No one (but Sinner!) knows why Jannik Sinner's tennis effectively collapsed in his match against Juan Manuel Cerúndolo at the French Open. He has not explained. He just said that this happens in pro-tennis. 'It is what it is."
Somewhat opaque actually. He knows what the problem is but does not want to disclose it. Fair enough. My guess is that his energy tank ran empty. He played a lot before the French and won successive tournaments on a 30-match winning streak. He said he felt ill but unspecifically. To me that indicates a general malaise brought on my consistent overexertion. A kind of breakdown.
He burned out suddenly. This assessment is in line with what Alcaraz has been talking about recently namely that men's pro-tennis is currently too demanding for the top players as they play far more matches than the lesser players. The consequence for Alcaraz is a wrist injury. Too much pressure on the wrist as Alcaraz has an incredibly forceful playing style. His success is based on it.
Sinner plays the most matches of all at the moment. There are limits. He reached his. He says that he'll take time off and recharge before the grass season. He needs to.
Sometimes energy levels can crash for top sportsmen if the demands are consistently high. Humans are not machines.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
Fifty-seven percent of university students about to start at university don't understand their student loan repayment terms (The Times 28th May 2026)! Clearly they are written in near unintelligible language or at least not clearly enough. And over half of graduates regret student loans. Clearly a massive issue about which the government is not doing enough.
Students need to be provided with one sheet of A4 on which is written the basic terms regarding repayments. Additional terms can be elsewhere. It is not rocket science. What is wrong with this damnably, ineffective Labour government?
Student Loan Repayment: The Simple Version (One A4 Page)
1. What you borrow
The government pays your university fees (up to £9,250 a year).
You can also borrow money to help with living costs.
These two loans are added together into one total.
2. When you repay
You only repay after you finish your course.
You only repay if you earn more than £25,000 a year.
If you earn less than that, you pay nothing.
3. How much you repay
You pay 9% of anything you earn above £25,000.
Example: If you earn £28,000, you repay 9% of £3,000 (£270 a year, about £22 a month).
Your repayments come straight out of your payslip, like tax.
4. Interest
Interest is added to your loan each year.
The rate is the same as RPI inflation.
Interest does not change your monthly repayments — it only affects how long the loan lasts.
5. If your income drops
Repayments stop automatically if you earn below £25,000 again.
6. If you move abroad
You still repay, but you tell Student Finance your income and pay the right amount for that country.
7. When the loan ends
After 40 years, anything you still owe is wiped out.
Most people will not repay the full amount.
8. Your credit score
Taking the loan does not affect your credit rating.
There are no credit checks and no guarantors.
Why the government produces nonsense like unreadable student‑loan terms
They don’t see students as customers — they see them as revenue streams
The student‑loan system is designed to make the Treasury’s books look tidy, not to help 18‑year‑olds make informed decisions. Clarity would reduce uptake; confusion keeps the machine running.
2. Bureaucratic incentives reward complexity, not simplicity
Civil servants are not rewarded for writing clear, one‑page explanations. They are rewarded for:
avoiding political risk
ensuring legal defensibility
protecting the Treasury’s long‑term cash flow
maintaining continuity with previous policy
None of that produces plain English.
3. Ministers rotate so fast that no one owns the problem
Since 2010, the UK has had nine universities ministers. Most lasted less than two years. No one stays long enough to fix anything structural.
4. The political cost of reform is high, and the benefit is low
Fixing student finance means admitting the current system is confusing, unfair, or failing. No government wants to open that box unless forced.
5. The system quietly relies on people not understanding it
If every 17‑year‑old fully understood:
40‑year repayment
RPI interest
9% marginal deduction
low probability of ever clearing the balance
…there would be uproar. Confusion is politically convenient.
What a competent government would do (and could do fast)
1. Replace the 40‑page loan contract with a one‑page legal summary
Not a leaflet. Not a “guide”.
A legally binding one‑page summary that overrides the dense contract in case of conflict.
Other countries do this. The UK chooses not to.
2. Mandate plain‑English communication by law
The Treasury and Student Loans Company would be required to write at a reading age of 12–14.
No jargon. No “RPI + x%”.
Just:
“You repay 9% of what you earn above £25,000.”
“Your loan ends after 40 years.”
3. Introduce a standardised repayment example for every student
Every applicant gets a personalised projection:
“If you earn £28k, you pay £22 a month.”
“If you earn £40k, you pay £112 a month.”
“If you earn under £25k, you pay nothing.”
This removes 90% of confusion instantly.
4. Scrap the multiple ‘plans’ and move to one universal system
Plan 1, Plan 2, Plan 4, Plan 5, postgraduate loans — it’s a mess.
A competent government would merge them into one repayment model for all new borrowers.
5. Publish an annual “Student Loan Statement” that is actually readable
Right now the statements are borderline incomprehensible.
