We all know that Tiger Woods is suffering the effects of severe anatomical damage to his body fundamentally due to his extremely physical golf swing. Yes, he also suffers pain from his leg injury from that horrific car crash but at root his pain problems - and consequential opioid pain killer problems - stem from an enormously athletic golf swing generating a huge amount of power which enabled him to launch the golf ball great distances and thereby 'take' golf courses and fire very low scores.
To summarise: Tiger's golf swing was very demanding on his body and eventually it caused great back damaged requiring a lot of surgery and accompanying pain.
Carlos Alcaraz's tennis game has the same foundational problems: hugely athletic and demanding on his body. He is quick and he is rarely beaten by a ball because he forces his body to do exceptional things. He contorts his body and places huge stresses on it.
Despite being in his early 20s he is suffering serious injuries already which has led, recently, to him withdrawing from the Madrid Open. His form has dropped off a little due I would argue to his injuries and perhaps exhaustion. To maintain that level of physicality is exhausting.
Alcaraz told reporters that the injury “is more serious than any of us expected” and said he would “need to listen to my body” to avoid further damage. Wise words. He needs to protect his body going forward.
He has a game style - combined with his enormous natural talent - which will shorten his tennis career. If he modifies his game style to make it less physical he will be notably less successful. Catch 22.
All sports have been progressively more physical and therefore demanding on the anatomy of the sportsmen and women.
This leads to more injuries, more pain in old age after retirement, brain injuries in contact sports and in tennis a demand by the players to curtail the number of tournaments.
Crunch time is coming in golf - time to detune the ball and/or clubs to hit the ball shorter distances - and in tennis - to make is less demanding on the tennis players anatomy.
It should be noted that this argument only applies at present to the men's game. But I suspect that in due course it will apply to women as well.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
There’s been a lot of talk in the UK recently about whether common flea treatments for cats and dogs might soon face new rules. The short version is this: the government is worried that some of the chemicals in popular flea products are ending up in rivers and harming wildlife. They’re now reviewing the situation, but they are not planning a total ban.
The concern centres on two insecticides: fipronil and imidacloprid. These are the active ingredients in many spot‑on flea treatments. They’re very effective at killing fleas, but they’re also extremely toxic to insects in the wider environment. Both chemicals are already banned for outdoor farming use because of the damage they can cause to bees and other pollinators.
So how are they getting into rivers? It turns out that the chemicals don’t just stay on the pet. They can wash off when a cat is bathed, when a dog swims, or even when owners wash their hands after applying the treatment. Wastewater treatment plants can’t remove these substances, so they pass straight through and end up in streams and rivers. Studies have found them in river water, sediments, fish, and even in the nests of wild birds that pick up pet hair for lining.
Because of this, the government is now considering whether flea products should become prescription‑only, meaning you’d need to get them through a vet or a qualified professional rather than buying them freely online or in shops. The aim is to reduce unnecessary routine use and make sure treatments are used only when needed.
Importantly, there is no plan to ban flea treatments altogether. Officials say these medicines are still important for animal health and welfare. The focus is on using them more carefully, not removing them from the market.
For cat owners, nothing changes right now. But it’s worth keeping an eye on the review. If rules do tighten, it may simply mean having a quick chat with your vet before buying your usual flea treatment. The goal is to protect both pets and the environment — and that’s something most of us can get behind.
----------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
1. Only buy from retailers you already know and trust
If you’ve never used the site before, skip it. A familiar and known website beats a flashy new one every time. I buy most of my online stuff (mainly functional items) on Amazon as they have a great returns policy and are reliable with fast delivery (I use Prime). Stick to 2 or 3 online retailers you have used before and trust. Don't branch out and use an unknown retailer because you are likely to be stung.
2. Stick to Amazon — but only sold by Amazon
Amazon’s own stock, own fulfilment, own returns. That’s the safe zone. Use Amazon Prime and don't deviate. I am not trying to promote Amazon. Just trying to avoid pain-in-the-arse scammers of which there are millions nowadays.
There has been a surge in fake retailer websites. Please be aware of this as it is a major problem.
3. Never follow ads to a shop
Not Google ads.
Not Instagram ads.
Not Facebook ads.
If you want Amazon, type amazon.co.uk yourself. That is AI advice. I don't do that. But it might be wise for extra certainty.
4. Treat “too good to be true” as “fake”
A £120 jumper for £39 is not a bargain.
It’s bait. Resist the temptation.
5. Check the domain, not the design
Scam sites look perfect.
Domains don’t lie:
Weird endings = avoid
Odd spellings = avoid
Recently registered = avoid
6. Don’t enter card details anywhere unfamiliar
If you’re hesitating, that’s your answer.
Close the tab.
7. Returns policy tells you everything
If it’s vague, missing, or copied from somewhere else, walk away.
8. When in doubt, don’t buy
There will always be another jumper, another sale, another shop.
Your money is worth more than their trick.
If you ignore this advice (!) here are some tips on checking for a fake website:
How to spot a clone site (even when it looks perfect)
Because the fakes are now extremely polished, the old advice (“look for the padlock”) is no longer enough. The more reliable red flags are:
Too-good-to-be-true pricing (even if only slightly cheaper than normal)
Odd domain endings (.shop, .top, .store, .xyz) or subtle misspellings
No physical address or a generic Gmail contact
No returns policy, or one copied verbatim from another retailer
Stock photos or product images that appear on multiple unrelated sites
Checkout pages that feel “off” or ask for unusual information
No social media presence, or brand accounts created very recently
The explosion in this problem is being fuelled by AI which can create a fake/duplicate website of a well-known retailer to order.
---------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
One benefit of AI - at least until we tire of it - is that there are now a high percentage of videos on YouTube that have been created by artificial intelligence. These videos are everywhere the YouTube website.
And prominent for me are those videos which present the science and thoughts of Richard Feynman. The man was brilliant but these videos are voiced by AI and the script is not written by Feynman but an anonymous - I presume - scientist or scientists. There are copycat versions all over the website too.
The videos explain conclusively and logically using the science of space/time, the speed of light and the vast distances of the universe that aliens cannot get to Earth and we can't get to see them on their planet either - if they exist. We just don't know.
