TRUE CRIMES

The police have been going through a bad spell again.

The Andrew Mitchell case grinds on. For those who haven't been following this saga - Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell was forced to resign after allegedly calling police officers “plebs”. Whilst this sounds daft enough, even to me as I type it, the affair has become the stuff of a Hollywood drama. Mitchell has always denied the 'official' version of events and subsequently, it transpired that the three police officers involved lied about Mitchell, but also that their bosses decided not to instigate misconduct proceedings against them. The Home Affairs Select Committee are now investigating. There have already been two internal enquiries and it has just been admitted that police actions so far, mostly improperly defending the police against Mitchell, have cost more than £230,000. Apart from the MPs enquiry, there is still the possibility of criminal charges being brought. No estimates yet of what all that will cost. As I say, if this wasn't real, it would probably be an amusing, if expensive, incident in a fictional story.

In a separate incident, a policewoman was arrested in April after whistle-blowing to the press that the Cumbria Police and Crime Commissioner had used a chauffeur-driven car on journeys costing £700, despite having an official car. Although there is nothing illegal (provided certain steps are followed and I confess I have no idea whether they were) about whistle-blowing, the woman was detained by the police. The police commissioner has now apologised for his "mistakes", although it seems no action will be taken against him. The woman has now also been released and will face no criminal action (for what offence it's anyway difficult to imagine). I've no idea what the cost was of pursuing this women whilst the person actually doing wrong was the police commissioner, but at least it was eventually acknowledged that she did nothing criminal. (The commissioner is apparently now hiring a PR consultant . . .).

Another current activity is the policing of anti-fracking protesters in Sussex. I have mixed feelings about this. Clearly such protests can become violent or criminal in some way. But, actually, there is nothing illegal in the protesters sitting on the roadside with their posters and banners. However the police have admitted that the estimated costs so far of police presence has reached a stunning £4m.

Of course policing costs money, but here we have police operations against an MP, on charges which appear to have been fabricated, but no action taken against the offending police; the arrest of a woman who revealed profligate spending by a police commissioner, where similarly the object of the police action turned out to have been not guilty, and again no action against the police representative who did wrong; and the policing of persons exercising their civil rights. In these police operations alone, several million pounds have been spent. But where is the wrongdoing?

The latest case involves a woman in Lincolnshire who was injured in an unprovoked attack by a person who was later arrested and who admitted their guilt to the police. The victim now claims that the police have offered her £150 to drop charges against the attacker because the time and cost involved in pursuing the case could not be justified. I admit that something sounds very odd about this, so I guess there may be more to it, but, as the woman did not accept the 'compensation', the attacker has now been released anyway without charge. That seems odder.

So, yes, policing costs money. But there are questions about whether the police are spending their time on the right priorities or their budget on pursuing the right criminals.

ONE PERSON'S FREEDOM

The funeral of Margaret Thatcher will take place tomorrow.  In her lifetime, as Prime Minister, she managed to divide the country.  People with firm opinions and uncompromising stances usually do encourage strong views one way or the other.  Since she won three consecutive elections and is still Britain's longest serving Prime Minister for over 100 years, those divisions clearly did not split the country into two equal parts, but the minority that opposed her of course became the most vociferous and violent.

The same will no doubt be the case during her funeral tomorrow.  There are those who still hate her and will go out of their way to show it tomorrow. But those that make the loudest noise, as ever, will not necessarily be right.  Maybe they are incapable of rational argument or perhaps after all this time (Thatcher resigned in 1990) their ineffectual resentment has still not evaporated or maybe they are just hateful, but demonstrating at a funeral will not endear them to anyone, nor elicit support for their views.  Any violence will no doubt be condemned by all political parties.  So such protesters will simply be dismissed as outside normal society.

But a separate debate has arisen which is much more interesting, and important, than whether you still like or dislike Thatcher.  The police have said that, in policing the funeral, they are determined not to prevent freedom of speech.  In this country, I'm pleased to say, dissent is allowed, even in public.  But what is the limit of that dissent?  To what extent is freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, or freedom of movement, restricted by public order legislation?