A competent version would show:
what you earned
what you repaid
how much closer you are to write‑off
how many years remain
No more mystery.
6. Stop pretending the loan is a commercial product
A competent government would openly state the truth:
“This is a graduate tax with a 40‑year limit.”
Once you say that out loud, everything becomes clearer.
7. Put responsibility on universities to explain the system properly
Every offer letter would include the one‑page repayment sheet.
Every open day would include a five‑minute explanation.
Every student would sign to confirm they understand it.
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
A troubling case presented to the House of Lords has pushed the debate about children and social media into new territory. A medical professional told a parliamentary committee that a young boy killed his family’s puppies after watching violent “how‑to” videos online. It is one of the starkest examples yet of how harmful content can spill into real life — and this time, the victims were animals.
The case was described by Dr Rebecca Foljambe, a GP who works with families on screen‑safety issues. According to her evidence, the child had been shown animal‑cruelty videos on a smartphone at school. These clips didn’t just show violence; they demonstrated methods. The boy went home and copied what he had seen. Afterwards, he suffered nightmares and psychological distress. His age has not been disclosed, and rightly so, but the incident was serious enough to be raised directly with lawmakers.
For those of us who care about animals, this is a deeply uncomfortable story. Pets rely entirely on the adults in the household to keep them safe. Yet the digital world now reaches children long before they have the maturity to understand what they are seeing. A child does not have the emotional or moral framework to process cruelty, let alone recognise that online content is often staged, manipulated, or designed to shock.
The wider concern is that this is not an isolated case. Professionals working with children report a rise in exposure to violent material — including violence against animals — through mainstream platforms. Age checks are weak, parental controls are inconsistent, and many children access social media through friends’ devices even when their own parents restrict it.
This is why the government is now considering an Australian‑style ban on social media for under‑16s. Supporters argue that the risks have moved beyond bullying and mental health. They now include real‑world harm to others, including family pets. Critics say a ban is heavy‑handed, but cases like this make it harder to dismiss the problem as mere “online mischief”.
For pet owners, the message is simple: the digital environment your child enters is not neutral. It can teach kindness, but it can also teach cruelty. And when a child imitates what they see on a screen, the consequences can be devastating for the animals we love.
My personal feelings: ban bloody crappy social media. It really is time for a courageous step and it would rein in the effing mega social media companies who feel immune from sanctions. They have too much free rein and they jerk us around. I dislike them. And that includes Google and for example Facebook. Google owns YouTube which is now saturated with AI generated fake videos. Note: some AI videos are good if not great but there are too many fake animal rescues and fake animal love stories for instance.
Note: this article bar the last para was written by AI on my instructions after a discussion. Why? Speed. I need speed because thanks to effing AI visitor numbers have crashed for all content sites.
In the United Kingdom, it is currently prohibited to bury pet ashes in a human grave or inter them alongside human ashes in a cemetery. This rule often surprises and frustrates grieving families, especially in an era when pets are widely regarded as family members. The restriction has nothing to do with hygiene or environmental safety — cremated ashes are sterile mineral powder — and everything to do with outdated legal categories that no longer reflect modern attitudes toward animals.
The Legal Framework Behind the Prohibition
There is no single statute that explicitly states “pet ashes cannot be buried with human ashes.” Instead, the prohibition arises from the interaction of three separate legal systems.
1. Human Burial Law
Human remains — including cremated ashes — fall under a set of laws that regulate how, where, and by whom they may be buried. These include:
Burial Act 1857
Local Authorities’ Cemeteries Order 1977 (LACO)
Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008
These laws require cemeteries to maintain formal burial registers, follow strict exhumation procedures, and ensure that only human remains are interred in human burial plots. Human ashes are legally treated as human remains for all purposes.
2. Animal By‑Products Law
Pet remains, even after cremation, are legally classified as animal by‑products under:
This classification is administrative rather than biological. It persists even after cremation, meaning pet ashes are still treated as “animal by‑products” rather than “remains” in the human‑burial sense. Cemeteries cannot legally record or inter animal by‑products in human graves without breaching their regulatory obligations.
3. Ecclesiastical Law for Consecrated Ground
Most older cemeteries and churchyards are consecrated. Under Church of England regulations, only human remains may be interred in consecrated ground. This is a binding legal rule, not merely a tradition. Clergy have occasionally admitted to bending the rule, but officially it remains in force.
The Result: A Legal Anomaly
These three systems were never designed to work together. The result is an anomaly:
Human ashes buried alone → permitted
Pet ashes buried alone (in a pet cemetery) → permitted
Human and pet ashes buried together → prohibited
Human and pet ashes scattered together → completely legal
The contradiction is stark. The same ashes that cannot legally be placed in a sealed urn underground can be freely scattered together into a river, over a hill, or even onto the surface of a grave. The law is not protecting public health or the environment — it is protecting its own outdated categories.