People think there must be alien life out there because there are billions upon billions of opportunities for intelligent life to evolve. But the evolution of the human is astonishing and it is argued extremely rare - it took 3.5 billion years (3500000000)! Perhaps so rare that there is no other version of us or like us anywhere in our galaxy.
But there are 2-3 trillion galaxies! The point is that the science tells us that it is physically impossible or near impossible for aliens from a far off planet to visit planet Earth.
In effect humans on planet Earth are entirely alone in the black void of the silent universe. And we will remain that way for eternity or as long as the species we know as homo sapiens exists (probably a relative short time such as 10,000 more years due to the self-destructive nature of humans).
Here is one of probably hundreds of videos on this topic. I sense that many people are trying to jump on the Feynman bandwagon and creating their own versions of the same physics.
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
For all the soft‑focus language about “new chapters” and “fresh starts,” the push to leave the $21 million Montecito mansion has a harder edge beneath it. Money isn’t the whole story — but it is undeniably part of the gravitational pull dragging the couple toward the exit. It may actually be the central reason. It has been coming when you think of the huge outgoings in maintaining this massive mansion - far too large in truth for their needs. They've burnt through the cash they earned when they were fresh on the scene having left the royal family and become independent. There was the novelty factor then. That's over. They can't earn what is required to maintain this home. That's my personal view and it is probably correct! 😉😎😱
Ah, I almost forgot. Harry is suing newspapers in the UK for hacking (The Sun & Daily Mail I recall but could be wrong). He will probably lose on my assessment. Wait and see. But it is said that his legal costs (or the costs of those suing the newspapers - more than just Harry) will (might) reach £38 million! Some disagree but I have read that number in The Times newspaper That will put a massive dent in his finances and the pain I believe is about to hit him. I think the house sale is in preparation for the exorbitant legal bill. He'll be broke and Meghan will have to do the earning! Not a good framework for a happy marriage I'd also say.
The numbers alone tell you why they have to exit this money pit. Maintaining a Montecito estate of that scale costs $5–6 million a year, once you factor in staff, upkeep, and the single biggest line item: private security. When the Netflix megadeal was active, that burn rate was manageable. With the partnership ended and no equivalent revenue stream replacing it, the arithmetic becomes less forgiving.
Then there’s the house itself. The property carries a $9.5 million mortgage, with monthly repayments estimated between $50,000 and $100,000. Even for wealthy public figures, that is a heavy fixed cost — and one that becomes harder to justify if the home no longer serves their strategic needs.
Some reports go further, suggesting Meghan has been “straddled with debt” from the LA move and sees selling the mansion as a way to reset financially while relocating closer to the industry power centres she wants access to. The sourcing is tabloid‑grade, but the logic aligns with the broader pattern: high costs, reduced income, and a desire to reposition.
And that repositioning matters. Montecito is beautiful, but it’s also quiet, remote, and socially inert for people trying to revive or expand entertainment careers. Meghan reportedly spends hours commuting to LA for meetings. Neighbours keep their distance. The area skews retirement‑village calm, not Hollywood‑adjacent dynamism.
So...money pressures are part of the reason, sitting alongside ambition, relevance, and geography. The couple aren’t broke, but they are living a lifestyle that demands constant high‑octane income. When the income dips and the career momentum stalls, even a $21 million mansion can start to feel like a liability rather than a sanctuary.
---------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
The video explains what looks like another bizarre strategy from Trump. It's not as mad as it first looks to give him credit (which I hate to do!). Frank Gardiner is one of the BBC's best reporters and he explains things really clearly in the video. Note: the US blockade blocks Iranian ships leaving and entering Iran's ports as I understand it.
Many commentators were and are flummoxed by the US strategy. But the idea is to force Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz by harming the country economically.
However, it is a very dangerous strategy, high risk and it might and quite possibly will backfire mainly because China will be forced to become directly involved as it gets a lot of its oil from Iran.
And what if a Chinese ship is boarded or fired upon by a US warship? This might end up with US fighting China as well as Iran.
News:
Update (written by AI on my strict instructions): Iran’s response to the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has been swift and deliberately unsettling. Within hours of Washington’s move, senior Iranian commanders warned that if the U.S. tries to choke Iran’s economy at its own front door, Tehran will answer by turning off the lights somewhere far more globally painful: the Red Sea.
The message was blunt. If America blocks Hormuz, Iran will “block all trade” through the Red Sea and, by extension, the Bab el‑Mandeb Strait — the narrow funnel that feeds the Suez Canal. It’s not an idle threat. Iran has spent years building the capability to project power far beyond its coastline, using a mix of naval assets, drones, and regional partners who can strike shipping lanes with deniable force. The point is simple: if Iran’s exports stop, everyone’s exports stop.
A Red Sea shutdown would be a gut punch to the global economy. Around a tenth of world trade moves through that corridor. Europe’s supply chains depend on it. Gulf oil heading west depends on it. Container ships already reroute at the first hint of trouble; a declared Iranian blockade would turn a strategic headache into a full‑blown crisis.
This is Iran signalling that the U.S. cannot isolate the conflict to one waterway. Close Hormuz, and Tehran will widen the battlefield to a second chokepoint — one that drags in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and every shipping insurer on the planet. It’s escalation by geography, and Iran knows exactly how much leverage that buys.
What would happen if the US bombed/shelled an Iranian ship carrying oil owned by China and destined for China. China owns the oil but not the sip? Chaos I'd say. And China won't be happy.
-----------------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Op-ed: Trump's reckless and badly planned excursion into starting a war with Iran will cost each British citizen - many of whom are already broke - £480 more in 2026. Thanks President Trump. I think we can extrapolate that prediction to many other countries to varying amounts.
The extra cost of living due to the Iran war is, as predicted, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump and his team appear to have failed to foresee, which has forced up energy and gas (petrol) prices.
The £480 is based on the projected difference in household income, adjusted for size and composition as a result of inflation pushing up oil prices and the projected household energy price cap rising to £1929 in July.
Note: More than 2 child families in receipt of child benefit will see income increases! These are low income families that have been catapulted into a decent income level thanks to Starmer's generosity on welfare which the country cannot afford and which takes away from defence which needs urgent financial support in a more dangerous world.