I am quite firm that freedom of speech should be permitted unconditionally.  At any time, in any place.  If someone wishes to stand up in church and say that religion is poppycock, that's fine by me.  If they want to shout tomorrow that Thatcher was an evil woman, that's OK too.  But they can't expect that theirs will be the only view expressed.  And this is where demonstrations can run into legal difficulties.  Holding up a banner is fine.  Chanting what's on the banner is also fine.  But when have you seen two opposing groups of demonstrators simply standing together chanting their opposing views?  When one group seems to be chanting louder, insults will be bandied, jostling will begin and one group will no doubt soon physically attack the other.  So where does the public order offence begin - when the chanting starts?  When the chanting takes on an aggressive tone?  When physical contact occurs?  When the fighting starts?  And which group committed the public order offence?

We can easily accept that a public order offence may have occurred when we hear a Muslim cleric preaching against the West.  But what of a group dishonouring Margaret Thatcher and preaching against her?  At what stage does freedom of speech spill over into an illegal act?  A public order offence may well have occurred if a milk bottle is thrown at her coffin.  But what if just the milk is thrown?  Or what about holding up a placard covered in hate filled words and chanting hatred against her?  Is this incitement to violence?  Or maybe it's libel, legally punishable defamation?  But at what stage would you be inhibiting a person's freedom of speech - when you take away their placard or when you move them along or when you arrest them?

There have been attempts to quantify freedom of speech for the purposes of demonstrating tomorrow. As usual it all sounds silly.  It's a bit like a contract for behaviour on a date.  This is OK, but that isn't.  In the end, it will depend on the personal judgement of one police officer.  And I suspect it will not be placards or chanting or turning one's back or singing, 'Ding dong - the Queen is dead' or even throwing milk that leads to arrest.

I sincerely hope violence doesn't arise.  And, on the other hand, I hope too that the police will get it right.  If many are arrested, far from turning in her grave, I suspect  that Thatcher will be smiling.  She had no time for trouble makers then and would certainly not have now.

So, even in death she arouses strong views.  But, in the debate over freedoms in British society and the rights of the individual, I think I know where she would have drawn her uncompromising line. 

POLITICAL HITCH

There have been a number of events recently that puzzle me. That is not surprising these days; I am now constantly foxed by life, by parking meters, telephone answering machines, BOGOF offers at the supermarket, texts from Ms Sexylegs, etc.

But to deal with one of these events, you may have seen that on 5 February the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was approved by the House of Commons by 400–175. The legislation still has to pass the House of Lords, and who knows how they will vote, but the decisive Commons vote by more than 2 to 1 seems to be pretty representative of current public opinion. But the voting has split the Conservative Party. Bizarrely, more Conservatives voted against the bill than voted for. In fact, almost all the votes against were Conservative. Because of this, a number of questions have arisen.

Why has the Prime Minister pushed this legislation through? It wasn't in the Party manifesto and clearly wasn't supported within the Party. Passing legislation by enlisting Opposition support is not that unusual, but it's pretty odd for an issue of this kind, especially when you don't have your own party's backing at all. Moreover, although public opinion is onside, most people are actually fairly apathetic about the subject. They are much more likely to get excited about the tax on sausage rolls or a railway running through their garden.

Secondly, what has made half the Conservative Party vote against their leader's Bill? Surprisingly, their objections seem to be religious ones. 'Surprisingly' because no one else in Parliament seems to hold such strong religious views. I shan't go into the religious points here, you no doubt know, or can guess, what they are. Anyway, it will remain illegal to have a same-sex marriage in a CofE or RC church for some years I think, but some other religions have already accepted the principle, so church marriage will be possible when the law is passed.

Thirdly, what is the view of same-sex couples? Are they all as keen on the law change as their activist representatives? It is always the same with minority views, the activists are so vociferous, that one can hardly believe the whole world doesn't agree. But, as far as I am aware, there has been enormous support for the Civil Partnership, introduced at the end of 2005, a union which the Church accepts, but not much of a movement in preference for same-sex marriage. There remains a body of opinion within the LGBT community none the less that wants marriage on a par with heterosexual couples. But what exactly does 'on a par' mean here?

