The author is unwell, but thinks he's found a Champion in the soft.

On Tuesday, I was struck down! I had a jolly supper with Fluff and Hatch, ran through the local gossip, discussed the benefits of substack, and had the finest devilled kidneys I could imagine, followed by the worst steak frites that needed no imagination.

I got back at 11:45 pm and declared my leg to be hurting. Forty-five minutes later, I had a fever of 38.9 and the shakes. Madame called the medics, who advised that it would take four hours, but they arrived in 80 minutes. Possibly because my liver is in better condition than my hero Jeffrey Bernard's, all this unwellness has not cancelled my advisory.

I arrive here, therefore, on your screen with Cellulitis, weak, pale and slightly shaky and consuming 4000mg of antibodies per day. In days gone by, had I stepped out in every sense with Dockyard Doris, my antibiotic intake would have seen me protected before, during and after any entente cordial - and for several weeks!

I am, however, feeling slightly incoherent. Of course, that might be the ongoing nonsense between the Government, Bookmakers, the betting public, and the various authorities. The latest headlines revolve around the widespread and increasing practice of slow or nil payment of winnings to punters by big-name firms like William Hill. The noise has been growing all week and now appears in the Racing Post reportage. Next will come The Sun or The Express. Some punters claim it is proof that bookmakers are attempting to evade payment and that the firms, in refusing to give any reasons for the non-payment, are cynically taking advantage of the legal requirement not to tell a customer when payment has been blocked due to inquiries relating to money laundering or other financial crime. Bookmakers are, by way of reply, claiming that they believe the guilt sometimes rests on the other side. They claim numerous successful punters are operating multiple accounts in the names of different people, thus flouting their terms and conditions. When bookmakers are concerned about whether money in a punter's account could be linked to crime, they must file a suspicious activity report with the National Crime Agency. The number of those simultaneously forwarded to the Gambling Commission grew from 7,917 in the reporting year from April 2020 to March 2021 to 10,728 12 months later. The figure was 8,940 for April 2023 to March 2024. So, despite the apparent near doubling of the online gambling industry in the last four years, the level of reportable concern to the police was up just over 12% from 2021 - 2024.

But do bear in mind that these are not all sports betting accounts. They might also be betting on slot machines, online lotteries, casino games, and the outcome of the Wanga Wanga Slovakian Tea Juggling World Championship, where it is well-known that a gang of Taiwanese money launderers has a healthy interest in match-fixing.

We are assured that the government is only trying to protect the NHS from problem gambling, which one suspects costs the NHS less than the average NH Trust Maternity department annually pays out in litigation and damages compensation. They employ the Gambling Commission to ensure their desired outcome - so don't you think it would make more sense to separate sports betting from the trashy hyper-fixed casino games, to create a set of ID checks when opening an account, and not to create an atmosphere that will drive sports punters into the perfectly legal world of online betting - but one which is not managed through ludicrous regulations, abysmal governance and a lack of oversight?

As I am concerned that the government is placing political philosophy above practicality, should we be worried that Wes Streeting has announced his intention to inject unemployed people with Ozempic or something similar, which, once administered, will force them to work?

Huzzah, I hear you say - that will be marvellous, apart from the statistically increased risk of thyroid cancer, pancreatitis, and hypoglycaemia. By the by - and entirely in line with modern interpretations of almost all gender laws - one won't be able to conceive for two months before being injected, but that’s fine because the Government doesn’t want to pay out any child benefits any more anyway. Besides, Gender laws are pretty fluid as far as one can tell, so no one expects a challenge in the ECHR.

So many governments have historically been keen to see their population’s well-being improve through various medical interactions. It can only be a matter of time before Streeting moves on to the next logical step of his PHT master plan. (Physician Heal Thyself). It would save the NHS an awful lot of money if they started by looking at mothers’ mental health in the early term, ensuring that they are not only presented with a beautiful, fit baby but also a baby with absolutely no long-term health implications that might impact the NHS. Does that sound vaguely familiar? Given the excellent medical research going on at this moment, we now know that epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA modifications, can mediate the pathogenesis of many addictions. All Wes Streeting needs to do is pass a law saying that all addicts must be given DNA modifications, which will be much better for everyone.