December will see the end of May, the weak and wobbly Prime Minister

THE END of the year will bring an end to Theresa May's time as Prime Minister with an epitaph similar to her predecessor, nothing of note.

Why? Because leading the negotiations on Brexit has shown Mrs May up for the hapless leader the nation got a preview of last year but which has been on full cinematic release for most of 2018.

Never before has a Prime Minister been entrusted with something only to deliver an outcome which is going to anger everyone. To my cost I don't have many leave voters in my circle of friends but I would love to know what they think about the farce that is Brexit.

Because let's spell it out, Chequers will not work, the EU will never countenance something which keeps us in the Customs Union but ignores the other pillars such as Freedom of Movement.

There is nothing she can do on the Irish border problem, put one up and risk opening a box which none of us thought had been cemented shut or go without and find the EU giving you another reason to trash your 'deal'.

A 'hard Brexit' where we break free, renounce everything and 'take back control' will not get the support it needs in Parliament with Labour vowing to oppose it.

Leaving us with 'No Deal' - would a Conservative Prime Minister truly push the button on something which could shred our economy to ribbons and plunge us back into a very deep recession.

Everywhere she turns there is a problem not of her own making but equally she's not helped herself in recent weeks. Humiliated in Salzburg, Mrs May came out fighting and urged the EU to get something sorted.

Fine....except for in Brussels where EU chiefs looked around for the 25th different way of saying 'You want to leave, its not for us to make suggestions how you exit.'

And now she wants to extend the post Brexit transition......We're being laughed at and the EU's patience is wearing.

President Macron of France has already relabelled Brexit as a 'political problem' and Mrs May could have the rug pulled out from under her if Michel Barnier et al decide to plan for No Deal.

Politics has need a game changing moment for two years to end this frankly hideous battle of the losers in May vs Corbyn.

Maybe some in the Tories need to tap their leader on the shoulder and say Au Revoir.

Because Brexit means naff all at the moment, the ship is sinking and now is the time for a leader to step up and guide this country back to calmer waters.

Free to air vs Pay TV – A mismatch of the day

TIGER Woods roared back the years last night and almost pulled off a Major victory, remarkable for a golfer who has virtually been rebuilt in the last five years.

What do you mean you didn’t see it? Didn’t you watch it all on Facebook then on the streaming site Eleven Sports? No of course you didn’t because sports fans want TV broadcasts not to be huddled round their laptops.

The debate over free to air versus Pay TV has raged for more than decade in most sports and for almost three decades in football.

Sky Sports swiping of the new Premier League in 1992 did indeed herald ‘A Whole New Ball Game’ for football fans on the pitch and in front of their television sets.

Nothing much has changed, challengers have come and gone while BT Sport now appear to be on the pitch for good.

Not a single match since then has been free for all to enjoy, why should Sky give something away when the price they pay is so high?

Cricket has long fretted over the departure of the game almost completely to Sky in this country while golf bosses in the US were so determined this weekend’s PGA Championship wouldn’t get wall to wall coverage on Sky Sports dedicated golf channel they sold the rights to a fledgling streaming service.

But the rules of the game appear to be ‘boo Sky for pricing the beloved BBC/ITV out of the market’ when in truth it’s the attitude of our major terrestrial broadcasters to sport in the last 30 years which created the corporate giant Sky has become today.

Back in 1988, you got one English top flight match a week plus Match of the Day, very little Football League and barely anything below that. Now it’s at least four top flight games, multiple offerings from the Football League while the National League is covered in depth by BT Sport.

Sky’s investment made that possible, turned average players into millionaires and spawned the cash cow that is the Premier League. But equally it’s the Premier League who seek pound after extra pound when they sell the ‘Greatest League in the World’.

Surely one of the packages could be made available to a terrestrial broadcaster? After all CBS in the
US show games from the National Football League on Sunday afternoon while NBC take over in prime time.

The same goes for cricket, the ECB could make a package solely available for terrestrial viewers but choose to chase cash from Sky et al.