I confess my initial reaction was to bemoan the continual minority picking away at societal norms. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that's that. There's no reason of course why that can't change. Society is dynamic and views evolve. Changing the law is trickier and changing religious practice is something else. But the position can change and no doubt will, given the present momentum. Never the less, although LGBTs don't want to be different in marriage from everyone else, the fact remains that they are different.

Same-sex relationships tend to be based on the way one likes to have sex, whereas marriage is based on procreation for the survival of the species or the family line, depending on your view. Maybe those needs are less urgent these days, but this was the intention of the institution of marriage. Henry VIII would have had none of his problems if that was not the case. And, as you will have seen in the Tudors television series, sexual gratification was a separate matter. In some cultures, a marriage between members of different families and descent is still considered more important than love, certainly than sex.

However, in a ruling against marriage between transsexuals as long ago as 1967, Mr Justice Ormerod stated "Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex, not on gender". This rather defeats my initial conclusion. And anyway Henry VIII made some pretty radical changes to law and religion to accommodate marriage, so it it is clearly not impossible to do it again.

So how does civil partnership change the situation? I was rather irritated, to be honest, when, after all the fuss to get that legislation approved, gay activists continued to campaign for more. The recent case of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson is also interesting, where their discrimination case (that not recognising their civil partnership as a marriage contravened their human rights) failed because "such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States." In other words, human rights legislation not only permits discrimination against same-sex marriage, but recognises that civil partnership confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. So, opening marriage to same-sex couples would confer no new legal rights on those already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple legal changes and the definition of marriage would have to change for everyone. As I have said, that is no reason not to do it and it would certainly end discrimination.

So, the argument is between maintaining marriage and civil partnership, since there is no difference between them, or harmonising the two because there is no difference.

But, even accepting that, it is still a slightly odd debate. The trend to marriage has continually fallen (despite a slight recent rise, probably following the 2002 changes in the immigration laws). The fastest-growing type of family in the UK is of those living together without being married. The number of people who cohabit has quadrupled from 0.6% to 2.2% (5.9 million couples) since 1996. Over the last 10 years, the numbers of children born to cohabiting couples has also doubled, suggesting that the unmarried state is a genuine social choice over marriage. There is, moreover, no religious or society objection now generally to cohabitation or to children born out of wedlock, nor indeed to divorce. Since the Divorce Reform Act came into effect in 1971, the annual number of divorces has continued to rise. At the same time, although same-sex couples in civil partnerships appear to be less likely statistically to “divorce” than their heterosexual counterparts, dissolutions of such unions, particularly among females, are already occurring, despite only being made legal relatively recently, suggesting that legal union for homosexuals is no more binding than for heteros.

So we have a situation where growing numbers of couples live together, rather than marry, where indeed ambitions to marry have softened considerably in recent years, even where children are concerned, and where there is no inherent commitment to permanence in any legal union. Furthermore, of those that do marry, church is not now the first choice for marriage. Many still content themselves with a 'legal' marriage at the registry office and dispense with the ceremony altogether. Very many others choose mundane secular locations such as hotels or even beaches for their nuptials. This, coupled with the fact that divorce rates continue to increase, shows just how rapidly strict attitudes in society have relaxed in the last few years. It is not inconceivable, with presently proposed legislation supporting same-sex marriage and not especially encouraging heterosexual marriage (indeed for some couples cohabitation offers a preferential tax position), that at some stage only homosexuals will bother with marriage. That will provide an interesting divide.

Ultimately though this is a legal problem and, even without the public apathy, no one is much excited by a legal debate. The Bill may or may not drift through Parliament without much fanfare, except from a small minority whose euphoria will not be understood by the majority of us, from the quality newspapers who will call it a 'landmark', and from Zimbabwe which will call it an abomination. But my puzzlement at the Prime Minister risking his re-election on the strength of it remains. If we aren't much moved by same-sex marriage, we would surely prefer not to have to make this into an election issue. There are far more important things to worry about in this country. Personally, a manifesto offering cheap sausage rolls will get my vote every time.