Source: The Times 13th April 2026.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
The skin is often described as the body’s largest organ, but it is also one of its most complex ecosystems. Living across its surface is a vast community of bacteria, fungi, and microscopic organisms that together form the skin microbiome. Far from being passive passengers, these microbes play an essential role in regulating immunity, maintaining barrier function, and protecting us from pathogens. A biodiverse microbiome is particularly important: the wider the variety of microbes, the more resilient the system becomes.
As we age, this diversity naturally declines. Reduced sebum production, drier skin, and slower cell turnover create a less hospitable environment for beneficial microbes. Modern habits—frequent washing, harsh soaps, indoor living, and limited environmental exposure—accelerate this loss. When diversity falls, the skin becomes more prone to irritation, inflammation, and slower healing. In this sense, maintaining a healthy microbiome is not cosmetic; it is a meaningful part of supporting whole‑body health.
One of the most effective ways to nurture microbial diversity is surprisingly simple: connect with nature. Outdoor environments expose the skin to a rich array of harmless environmental microbes—what immunologists call “old friends.” These organisms help train the immune system, reinforce microbial balance, and counteract the narrowing effect of indoor, sanitised environments. Even a daily walk in a park or woodland can subtly enrich the skin’s microbial landscape.
Equally important is reducing unnecessary disruption. Gentle, pH‑balanced cleansers, less frequent full‑body washing, and regular moisturising help preserve the skin’s natural habitat. A biodiverse microbiome thrives when the barrier is intact and the environment is stable.
In an age of over‑sterilisation, rediscovering the value of microbial diversity—on our skin and in the natural world—offers a quiet but powerful way to support long‑term health.
Recommended read: Rebecca Seal's book: The Allergy Epidemic and What We Can Do About It. Published on April 23rd 2026 by Headline Home at £22. This covers the issue of skin microbe biome and how it impacts the immune system. As does the stomach which is vital to maintaining a healthy immune system. Avoid antibiotics and protect your skin and stomach. 😉👍
A healthy cat caregiver is a better cat giver!! Sorry if that sounds like lecturing.
-------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Op-ed: Trump's elected Iran war has created a plethora of negative outcomes - listed. There will be more. Many more I suspect. And I can't think of any positives because the war was unnecessary. Yes, Trump has severely damaged Iran's military equipment but they can rebuild. They will rebuild and the damage by all accounts is less than boasted by Trump and his cronies.
"Iran still has thousands of ballistic missiles in its arsenal that it could use by retrieving launchers from underground storage areas, according to American officials familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments," said a recent intelligence report
Negatives (not an exhaustive list):
Thousands of innocent Iranians killed by US bombs. High casualties across Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and U.S. forces.
The possibility that the Iranian regime will become more dictatorial when the war finishes.
The Strait of Hormuz now potentially subject to a toll imposed by Iran which will strangle shipping going forward for an indefinite time.
Europe's stagnant economy - including the UK - will be further battered by inflation due to the Iran war due to higher oil prices, and higher interest rates.
NATO is ruptured thanks to the war as Trump believes that NATO countries should have stepped in and assisted the US. But the US did not keep NATO in the loop. Nor did Trump seek the approval of Congress. Many European leaders see the war as illegal.
Russia has received a much needed economic boost due to a sanctions break (Trump's decision) and elevated oil and gar prices. This will assist Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine where hundreds of thousands have been killed. Trump's decisions are often immoral.
The relationship between Israel and the US is frayed because many in the US believe that Israel dragged the US into this unnecessary war. This is Bibi's war. He loves to batter the Arabs as it keeps him in power! True.
Gulf nations have had their peace, quiet and stability rudely interrupted indeed destroyed to a certain extent because of Iran's attacks on them. They are losing tourists by the bucket full. And those who planned to emigrate to the Gulf will now think twice.
The US has spent $50 billion on the war. The US has a massive national debt that will, one day, cripple the country. Trump does not give a damn about the country's national debt because he likes to leverage debt in a business sense. The higher inflation due to the war will make servicing this debt harder. The U.S. national debt has surged past $38–39 trillion, rising by billions per day and pushing debt‑to‑GDP above 120%. Interest payments now exceed $1 trillion annually, outpacing many federal programs and eroding fiscal flexibility. As borrowing accelerates faster than economic growth, the government becomes more vulnerable to rising bond yields, investor anxiety, and policy missteps. The mounting debt strains budgets, fuels inflation pressures, weakens confidence in U.S. Treasuries, and risks crowding out future public investment—leaving the country more exposed to shocks and less able to shape its own economic destiny.
The majority of US citizens are against the Iran war started by choice by Trump. No need for it arguably. The country is polarised. The US is still at war with its own public!
Severe regional destruction including critical infrastructure and energy facilities which will affect energy prices for a decade going forward?
Risk of wider regional escalation drawing in multiple state and non-state actors.
Supply side disruptions - LPG and fertiliser for example.
A dent to Trump's support from his once highly supportive MAGA fans.
Trump's credibility severely damaged.
Trump's lack of ability to control Bibi Netanyahu who will not stop bombing Lebanon! More instability.
China is strengthened by the war perhaps indefinitely. Why? The country has done a deal with Iran to let their ships pass the Strait of Hormuz and there is damage to the US and the Gulf States but China marches on untouched.
Positives:
None that I can think of! Please comment.
-------------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Before this elected war, due to Trump's recklessness and poor thinking, all was well in the Strait of Hormuz. No problems. 120 ships came and went unhindered for years until Trump blundered bigtime.
Now, no matter what happens with this unnecessary war, it seems likely that Iran will be charging shipping companies huge amounts of money in bitcoin to pass through the strait as a form of toll, depending on the origin and I suppose destination of the ship and whether it carries cargo or not.
The point is that there will be a Hormuz toll system in place for the indefinite future it seems to me and well after this crazy and sad war has ended.
This will have a very negative impact on world trade in the future. And it will create more friction between nations.
Iran has realised that they have a massive amount of leverage when in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and they are prepared to use it both to hurt Western trade and to bring in much need income.
----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Trump has already committed a war crime in his threat to destroy Iran because a threat of this nature is itself a war crime. View this video to see that explained.
It is a really impressive video (not so much if you worship Trump). What Trump said is astonishing. Utterly reckless. Demented in fact. Irresponsible and so on leading to many people seriously thinking about replacing Trump through incapacity to discharge his duties as president. In other words he is as nutty as a Christmas cake.
