do what their party tells them.

In this way they stand the best chance of progressing their career, which is to talk and make contacts for their own enrichment. They call this Centrist politics and convince themselves this gets them the most votes. What they mean though is business as usual, no one rock the boat - a cosy cabal to, again make the most of the career ambitions of MP's.

Naturally, being a form of corruption (and after seeing with Tony Blair, just how ineffective British law is at dealing with political corruption), it attracts devious and very low quality individuals. It doesn't have to be like this, it just allows it to happen.

Covering the lightweights like a security blanket is the actual government of the UK, in Brussels. They make the laws, Westminster nods them through, concentrating mainly on pursuing power and money. The lack of attention allows the EU leadership to progress, or even accelerate the political goal of the EU project; to convert the whole of Europe into a dictatorship under their control.

And then along comes Brexit. Of course the MP's at first try to ignore it, but it turns out the British people have awoken from the torpor that allowed such abuse of their trust. Apparently, they still believe that MP's should do what the people tell them!

It threatens to open up so many of their little secrets, this terrifying rebirth of interest in what politicians do. They nearly managed to smother the expenses scandal (or entitlement as they see it) by threatening the media, but it broke. The outrage didn't last and they renamed their (lack of) oversight as a sign that things had (not) changed. The return to political apathy was expected and manna from heaven.

But the other underground political project was also starting to annoy people and coming into sharper focus. This is the quiet push by Marxists to destroy capitalism, working through the institutions to undermine the way our country is run. This thrust by the Left ensures racism is always to the fore and they promote racial tension. They do the same with sexuality, homosexuals and the more recent modish trends are the direct result of promotion by Marxists, who care not a jot for these people.

The most talked about and apparent tool used by Marxism of course, is Political Correctness. This is a construct to stifle debate. In short it can be summed up by its supporting phrase "you can't say that". The other really important aspect was the destruction of education. If you look at North Korea, North Vietnam during the war there and all other communist regimes, they hate educated people to the extent that they are prepared to kill them.

The reason is that people taught and indeed expected to think for themselves will forever stop Marxism, because it is such an empty and elitist creed. This is why our schools now turn out children who, after in excess of 11 years of schooling are often functionally innumerate and illiterate. I know of a youngster who thinks that Ireland (her heritage) is part of the UK and she is from a good family and should be highly intelligent.

Back to Brexit. This simple matter, to leave an organisation to which Britain is uniquely unable to fit, has exposed many of the politicians for what they truly are. The Remainers, who agreed to abide by the referendum result, who campaigned in a general election to honour the will of the people have never had any such intention. They try to hide it, but they have nothing but contempt for people who disagree with them. Hence the endless, childish tantrums from the likes of the detestable Anna Soubry.

The Remainers have claimed, without any supporting evidence that the pro-Brexit campaigners have lied, that they had massive mystery donors, that the Russians interfered with the vote and that they broke the law by different campaign groups colluding. The truth of course is that the Remainers had enormous resources, with funds from the UK government and the EU (talk about interference!) and from big business that always profits from the EU. The Russians did some spoofing internet stuff, that almost no one saw.

As far as colluding campaign groups is concerned, Leave have proven this to be false, but the evidence has been ignored by the pro-Remain Electoral Commission who have also ignored clear and present evidence that Remain did and on a much larger scale than was even alleged, about Leave.

Project Fear in its many incarnations is the biggest lie factory of the whole affair. Before the referendum we had government telling us we faced an immediate recession and massive job losses if we dared go against them and vote to Leave. Being less stupid than most politicians the public went ahead and voted for the best outcome for the UK.

Having offended the elite with our opinion, they continue to spout the most ridiculous nonsense about isolation and huge price rises, shortages and companies unable to sell to the EU countries. All this happening without having any affect on the EU, who will continue to be as rich and successful as they currently are. (This is undoubtedly true, if by the EU you are exclusively referring to the likes of Juncker, Barnier and all the other bureaucrats).

Lets do what Soubry and the cabal of Losers don't do; be clear. There is no Demos in Europe, we are not all alike. The arrogant French and Germans, for their own benefit have crushed the southern European economies and then, to maintain their power, interfered in these countries internal politics. And why not? Surely, soon Brussels will not interfere, they will dictate.