And then what about the terrestrial broadcasters themselves? While live sport starts at a specific time, its conclusion isn’t always fixed which gives the BBC its annual Wimbledon headache.

Remember the BBC and Channel 4 often went horse racing on Saturday afternoons during the test match, Channel 4 ended coverage of delayed test matches to show Hollyoaks and The Simpsons while last year’s BBC coverage of the US PGA Championship was done so cheaply it was a wonder we even saw the winning putt.

The only way this mismatch of the day can be resolved is if those at the top of these sports put people before vast profit and any new terrestrial kids on the block can commit to coverage as good as Pay TV provides now.

Not easy when budgets are squeezed and pressure to sell adverts is at its height.

So the next time someone with sport complains about the lack of free to air coverage ask yourself, what are they doing to achieve the right result?

How to solve a problem like Brexit - the speech Mrs May could make

IN 2016 British voters took an historic decision; a majority of voters asked us, their Government, to execute their wish to leave the European Union.

It was unprecedented, it was a shock but it was also something this Government had simply not prepared for. For that, as your Prime Minister, I am sorry.

We didn’t recognise the anger you felt, the frustration with not getting a GP’s appointment, the inability to get on the housing ladder or your opinions on immigration.

We let those who promised you the earth and delivered little dominate the discussion while we offered nothing but scare tactics.

We called for unity to deliver Brexit but didn’t recognise the anger felt by those who wish to remain.

We didn’t listen, but we will learn.

The past two years has been riven with arguments, fall outs and scenes which have done little to re-establish trust in Parliament and elected MPs.

We now stand on the cliff edge, it is clear we will struggle to achieve a deal which will achieve what those who voted for us to leave wanted - a clean break with the European Union.

As Prime Minister I believe anything short of this would betray all those who voted in the
referendum, it would not deliver what Leave voters wanted and would never be accepted by remain supporters.

Therefore, as we asked for the people’s opinion on our relationship with the European Union we should now ask whether we should leave with no deal or remain.

I will ask Parliament to legislate for a vote this autumn; should it be approved then the choice will be simple, to leave or remain.

If your wish is to leave, your Government will exit the European Union on March 29 next year with no deal for the reasons I have stated above.

We will achieve the aims of a majority of voters who asked us to leave the European Union but we risk a period of economic uncertainty as we attempt to forge a new path in the world.

We will use the remaining months of our membership to put steps in place to ensure on day one of Britain’s Brexit, our banks will open, our supermarkets will be stocked and our flights will take off.

However, should you vote to remain, I give you my assurance it will not lead to further integration such as Schengen and there will be no debate or referendum on joining the Euro.

We will seek to reform the EU from within, proposing legislation to retain freedom of movement both in and out of our country but ensuring each of the member states can control immigration to benefit their individual economies.

We will seek to deliver better outcomes for our farmers, our fishermen and all those who find their daily work burdened by EU red tape.

We will oppose further attempts at integration with the threat of a further referendum. One which will be unambiguous, legally binding and require a super majority of 55-45 per cent.

Should it be needed, this result will be definitive and mean any further Conservative Government will not make the mistakes of the past and will deliver the clean break requested.

Let me be clear, a vote to remain would not be a continuation of the status-quo but an invitation to reform a deeply flawed institution.

Brexit has divided this nation for two years, it has put further strain on an already fractious union and has all but paralysed your Government.

The time for talking is over, now it is time to make that leap one way or another.

Britain deserves better, let us deliver together.

Don't 'get over' grief, learn to live with it

I'VE thought long and hard about writing this blog, because part of me believes some things can be left off the internet.

But today would have been my mum's 75th birthday and knowing her, we'd have thrown an awfully nice affair with the family she cherished and friends she adored.

Instead I will join my dad by her grave, something we have done on June 14 ever since she was given her wings on that February morning and rose to the heavens.

It's a lie to say we 'want' to be there, neither of us want this bloody heartache which still remains nearly 28 months on. But at the same time, I'm thankful she is out of the pain and the suffering brought on by the dementia which dimmed the bulbs of one of the shining lights in my life.