The people who worship Trump and can't ever see him doing anything wrong are the ignorant and unenlightened. They really are. Can't blame them often for being ignorant and uneducated but if you see people praising Trump after these latest mad threats you'll have to agree with me.
--------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
There’s something unsettling about watching a leader - Trump - make big, dramatic threats and then quietly back away from them (TACO Trump 😱). After a while, it stops feeling like strategy and starts feeling like theatre. You can almost hear the studio lights buzzing in the background. Trump spent many years being the presenter on the American version of The Apprentice.
“A whole civilization will die tonight,” the President said on Monday, adding with jaw-dropping glibness: “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” - this is Trump at his worst. Scaring the sh*t out of the entire world unless you know for sure he is pure bluster and full of crap.
Trump has already committed a war crime in this threat:
This is described as "existential theatre!"
Take the pattern we’ve seen again and again: a bold warning, a countdown, a promise of devastating consequences — and then, just as the deadline arrives, everything softens. The threat fades. The moment passes. And we’re left wondering what the point of the whole performance was.
It’s hard not to feel a bit embarrassed on behalf of the country when this happens. A threat only works if the person making it actually means it. When they don’t, it becomes noise. Worse, it becomes a habit.
The Showman’s Shadow
What strikes many people is how much this behaviour resembles the rhythm of a game show or a reality‑TV cliff-hanger. The dramatic pause. The “big reveal” that never quite arrives. The sense that the audience is supposed to gasp, even when nothing actually happens.
And maybe that’s the problem. When someone spends years building a public identity around spectacle, that identity doesn’t just disappear when they step into office. It follows them. It shapes how they talk, how they react, how they try to project strength.
But governing isn’t a show. The world doesn’t respond to cliff-hangers. It responds to consistency.
The Insecurity Behind the Bluster
There’s also something a bit sad (and mad, frankly) about it, if we’re honest. Because when a person keeps making threats they don’t carry out, it doesn’t come across as strength. It comes across as insecurity — the kind that needs to shout to feel heard, or threaten to feel powerful.
It’s the kind of behaviour you see when someone is terrified of looking weak, so they overcompensate. They puff themselves up. They talk big. They set impossible deadlines. And then, when reality pushes back, they quietly step away and hope no one notices.
But people do notice. And each time it happens, the gap between the performance and the person gets wider.
A Persona That Never Evolved
The truth is, some leaders never really leave their old roles behind. They carry the showman’s instincts into the presidency — the need for attention, the dramatic gestures, the constant sense of performing for an audience.
And that’s where the real damage happens. Because the world isn’t a studio set. Other countries aren’t contestants. And credibility isn’t something you can fake with a dramatic pause.
Many commentators argue that Donald Trump shows exactly this pattern — the game‑show‑host persona bleeding into the presidency, the big threats that evaporate, the performance that never quite becomes leadership.
Other commenters are genuinely concerned about Trump's sanity! Literally. And to think that he - and only he - can make the decision to use nuclear bombs. Is the world safe with Trump as president? Some even many doubt it.
The deeper psychological reading
When you strip away the politics and look only at the behavioural pattern, analysts often conclude that it reflects:
a constructed persona masking insecurity
a dependence on performance over substance
a fear of being exposed as ordinary or fallible
a need for dominance displays to maintain self‑worth
a mismatch between inner stability and outer theatrics
This is not a diagnosis — it’s a behavioural interpretation consistent with decades of research on public personas, leadership psychology, and compensatory self‑presentation.
A performative persona often emerges when the inner self feels insufficient
In psychology, this is sometimes called a compensatory identity.
It happens when:
the person fears being ordinary, weak, or ignored
so they build a larger‑than‑life persona to protect against that fear
This persona can look like:
exaggerated confidence
dramatic ultimatums
constant self‑promotion
theatrical displays of toughness
But underneath, the behaviour often reflects fragile self‑esteem, not stable confidence.
Below is a structured breakdown of the documented instances.
1. March 21–23 Deadline (Strait of Hormuz)
Initial threat: Iran must fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or the U.S. would “obliterate” Iranian power plants.
Extension: About 12 hours before the deadline, Trump announced “productive conversations” and postponed strikes for five days, effectively extending the deadline.
2. Late March Extensions (Multiple Shifts)
After the first extension, Trump shifted the March 23 deadline several times over the following weeks.
He alternated between threats, claims of progress, and new timelines — sometimes in the same statement.
3. March 26 → April 6 Deadline
Trump again warned Iran to “get serious” before it was “too late.”
Later that same day, he extended the deadline by 10 more days, to April 6 at 8 p.m. ET, saying negotiations were “going very well.”
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
The amazing photographs of the Earth in the distance and the dark moon in the foreground were taken with a Nikon D5 DSLR and perhaps the Nikon Z9 (mirrorless).
The D5 was first introduced 10 years ago but was selected for its ruggedness and proven radiation resistance and reliability in space.
The Z9 was a last minute addition on the insistence of Commander Reid Wiseman. It is being tested for possible use in future missions.
Now you know! Afterthought: the D5 takes a bit of controlling. You need to know a bit about photography and operating this pro camera to get the best out of it. The astronauts must have been specifically trained to use it.
Here is some info about the D5:
The Nikon D5 is one of those rare machines that earns its reputation the hard way: through absolute reliability in punishing conditions. Introduced in January 2016, it was built as Nikon’s flagship DSLR for professionals who needed a camera that would never quit, whether on a battlefield, a frozen tundra, or—remarkably—a deep‑space mission a decade later. Its 20.8‑megapixel full‑frame sensor may seem modest by modern standards, but that’s part of its strength. The pixel pitch is large, the circuitry is robust, and the sensor architecture is far less fragile than the ultra‑dense designs found in newer mirrorless bodies. That durability, combined with a magnesium‑alloy chassis and legendary weather sealing, makes the D5 a photographic tank.
Its EXPEED 5 processor delivers fast, predictable performance, and the 153‑point autofocus system remains one of the most dependable ever made. The camera’s ergonomics—deep grip, tactile buttons, and intuitive layout—were refined for professionals who shoot instinctively, often without looking away from the viewfinder. In low light, the D5 is a monster, producing clean files at ISO levels that would cripple lesser cameras.