We have different laws; in Britain everything is legal unless we agree to make something illegal. The Continental system demands that everything is illegal, unless the State makes it otherwise. This fundamental, democratic political fact is what is most annoying the Losers right now. That the people here, still get to tell them what to do.

Why do you think, after whining that there should be a second referendum (that they intended to corrupt), those who have deserted their parties recently, are not keen (at all) to go back to their voters - as the situation really has changed in their case - and ask if they still want them as their MP?

No, if we wanted a trading bloc to ensure our future prosperity, we wouldn't have joined the Common Market we would have formed an Anglosphere alliance. This would be a trading bloc that spoke the same language, had similar laws and traditions. Usefully, it also happens to be spread right across the world. Ted Heath though, wasn't thinking like that. He fully knew and understood he was joining a political project that was secretly working on a bureaucrats wet dream - a dictatorship they run.

He lied to the British people and our country, weak from weak leadership ran into the embrace of the EU and its apparent largesse. Look at every other country (except France and Germany) and when they joined the EU; when they were on their knees. France and Germany of course, were going to run it, so had locked in their power and profitability from the start.

Seriously, March 29th can't come soon enough. Oh, and don't fall for the latest 'can't leave on No Deal' meme. What they actually are doing is engineering that outcome and telling you it will be a catastrophe (like the one after the referendum?), so we don't actually leave. Two things; many, many deals are already in place to cover such an eventuality (the Losers are in partnership with the EU on hiding this, naturally) and EU businesses will not roll over if there is no specific, over-arching deal.

Is being out of the EU a promise of wealth and greatness? No, us rational types don't go in for that sort of thing. But we will no longer be shackled to a corrupt corpse of a dictatorship.

Friday, 25 January 2019

Question Time

Fiona Bruce seems to be settling in to her role and acting as a proper referee, rather than Dimbleby and his attempts to show he was the cleverest person in the room. Bruce certainly appears to have quickly learned that the Left bias she showed in her first programme doesn't protect her from that Wings' hate mob.

Last night was interesting though. Nick Ferrari was OK and made useful and verifiable points as did Suella Braverman and the audience generally responded well to their points.  But then there was Labour's Healy. Oh good grief. Proof that neither Cambridge nor a BA (politics though) signifies intelligence any more. Party line doctrinaire crap.

Then the mad looking and sounding marketing guy, who in typical Leftie fashion shouted over people he disagreed with as soon as they started talking. He was pretty sure Dyson is a hypocrite (and had to be shut up by Fiona before he uttered clearly made up, libellous stuff), going on to say that his company was set up in Ireland specifically to be in the EU. Or maybe it was more because of the tax incentives they offer companies?

But best of all, was ranty Sonia Sodha, who writes for The Observer. Repeating the tired, cliched tripe we and she have heard before as if it represented useful input. After Suella had given a fairly comprehensive overview as to why there won't be any problems with traffic through Dover, all sourced, Sonia had one of her fits.

Of course the boss of Calais would say there won't be any delays, she averred. Don't know what particular bias she was attributing to him. Maybe she thought that he thought that any suggestion of delays at Calais would lead to traffic going to another port. Where they wouldn't face EU mandated delays?

Being French and as part of an organisation that has received EU funding, I would have considered him unlikely to be keen to stick his head above the parapet.

Sonia also had a couple of stabs at convincing us that Dyson building an HQ in Singapore and moving 2 of his 4000 UK workforce there, made him a hypocrite for backing Brexit. Luckily there was a child in the audience who absolutely skewered her (it is usual to feel that a child knows more about life and the real world than a Marxist, but nice to see it in action!).

He queried whether what she was saying was that Dyson should make business decisions based on sentimentality, rather that moving into and developing new and expanding markets for his products in the Far East. Queue Sonia doing an impression of a fish. She also got agitated by people with different views from hers, being allowed to talk.

The audience, apart from the well-fed woman at the front who was clearly a plant, could not understand why politicians are engineering so many problems.

To end with Dyson though. How can it be hypocritical to believe the UK should break free of the shackles of the backward, stifling political project of the EU and start trading with the whole world and so build infrastructure elsewhere that Europe?