We were prepared for it, but it was none the less gut-wrenching when it came. Tony Blair's Millennium display as the new century struck was every bit as awful as feared. The whole programme also demonstrated the monumental incompetence of the 'Cool Britannia' of New Labour. The 'Big Wheel' wouldn't work. A Thames firework display was over almost before onlookers had had a chance to catch sight of it. Transport to and from the scene of the London celebrations was almost non-existent. People found themselves queueing for hours for Dome 'experiences' that lasted barely five minutes. And to cap it all, and despite a lot of public relations 'spin' from the Dome gang, attendances in the weeks following have been far down on what was confidently forecast - most likely a testimony to the sub-standard rip-off that has been provided, as word has got around that the whole show is a gigantic waste of money and time.

Predictably, there was very little about either the Dome or the Millennium display that was British - appropriate to a structure built by a Japanese company based in the U.S.A. Perhaps the defining moment came when a large negress led the singing of a jazzed-up version of the national anthem - truly symbolic of everything the Blair government stands for.

And this whole damned jamboree cost £758 million, which includes, of course fat pay packets and bonuses for the officials in charge. Meanwhile, NHS patients are lying on trolleys in hospital corridors as the service grinds almost to a halt for lack of funds.

And at the end of it all, just what was there to celebrate? Looking at Britain's position in the world at the end of the 20th century, and comparing it with that at the beginning, what was called for was a quiet and sober stocktaking of our decline, ending with a declaration of resolve to mend our ways and do better in the 100 years to come. This would have been far more appropriate than the mindless razzamatazz that we witnessed on New Year's Eve, vibrating to the tom-toms that perfectly symbolised our national degradation.

Rapists welcome!

For all the demonstrations by well-meaning ladies outside courts and government buildings, there was never any possibility that boxer Mike Tyson would be denied entry into Britain.

Tyson - just to remind everyone - is a convicted rapist. Before his misadventure with a certain Miss Washington that landed him in jail on a three-year sentence, he had had a criminal record as long as your arm as a mugger and young tearaway in general on the streets of New York City. Britain's laws empower the Home Secretary to bar from this country would-be foreign visitors whose presence here is deemed not conducive to the public good. If ever there was a case for these laws to be enforced, it was that of Tyson. But of course they were not.

Tyson, you see, is a black super-hero who happens to be - or at least was - the world's most fearsome heavyweight. His god-like status among certain sections of the population was underlined when he did a walkabout in Brixton during his visit. To the idolatrous crowds who welcomed him there, his life as sexual attacker and thug seemed to matter not a jot. Many even urged him to come and settle in Britain permanently. Far from the thought of this disturbing our political chiefs, it would almost certainly give them a thrill and be taken as a compliment to the country they have created. Indeed, one could even envision Mr. Tyson being on the short list for New Year's honours after a token residence here. Think how many votes that would win!

While Tyson is apparently persona grata in Britain, a number of perfectly decent, law-abiding foreign nationals are banned from entry. They include Americans such as Dr. William Pierce and Mr. Fred Leuchter, who have never broken any law, theirs or ours, but who happen to have the wrong kinds of political views and associations. And right now, the Home Office has put out an alert for a young man called Germar Rudolf, a German professor of Chemistry, who is thought to be living somewhere in the South of England. He, like the others, has given this country no trouble and is not thought likely to do. But, if found, he will be immediately arrested and deported back to Germany for no other reason than that he has a theory about alleged wartime exterminations that is verboten in that country and for which he is wanted by its thought-police. Yes, and Britain, which is supposed to pride itself on being a refuge of 'freedom' for oppressed peoples of other lands, is giving its full collaboration to the Germans in this witch-hunt.

Now if Rudolf were black, and merely a rapist...

Queers in uniform: Where is the Tory protest?

The European Court of Human Rights rules that Britain's armed forces must allow the recruitment of known and self acknowledged homosexuals - contrary to all tradition and the wisdom of experience. And what does our Government do? Like an obedient spaniel, it wags its tail and complies. Well, that of course was to be expected. But what of the Tory opposition? So far, we have heard not a peep of protest, and in fact information has it that the Tories are acquiescing in the move - though without too much fuss, lest it upset some of their grass-roots supporters.

In the meantime, there is a related issue - that of Clause 28, introduced by the Thatcher Government years ago to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in schools (one of the few good things that government did). New Labour now wants to get rid of the Clause and once more let homophiles run riot in the classroom. But again, where is the opposition? A Daily Mail leader commented on January 25th:-

"There is a disturbing silence at the heart of British politics: Where do William Hague and the Conservative front bench stand on Clause 28 and the fight to prevent its repeal?

"After all, the Tory Party is nothing if not the party of the family. And as the Bishop of Liverpool pointed out yesterday, Clause 28 seeks to prevent the promotion in schools of a gay lifestyle as a moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Yet what do we hear from the Tory leader? Nothing."