What ultimately defines the D5 is trust. Photographers know it will fire, focus, and survive. NASA choosing it for Artemis II simply confirms what professionals have known for years: the D5 is built for environments where failure is not an option.
-------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
The current Labour government has enthusiastically promoted their attempt to cut the cost of living in the UK by cutting energy bills by £117 per annum. Sounds good right? Reeves has shouted this policy from the rooftops in her dull and boring manner.
But she is cheating the public again. It is all smoke and mirrors from this disreputable government. Why? Because Reeves' income tax threshold freeze will hit those same British citizens with an average £220 increase in income tax from April 5th this year.
Daisy Cooper of the Lib Dems said "People will understandably feel cheated by this government..." Dead right they will.
The government is playing games with the public. They are jerking them around disdainfully. It is disrespectful. The British public cannot trust this Labour government. It is one more reason why they will be kicked out at the next general election and why there will be a likely huge defeat in the forthcoming council elections. And also why Starmer may well lose his job. The latter would be more likely if there was anyone in the cabinet who could take over as leader. There simply isn't. It is that bad.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Trump has publicly stated that he is considering actions (such as destroying desalination plants and power plants in Iran) that experts in international humanitarian law warn could amount to war crimes if carried out.
Put another way, on his Truth Social website, he is admitting that he is considering committing a war crime by explicitly threatening to destroy desalination plants, power plants, and other infrastructure that international humanitarian law protects.
Trump is openly stating that he is threatening to go down the path of war crimes! Astonishing. Iranian civilians are desperately worried according to the BBC. They are stockpiling foods etc. And probably water.
What counts as a war crime when bombing civilian infrastructure? Under established international humanitarian law (IHL), a war crime occurs when a party intentionally attacks civilian infrastructure that is not a legitimate military objective, or launches attacks that are indiscriminate or disproportionate in ways that foreseeably harm civilians.
There is some talk emerging that Trump could be challenged for his incompetence to act as president.
The constitutional mechanism allowing the Vice President to assume presidential authority is the Twenty‑Fifth Amendment, adopted in 1967. Its key provision, Section 4, enables the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.” Once this written declaration is sent to congressional leaders, the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If the President contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue; a two‑thirds vote in both houses is required to keep the Vice President in place. Section 4 has never been invoked.
Many believe that he should be replaced. He is acting erratically endangering Americans and civilians in other countries. Arguably he needs to be stopped constitutionally.
He has already lost the war with Iran because Iran hold the trump cards (excuse the pun). The Iranians know they are winning by simply not agreeing to submit to Trump's outrageous threats. If they persist they beat Trump.
And importantly, if Trump has to commit alleged war crimes to try and 'win' he has lost! Conclusively. Sadly there might be many innocent civilians killed in this process.
Note: US military commanders may well disobey Trump if he orders the destruction of civilian infrastructure as they will be illegal orders. Employees are only obliged under contract to follow reasonable orders. Demands that create criminal actions are not reasonable. Watch this space.
Plus Iran has the ultimate lever to win: closing the Strait of Hormuz. This is hurting Trump directly as it is hurting the American economy which he proudly states he has made more vibrant and successful.
---------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
This is my opinion based on a factually true story.
This is crass, objectionable thinking by the Prime Minister of the UK and his team, Sir Keir Starmer who wants to undo Brexit and work more closely with the EU in order - he thinks - to grow the dead British economy. The trouble is that he has to sell his soul to work more closely with the EU and pay a huge financial price probably in the billions of euros. The EU always extracts billions from countries which want to work with the EU.
Foie Gras and Fur Production in the EU
Foie gras and animal fur remain legal industries within the European Union, even though both involve practices widely criticised for causing animal suffering. Foie gras is produced mainly in France, along with smaller operations in Spain, Hungary and Bulgaria. The process relies on force‑feeding ducks or geese to enlarge their livers far beyond normal size. This method, known as gavage, is banned in several EU countries on welfare grounds, but the EU single market rules mean the product itself cannot be banned from sale. France, in particular, treats foie gras as part of its cultural heritage and strongly defends its production.
Fur farming has been banned in a growing number of EU states — including the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and Italy — but fur sales and imports remain legal at EU level. Countries that still farm fur, such as Finland, continue to export it freely within the single market. The EU has not introduced a bloc‑wide ban on fur products, despite public pressure and citizen‑led initiatives calling for one.
The result is a patchwork: some EU countries prohibit the production of foie gras or fur, but none can block their sale. As long as these products remain legal at EU level, they continue to circulate freely across the union.
The price of working closer with the EU
The UK government are now ready to drop a promise to ban imports of animal fur and foie gras in order to secure a deal with the EU to enable the UK to work more closely with the continent. Foie gras was banned in the UK 20 years ago. To accept imports is a big step backwards.
The EU are not prepared it seems to make the imports of these animal cruelty products an exception for the UK.
The trouble is that the UK have to accept EU standards even if they are lower than UK standards in the area of animal welfare.
Frankly this makes me angry. Animal welfare is often de-prioritised by politicians because it gets in the way of economic progress. It always will because exploiting animals is good business.
---------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
There are countless examples of cat caregivers losing their cat because he/she has gone walkabout and disappeared only to have ended up in a new home not far away after being rescued by an animal lover with whom the lost cat lives contentedly for a long time until the 'original owner' discovers the new arrangement and complains; demanding the return of their cat and even employing a lawyer to threaten legal proceedings.
The cat is the innocent victim in a human dispute; having no knowledge of legal ownership. In this familiar story, the microchip embedded in the cat's neck if it exists is not evidence of ownership. Perhaps it is evidence of 'possession' no more.
Does a person who rescues and cares for a once 'owned' cat become legally entitled to claim ownership? The law is vague on this because if we are honest domestic cats are not really 'owned' like an inanimate 'chattel' such as a table and chairs or a television.
The concept of legal ownership does not really fit the the cat caregiving scenario. And the phrase 'cat caregiving' gives the game away. So called owners are in truth caregivers. The cat agrees to live with a caregiver in a mutually agreeable social contract. He gets fed and cared for and in return he provides companionship to the human caregiver.
There is not much more to it. To get into a tangle about ownership as happened in France recently with Pompon being rescued and cared for for 24 months and the 'true owner' trying to reclaim her cat named 'Flocon' is inappropriate I feel [see story below].