And that is the paradox of grief, you don't want the pain but you don't want the suffering to continue, consoling yourself that wherever their spirit has wandered off to, it's a land of immortality where pain and illness are not on the menu.

I'd only lost grandparents before, somehow that grief was bearable because hey they are older than you so it rings true they will be leaving this earth before you.

But I've struggled since February 23 2016, when my mum was taken from me, with the emotional void in my head and heart. It makes no sense, I have a wonderful dad and a wife I love and treasure who has given me a beautiful son who I am devoted to.

I've encountered insomnia, I've felt a rage at within me at times that if I unleashed would cause something serious damage and even guilt I wasn't there at the very end.

I can't accept it on some days, seeing her grandson achieving so much and feeling bitter she isn't around in person to share his adventures.

Yet on the good days, as well as remembering the many joyous times, rational thought sweeps in but this only explains parts of the last two years. My faith tells me God came for her and my mum, who fought many battles over the years, knew we'd be OK in the long run and took His hand to live among the immortals.

Hopefully this will illustrate why we shouldn't 'get over it and move on' - we can't and we shouldn't.

All I ever heard about grief was 'it gets easier'. That's crap.

Nothing about losing someone so important 'gets easier', you learn to try and cope with it, from getting through those painful first moments, through the next hour, day, week, month and ultimately year.

You can be surrounded by all the love in the world but they can't fully understand the emotional turmoil grief can cause. It's a cruel and private loneliness at times.

To anyone who has suffered a loss, may those who have departed sleep well and live on in your hearts forever.

Grieve how you want, not how others tell you.

Happy Birthday Mum xx

Why press freedom matters….if we respect the power we have

YESTERDAY was not a victory for journalism, it should be nothing more than a relief our industry has dodged a bullet which could have claimed us all.

Section 40 of the Data Protection Bill will probably not mean a great deal to many people but could have had dire consequences for print journalism in this country.

Labour had proposed an amendment which would have seen newspapers like the one I work for have to pay both sides of a libel bill, no matter if we won the case or how frivolous the complaint was.

We could have avoided that, by signing up to a state regulator IMPRESS set up by former F1 boss Max Moseley and funded by private benefactors.

So would we like to shoot ourselves in the head or shoot ourselves in the foot? Either way the gun was loaded in favour of those with something to hide.

The nationals may, in time, have reluctantly signed up knowing they had the money to cut through the issues.

But I work for a local family publisher, any money we do make in a tough marketplace is reinvested
in our product.

The rise of the internet and social media means people’s needs are changing and the days of picking up the local paper for all your news are gone. We have had to adapt and keep up and we are doing our best.

This amendment would have meant bad news for local journalism, so often the first port of call for people’s stories of heartache, betrayal and the quest for truth.

But on a national level it would have heavily influenced investigative journalism with editors having to think hard before green lighting a scoop which may have taken months to prepare for fear of costing the company millions.

Think of the disgraceful Rotherham sex abuse scandal, MPs expenses, Cambridge Analytica, Lance Armstrong’s doping and even the Stephen Lawrence case.

Some of those huge stories may never have seen the light has these measures been put in place.

Journalism is a privilege, you have a seat at many important moments and often are rewarded with many special memories to treasure.

But with such power comes a responsibility to print the truth, to do so ethically and to always put people first.

Bad apples at the top forgot about their readers when they hacked phones and printed sheer lies in the desperate bid for sales.

A line was crossed but the solutions imposed since are a one size fits all answer to a cancer which many of us had no knowledge of until the scandal broke.

Change is needed and of course journalism should be regulated, but it should always be free to expose those who have genuinely done wrong.

Is there a solution which will please everyone? I hope so because I believe in my industry, I believe there will be a place for journalism in the future.

What form it takes is unknown thanks to the digital world we live in but one thing will never change.

We don’t exist without the support of our readers, that’s something we all need to remember.