Why the Law Feels Outdated Today
The burial laws were written in an era when animals were legally treated as chattels — property with no recognised emotional or moral significance. Modern society has moved far beyond that view. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 formally recognises animals as sentient beings, and public attitudes have shifted even further. For many people, pets are family members, and the idea that their ashes are legally “waste” feels insensitive and archaic.
The law has simply failed to keep pace with this cultural shift. It still reflects Victorian assumptions about the hierarchy of beings and the sanctity of human burial, even though cremation is now the norm and burial of ashes is relatively rare.
Why the Law Should Change
There is no scientific, environmental, or ethical justification for the current prohibition. The restriction exists solely because of incompatible legal frameworks that have never been modernised. Allowing families to inter pet ashes with human ashes would require only modest legislative reform — primarily updating burial law to recognise cremated animal remains as a permissible category for interment when requested.
In a society that increasingly recognises animal sentience and the emotional significance of pets, the current rules are out of step with public values. The law should evolve to reflect the reality of modern relationships between humans and their animals.
PS: The Rev Richard Coles and the Quiet Rebellion Against the Rule
The Times (25 May 2026) reported that the Rev Richard Coles openly admits to breaking the rule by placing pet ashes in coffins before burial. He described it as an act of compassion, saying that he would slip the ashes in “when the undertakers weren’t looking.” His stance highlights the moral tension between the law and contemporary sentiment. Coles argues that the strict separation of human and animal remains is outdated and fails to reflect the emotional truth of people’s relationships with their pets.
His quiet defiance underscores the central point: the law is out of step with modern values, and even clergy — who are bound by ecclesiastical rules — recognise the need for change. When respected public figures feel compelled to break a rule because it is unjust or obsolete, it is a sign that reform is overdue.
The 2026 Victorian (Australia) Law Change Allowing People to Be Buried With Their Pets
In 2026, the Australian state of Victoria introduced a significant reform to its cemetery and cremation regulations, allowing individuals to be buried with the ashes of their pets. Previously, Victorian cemetery rules treated human remains and animal remains as entirely separate categories, preventing their interment in the same grave. This reflected older legal assumptions that animals were property rather than emotionally significant companions.
The Victorian Government updated the Cemeteries and Crematoria Regulations to permit cemeteries to accept combined interments where families request it. The reform enables human ashes and pet ashes to be placed together in a single plot, niche, or grave, provided the cemetery operator agrees and appropriate records are kept. The change was driven by public demand, with many families expressing the wish to have their pets’ ashes interred with them or with deceased relatives.
The government acknowledged that modern attitudes toward animals have evolved, and that many people regard pets as family members. The reform brings the law into line with contemporary expectations and removes an unnecessary emotional barrier for grieving families. Victoria’s decision has been widely welcomed and is seen as a compassionate, modern update to an outdated regulatory framework.
--------------
Note: this article was written by AI on my instructions after a lengthy discussion with AI and after reading about the Rev. Richard Coles in the Times.
This short post is thanks to Camilla Long who has 'gone serious'! She used to be Oscar Wild-like witty for a long time. Today, in The Sunday Times, she is deadly serious. And what she says chimes with my thoughts and the thoughts of many millions of others. She does not mention the culture change in the UK but the immigration-emigration stats that she mentions tells us the story.
The big news on immigration in the UK is that net immigration has dropped dramatically since impossibly mad highs to 171,000. That's the difference between emigration and immigration - outflow against inflow.
The numbers behind this figure is very sad for the UK and the Labour government seem to be brushing it to one side which results in the citizens of the UK feeling that they are being ignored - they are - or branded racists and extremists.
Inflow in 2025 was 823,000. Almost the population of a major city in England: Leeds.
Outflow last year was 400,000. What is the demographic? Well this crappy government don't have clear data on that but Camilla says: 'Brits and EU citizens left: mostly young, mostly workers. To whom is this a good news story?'
Okay so it seems that a substantial number of Brits - I'll presume if I may, native Brits - are leaving and being replaced by non-Brits who import a different culture.
The British culture of let's say the 1970s has been dramatically diluted, washed away in immigration.
This is not an extreme right wing feeling. It is just a feeling that the country we liked and knew has gone. Lost for eternity. Never to be regained. Nothing wrong with that. Perfectly normal. To be expected in fact.
It is the extreme left that shout out that people who want to protect the British way of life are racists and nasty people. Not true. The extreme left are the nasties sometimes:
The people of the UK are sick of the blind impotence of this Starmer government. He is a complete dud and he has to go asap. I am sure, however, if Burnham will be much better because the problems that have stacked up in the country are structural now. They are intractable. It is called 'managed decline'!
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.