The cat decides who she/he is 'owned' by. If she is happy in her new home and is being cared for well - as is the case in the French story - she stays there. The former owner should be gracious enough to let their cat go. After all, in the French case Pompon had been missing for 2 years. That's enough to break the claim for ownership.
It is actually worse than that because the former owner claims that her cat was stolen. That is not uncommon either. It is wrong though. Cats can't trespass and cats can't be truly owned. In the case of cat rescue it is inappropriate to allege theft by the rescuer unless malicious intent can be firmly established.
The only time theft can be cited is when professional thieves steal a cat from the street for resale.
In disputes like this the answer is mediation to come to an agreeable solution with the welfare of the cat firmly in mind. A cat rescued 24 months ago and settled in a new home should remain in that home. And if a cat wanders from a home it might indicate lack of good caregiving. Another reason for the rescuer to be allowed to take possession.
The French cat story:
In the village of Augicourt in eastern France, a domestic cat has become the subject of a legal dispute between two women, each claiming ownership. Aimée Raclot says she found the animal, which she named Pompon, abandoned and in poor health in her barn. She paid for veterinary treatment and later had the cat microchipped in her own name. A neighbour, however, insists the cat is hers, called Flocon, and supports her claim with earlier veterinary records. She has filed a complaint alleging theft, prompting police involvement and legal proceedings. The case is now heading towards mediation. At its core, the dispute raises a familiar legal tension between possession and care on the one hand, and prior ownership on the other. While Raclot emphasises the rescue and welfare of the cat, the neighbour maintains that original ownership should prevail. The outcome will depend on how the competing evidence is assessed under French law.
------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Unlike AI I am free to write an op-ed which attacks politicians. AI is programmed to not provide strong opinions about politicians even if it is warranted! 😎
So here goes: there is something deeply wrong when a leader - I am referring to the so called 'Secretary of War', Pete Hegseth - talks about killing as if it were exciting or clean (indeed moral). As if he has reduced the real thing to a game. As if he is addicted to war pornography. I think he genuinely is. It seems like that.
War is supposed to be the last resort, something heavy and tragic. It is always bloody tragic. And avoidable. But the way Trump and Hegseth have spoken about the Iran conflict makes it sound more like a video game than a real war with real people dying. When someone prays for “every round to find its mark” or for “overwhelming violence of action,” it doesn’t sound like leadership. It sounds like someone enjoying the idea of destruction.
That is why Pope Leo’s Palm Sunday message hit so hard. He said, “God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” It was a simple sentence, but it cut straight through the noise. Prayer is not meant to bless killing. It is not meant to make violence feel righteous. It is meant to achieve the opposite.
When someone uses prayer to ask for better killing, they are not talking to God — they are trying to use God. And that is a dangerous thing. God - if he existed - would grimace at such attempts at prayer.
The tragedy becomes even clearer when you look at the other side. While American officials pray for victory, young men in Iran kneel on their prayer rugs and ask God for the same thing. Two nations, two faiths, one God — and each convinced that the other must be defeated. It becomes a mirror image: each side praying for the success of its weapons, each side believing it is righteous, each side asking God to help it kill. Nothing about that is holy.
Nothing about that is sane. And yet Hegseth apparently ardently believes everything he says in prayer to his God. It demonstrates - as far as I am concerned - that he is a slightly (greatly?) deranged person. And a very dangerous person.
Trump is not dissimilar. They both have borderline personality disorders which is probably why Trump appointed Hegseth who incidentally insisted on being titled 'Secretary of War' not of defence. Note: an executive order authorised “Department of War” and “Secretary of War” as secondary, non‑statutory titles for communications.
This did not replace the legal name — it simply allowed the terminology to appear in messaging.
Hegseth seized on this immediately.
The real problem is the way war is being imagined. When leaders talk about killing with excitement instead of sorrow, war becomes easier to start and harder to stop. The language becomes simple, clean, and thrilling, while the reality is bloody, messy, and full of grief. Once war is spoken of like entertainment, the human cost disappears from view.
That is why Pope Leo’s warning matters. He is trying to pull the moral weight back into the room. He is reminding everyone — leaders, soldiers, citizens — that war is not a show, not a game, and not a place to look for spiritual excitement. It is a place of suffering. And anyone who forgets that is already lost.
----------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
I'm told by The Sunday Times that this UK government is going to end the use of toxic flame retardants in British furniture which is welcome news not only for children but also companion animals. I've always said - and I've said it for many years - that the kind of damage that these flame retardant do to companion animals (who might spend a long time snoozing on a sofa) is hidden. You end up with pets with idiopathic diseases. These are diseases that veterinarians fail to diagnose properly by which I mean they fail to diagnose the cause and it might well be that the cause is flame retardants in furniture.
And the reason why, in Britain, there are flame retardant in British furniture and have been for nearly 40 years is because in Britain the rules have been far stricter than in Europe and the world generally which means that it is been almost impossible for manufacturers to pass fire safety tests without using large amounts of chemical flame retardant.
In short, the origin of toxic flame retardants in sofas and armchairs is British legislation. A typical UK sofa contains about 2 kg of toxic flame retardant apparently which is shocking.
We've known about this for a long time but successive British governments have done nothing about it.
The Sunday Times reports that the World Health Organisation announced last month in the latest Lancet Oncology Journal that the most common flame retardant in British sofas is TCPP (Tris(chloropropyl) phosphate is a widely used chlorinated organophosphate flame retardant) and it is known that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. This chemical makes up to 20% of the foam in a typical British sofa.
Other countries don't use flame retardants in furniture. For example, IKEA use flame retardants in sofas sold in Britain and Ireland but they do not use them for the rest of the world. Can you imagine how idiotic this is and that's thanks to successive British governments.
However, there some good news. On Tuesday the government announced that it would change the rules. It's going to drop an open flame test and bringing new regulations underpinned by a smoulder test. This mimics a lit cigarette on fabric in line with Europe and American policies.
It's obviously a balance between protecting inhabitants of homes by helping to prevent fire and protecting those inhabitants from toxic chemicals. Perhaps what might be behind some of this is an attempt to help protect the NHS in the UK. This government has been trying hard to take proactive measures to prevent people going to hospital. Clearly, fire retardants have silently been sending people to hospital. We don't have statistics but knowing that fire retardants are carcinogenic it is highly likely that some people have developed cancer and some pets have developed cancer because of these chemicals.