Well, it could just be that by the time this copy reaches the reader Mr. Hague may have felt pressure from his backbenchers and rank-and-file party members sufficiently for him to voice some token opposition to this outrageous piece of proposed legislation, but the fact remains that he is supposed to be Tory leader. Of course, we should not be surprised at any of this, remembering that one of his first moves after being given that job was to vote in the Commons in favour of the lowering of the homo age of consent. Why then is young William so soft on this issue? Opinions will be welcome.

'Gay rights' and the Nazis: the Cardinal gets in a muddle

Of course, once an argument gets going, sooner or later the Nazis are going to be brought into it - however irrelevantly. With the row going over Clause 28, Cardinal Winning, the Scottish Catholic Primate, took a swipe at 'gay rights' activists last month by saying:-

"All over Europe, an active and militant homosexual lobby is pushing for greater power, and the threat to the Christian family is very real."

So far so good, and well said, the Cardinal! But wait - there's more. He drew parallels between the push for greater 'gay' freedom and the bombing of the George Cross island, Malta, by Germany and Italy during the war. Comparing 'gay' advocates with the Nazis, he went on:-

"Cast your minds back to the dark days of the war. The parallels with today are striking. In place of the bombs of 50 years ago, you find yourselves bombarded with images, values and ideas which are utterly alien."

Now just what connection the 'gay rights' campaign has with the bombing of Malta in the war seems rather obscure. As for the Nazis, whatever may be said against them they were certainly no champions of 'gay rights.' Quite the contrary, the fate that awaited people of that ilk was despatch to a concentration camp.

This is said with no moral observations or judgements, just as a statement of fact. But excited clerics tend to have a way of losing contact with facts, even when making assertions that are basically right.

The party that despises the body

It comes as no surprise whatever to hear that Labour has ratted on its election promise to stop the sell-offs of school playing fields all over the country. Far from preventing such sell-offs, government ministers have approved 101 applications out of 103 from local authorities over the past 15 months.

A scandal blew up over this wanton sacrifice of open spaces for games that had been sanctioned under the previous Tory Government. The result, of course, is that British schoolchildren simply are not getting the healthy exercise essential for their proper development. Organised sport is at the lowest level among the young that it has been for many decades. We are churning out people flabby in body and mind, unfit for service in the armed forces and wholly incapable of standing up to international sporting competition.

But all this should have been expected. Labour's whole philosophy is one that downgrades the importance of bodily health and fitness in favour of so-called 'intellect' - not that there is much sign of development in that sector either, as 'modern' teaching, combined with a diet of cultural garbage supplied by television, is breeding legions of morons lacking in resources either physical or mental.

It is well at this point to recall what was said in the British National Party's Election Manifesto for 1997:-

"Where necessary, sports and physical training must be restored to a place of high priority in the school curriculum."

And it is indeed going to be very necessary in a great number of places when the rebuilding of Britain begins!

Learning the hard way

Cheryl Mason was an 'enlightened' and 'progressive-minded' lady living in the Isle of Wight who eagerly believed in the multiracial society. And Cheryl really practised what she believed in! She ditched her husband and three children in favour of a Masai tribesman she had met when holidaying in Kenya. She brought the tribesman, Daniel Lekimenju, to Britain and shacked up with him for nearly five years, thinking that love would conquer all.

But eventually she had admit defeat, saying that she had been forced to bow to the massive cultural gap. She confessed:-

"I used to defend our relationship against the severest critics. Now I'd warn any girl in a similar situation to think twice. Love isn't always the answer."

Those close to the couple said that they were constantly rowing. Cheryl confirmed:-

"We've been at each other's throats for a year and we just can't take it any more. We've decided the only option is to separate."

Daniel claimed that the break-up was the result of a 'lack of respect' from his wife. Perhaps what happened was that Cheryl eventually discovered - horror of horrors! - that she was a bit of a 'racist'. Sad ending, but educative nevertheless.

Hollywood rewrites history - its own

Remember how in Stalin's Russia, someone who fell foul of the regime was written out of history and became a non-person, with his face even being doctored out of photographs. Well, this has now happened to the great film-maker D.W. Griffith. The Director's Guild of Hollywood is scrapping its prestigious Griffith Award because the man was a 'racist'.

Griffith, film buffs will know, produced Birth of a Nation in 1915, a film which had some good things to say about the Ku Klux Klan. Even people who didn't like the Klan acknowledged this as one of the greatest-ever classics. But, says Jack Shea, the Guild's president, Griffith "helped foster intolerable racial stereotypes," and "as we approach a new Millennium, the time is right to create a new ultimate honour for film directors that better reflects the sensibilities of our society at this time."