Apparently the change of heart is "credited to a campaign by Delyth Fetherstone-Dilke, 56, a former Warner Bros lawyer from Richmond, south-west London. She switched careers to become an upholsterer and 2014." The rules which enhance the use of fire retardants in sofas and other furniture were introduced in 1988 after a fire at a Woolworths shop in Manchester in 1979. The fire started in a sofa and killed 10 people.
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies which tell us that these toxic chemicals migrate out of the furniture into house dust and then into people with the highest levels in young children. That's this newspaper report but I would like to add the simple fact that it is highly likely that these chemicals also find their way into companion animals. This is logical.
The fire test rules have been under review since 2009 and a House Of Commons enquiry suggested changing the rules in 2019 but nothing happened for 17 years. Can you imagine how slow British governments work? It is absolutely shocking in my view.
---------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Shoplifting in the UK has developed into a form of anarchy thanks to the police washing their hands of it for decades. And the police have washed their hands of shoplifting publicly. Many years ago they said they would not get involved and that was bound to make matters a lot worse.
There was a time when shoplifting was a minor offence but now has become so extensive and a major form of criminality. It proves that if the police ignore minor offences for long enough they create a major criminal problem. And a culture of unpunished criminality. The 'zero tolerance' policy has legs.
The latest development in this long and unhappy story is Marks & Spencer in Clapham sounding the alarm about the epidemic of shoplifting. This occurred very recently when there was a surge of youngsters pouring into Marks & Spencer and stealing stuff.
A senior executive of Marks & Spencer, Thinus Keeve, has waded in with a stark warning that the company is witnessing shoplifting more brazen, aggressive and organised an ever before.
Perhaps the police say there's been a reduction in overall crime but this is entirely misleading. It's probably plain lies by the police who have a habit of sitting on their hands to do nothing. Trust between the British population and the police has deteriorated to an all-time low. The average British citizen simply does not trust the police in any shape or form.
Mr Keeve says that those who work in stores have a different story to tell about the crime rate in the UK.
He says that Marks & Spencer is "now spending tens of millions every year on protecting its employees and its wares."
Marks & Spencer is one of the country's most trusted retailers and if they say this it is an alarm bell for the rest of the nation. Not that the average British punter needs an alarm bell to understand that the country has entered a dire situation which reminds me of anarchy.
These shoplifters working in gangs simply pour into stores and just strip the shelves. They know they are immune from prosecution. They sell the goods somewhere else. They steal high value products such as steaks or wine.
I myself was in Marks & Spencer about a month ago when I saw a woman stealing salmon from the shelves. She was placing handfuls of packages into her bag and then walking out. I pointed this out to a sales employee but they could do nothing about it because it was all over by then.
I'm told that videos are everywhere online showing young people openly vandalising the Clapham branch of Marks & Spencer. Social media appears to play a role in promoting this form of criminality.
I'm told that the British Retail Consortium says that the cost to retailers of shoplifting was £400 million last year. It's probably a lot more than that actually. And the crime is not victimless. It affects everyone because it pushes up prices. It makes the cost of living crisis even worse. It also places the employees of these retailers in a very difficult position.
They are told not to intervene in case they get hurt by the shoplifters. This also promotes more shoplifting. Kimi Badenoch has said that other shoppers should get involved and stop the thieves if it's safe to do so but how do you know it's safe to do so?
The thieves know they are immune from arrest or prosecution as mentioned. This is anarchy. It is highly depressing for the average British citizen who wants to live in a peaceful country. Britain is decaying. Britain is deteriorating before our eyes. It is not entirely broken but it is breaking day by day.
The institutions are failing to work properly and the services are poorer than before. The money has run out. The country is in massive national debt. The Labour government is extremely poor. It is weak. It is making the UK economy even worse on an hour by hour basis.
I sense that there will be a greater deterioration going forwards and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that true anarchy will break out at some stage.
Update: A Waitrose employee says that he sees shoplifting every hour of every day at the branch he used to work at! It happens all the time and the employees are told to let it happen! This leads to more soft lifting and higher prices for the usual customers. WTF! He was sacked after he successfully stopped a thief. It is a mad country.
-----------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
It is common knowledge that Trump has bullied and insulted the UK. He has insulted the country's Prime Minister - I hate Starmer but I strongly object to Trump insulting him - and the UK's armed forces. King Charles is the head of the armed forces.
Trump has insulted France in insulting Macron and Macron's wife. He has alienated America's allies. Trump has more or less destroyed 80 years of trust between the US and its allies and is threatening to badly damage NATO.
Trump is probably certifiably, borderline mentally ill. He is a bully. He is arrogant. He is a narcissist. He has psychopathic traits. He enjoys war pornography as does Pete Hegseth, who treats the war on Iran as some sort of comic book distraction. America chose to attack Iran and without any discussion with its allies or seek congressional approval.
If King Charles visits Trump in April it will be a strong signal that the UK approves Trump's bizarre, chaotic and contradictory behaviour. Charles cannot agree with this behaviour. He must hate it.
It is time for the UK to rebuke Trump. To push back. To complain. To protect its dignity. That sycophantic moment when Starmer handed King Charles's letter of initiation to a second state visit makes me sick. It was horrible.
It is time for the UK to criticise Trump. The so called special relationship has been exposed for what it is: fragile and ultimately a mutually beneficial deal when it suits America.
King Charles cannot visit Trump in April. He will be, by implication, endorsing Trump's wild and immoral behaviour. Charles's visit is a gift to Trump. The opposite to what should be happening.
---------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Here is a thought. Tiger Woods' huge hitting power when he was the world's best golfer was attained by putting an enormous amount of stress on his body. He is not a particularly tall man. But he hit the ball huge distances. He achieved it by a big turn in the backswing and a very coiled swing which unleased enormous speed on the downswing.
All this over time stressed his back to the point where it damaged it badly causing a lot of pain. He had to have surgery on this back. More pain, more surgery and more painkillers which impaired his car driving which incidentally he insisted on doing himself because he decided that when he is driving he has - for a brief time - some personal privacy and solitude.
He could have afforded a full-time chauffer. Of course he could have because he is worth an estimated one billion US dollars.
But no he insisted on driving which resulted in car accidents which in turn damaged his right leg to the point where surgeons contemplated cutting it off! It was damaged that badly when he went off the road and rolled his car.
The incident: Tiger Woods’ 2021 crash occurred when his SUV rolled over in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, leaving him with severe injuries, including multiple fractures to his right leg. He was trapped in the vehicle and required emergency surgery after being extracted. Authorities reported it as a single‑car collision, with no evidence of impairment. The crash left his career in jeopardy, though he later made a limited return to golf.
My guess (allegation) is that he fell asleep at the wheel because of the cocktail of painkillers he was taking at the time.
And his right leg plus his bad back cause him pain 24-7 it appears such that he continues to take addictive opioid painkillers 24-7 I suspect which impairs his driving skills to the point where he has been charged with DUI recently. He has pleaded not guilty and he is innocent until proven guilty. But he refused a urine test which - as I understand it - is strict liability. He has almost no defence to that.
But the point is that his golf swing and his fabulous skills (and massive success) have caused all these dire problems in his forced retirement and it will only get worse I predict as he gets older. It is one way traffic to a kind of pain-swamped hell in perpetuity I am sad to say for perhaps the world's greatest ever golfer.
He is paying a price that is too high. If he had had a smoother and less demanding golf swing in his heyday and hit the ball about 10% shorter he might have protected his back which would have prevented all this driving and pain meds mayhem in relative old age. Yes, he may have won less tournaments but it would have been better for him overall.
His problems are self-inflicted. He is adored by kids. He is setting a bad example at the moment. He won't be able to fix the hellish pain problem going forward but he can stop driving for good whether he likes it or not. Just to try and repair is iconic image.
----
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Brazil has taken a significant step in recognising the emotional importance of companion animals by granting courts the authority to order shared custody of pets when couples separate. The new federal law, approved in April 2026, responds to a growing number of disputes involving dogs, cats, and other domestic animals—now considered integral members of many Brazilian households.
Under the legislation, if a divorcing couple cannot reach an agreement on who keeps the pet, a judge may impose a joint‑custody arrangement. This can include alternating periods of care, shared financial responsibility for food, veterinary treatment, and other essential expenses, and even detailed schedules similar to those used in child‑custody cases.
Crucially, the law requires judges to consider the well‑being of the animal, assessing factors such as living conditions, time availability, and each partner’s caregiving history. Pets that have lived predominantly with the couple are treated as a form of shared property, but the law moves beyond a purely economic view by acknowledging their emotional significance.
There are important safeguards. Shared custody is prohibited if one partner has a criminal record or a history—or risk—of domestic violence. In such cases, courts may award exclusive custody to the safer environment to protect both the animal and the vulnerable partner.
Brazil is home to one of the world’s largest pet populations—estimated at more than 160 million animals—and lawmakers say the reform reflects modern family dynamics. With many couples choosing not to have children, pets often occupy a central emotional role, making separation disputes more complex.
By aligning itself with countries such as France and Spain, where pets are legally recognised as sentient beings, Brazil signals a broader cultural shift: animals are no longer viewed as mere possessions but as companions whose welfare deserves legal protection.
----
P.S. 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.
I am consistently mystified with the huge rise in popularity of these huge SUV vehicles. Many of them are electric vehicles but not all of them. The common denominator is their abnormally huge size. This must make them very hard to manoeuvre in tight places. I'd hate to drive one where I live. A nightmare.
On British roads they can become a handful. They will be nearly impossible to park in some parking facilities. They are simply unsuitable for many British urban road network environments. And yet the British consistently make them a very popular vehicle.
I've been scratching my head as to why. I can only come to the conclusion that many British people are anxious about the deep-rooted problems that currently exist in British society with many public services broken or failing. Many people are anxious about world problems as well such as the possibility of a worldwide conflict.
Sitting in a big, powerful vehicle helps to assuage that anxiety giving the impression that they have control things. That they can dominate other road users. This I think is a psychological problem. There is no logical, practical reason why people should prefer large SUV vehicles. It has to be an emotional problem which these purchasers have yet to realise. Ironically the difficulty in driving these cars might make the driver anxious! 😢
Most car purchases are made on emotional issues. Many people don't buy a car because they are practical. They buy a car because they like the look of it but then of course when they have to drive it down a tight road in London or in the suburbs of London with cars parked either side and a bus coming in the other direction, they realise that they might have made the wrong choice.
There must be many instances of conflict between wives and husbands when deciding to purchase a new vehicle. Is it that the men want a super-large SUV and the wife wants a small more practical vehicle because they are more manoeuvrable? Without wishing to be in any way sexist, I suspect that many women find it very hard to drive these large vehicles.
I was at a dealership the other day when I bumped into a middle-aged married couple. They came to the dealership in a large SUV and I got talking to the wife and she said that the family car was too wide for her. She wanted a smaller car but her husband had convinced her to buy it. She longingly looked at a small compact new car for sale in the showroom. I think this little encounter tells a story which is unfolding across the country.
And, you won't be able to park one of the huge SUV vehicles in a John Lewis car park with all that concrete. If you park in the Kingston upon Thames John Lewis car park you will notice a huge number of scratches on the concrete pillars and walls. Every one of those scratches represents thousands of pounds of body repair work!
And I suspect that all of them are caused by drivers being unable to navigate their huge SUVs around a very tight space. These vehicles are impractical and it's time people put aside their emotional issues and became far more logical and sensible in their choices.
----------------------
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
Op-ed - comment on the latest Middle East news: Quick note because I have had a long day! LBC radio told me today that there is an exodus of British (?) expats and other residents in Dubai who are leaving the country due to the Iran war and in the process abandoning their cats and dogs or worse: tying up a cat to a lamp post so tightly a nasty injury was caused or in one case a pair of dogs were shot dead in the desert. The rescue centres are overflowing and are at a loss as to what to do.
This is a terrible form of animal abuse. To think of it is hard to bear. I understand the panic as drones are falling on Dubai as Iran retaliates but there cannot be any kind of true relationship between these caregivers and their companion animals.
It is humans hitting a new low in animal welfare. It shows how humans behaviour when under pressure towards animals.
Here is another short video on this:
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed 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.