PRESS FOR FREEDOM

Let's try and make some sense of the Levenson debate.  Can you call it a debate?  I will have to simplify things a bit, but, basically, Levenson wants better ethics in the press with some legislative back-up which he says wouldn't be control of the press.  The press don't want the legislation, although they admit they got carried away and became too intrusive before. They want stricter self-regulation.  The Labour party want all Levenson's recommendations implemented  regardless.  The Lib Dem part of the Coalition want them implemented too, including legislation.  But the Conservative part of the Government doesn't want legislation, which it sees as press control.  Meanwhile, those who had their phones hacked ('personalities' on the whole) want the press curbed.  And the active section of the public seems to be moving against press freedom too; some 100,000 have signed the petition calling for legislation.

I find all this a bit odd.

I can see why Levenson recommended tougher oversight of the press.  For a start, he had to, given his brief.  No one, not even the press, would have accepted a recommendation from him to do nothing.  The activities of reporters over the last few years had become totally unacceptable.  The argument at the time, from the offending press, was that public interest was being served.  And here we have a slight problem - is public interest served by publishing tittle-tattle about celebrities or are we just naturally avid gossipers and happy to read tittle-tattle?  Of course, if criminal activity or even simply hypocrisy is uncovered, I guess you could argue that such activities as phone hacking might be justified.  And, frankly, all that dramatic bleating by celebrities to Levenson (and interestingly to the press) about privacy didn't convince me at all.  Of course celebrities would like to be in the newspapers for what might be called good publicity only.  But that's not how it works.  The latest broadside from Hugh Grant, who assumes we have forgotten the press articles revealing his assignation in a car with a prostitute, is a case in point.  The more he blusters with affronted innocence, the more I remember how the fiction of his clean image was made known, and the less I am convinced that a watchdog backed up by legislation would have kept his seedy nightlife out of the news.  OK, so there is a limit to the amount of celebrity news we really want to read in even the mass circulation newspapers.  But surely it's legitimate to expose and show up a so-called clean-living film star.  Shouldn't it also be right to investigate other blustering innocents in the interests of finding the truth?

Of course we have some difficulties if the press insist on publishing innuendos, despite failing to find evidence.  This is where libel laws and a watchdog with teeth are an essential requirement.  It is also where legislative provisions would not help.

Having said that, I am not at all interested in pics of the Duchess of Cambridge's breasts or Prince Harry's bottom.  That doesn't mean that there should be no pictures of celebrities doing what they don't want us to see.  But I don't need to know private addresses nor details of their children.  I think I would be able to draw a line beyond which there is no real public interest.

But what exactly does Levenson mean by legislation that doesn't amount to control of the press?  He suggested that the legislation should be written in such a way as to show that it wasn't a curb on press freedom.  As The Telegraph succinctly put it - why does it need to be written in that way if there is in fact no curb on press freedom?  And I should here define my terms.  By 'press' I do mean TV and radio too - wherever reporters are out ferreting for information.  I don't use the word 'media' because I am excluding 'the new media'.  Even Levenson decided that the Internet was impossible to regulate.  He described it as an 'ethical vaccuum' and suggested that we all knew it wasn't reliable.  I'm not sure that's true.  But anyway half the recent press intrusion problems arose from the speed and coverage of the Internet.  A report or a picture in one news outlet is almost immediately available worldwide online.  So I exclude the Internet for the purposes of these comments, but the fact remains that a curb on the press, whilst leaving online media completely free is an anomaly in the inquiry's findings.  Levenson wrote 2,000 pages on press activities and measures to rein them in, but only one page on the whole Internet, which seems to me to leave rather a gap in the inquiry.

As far as public opinion is concerned, I fear we must, as we seem to need to increasingly these days, discount it.  There is such a knee-jerk reaction to the pronouncements and actions of authority these days, especially where the political parties are involved, that little thought is given to the implications of what people are asking for.  Having our legislators curb press activities is the last thing we really want.  We actually want journalists poking around in the affairs of state.  I am proud to live in a country where the press is unfettered.  Yes, it leads occasionally to excesses, but, as this time, we then do something about it.  And I don't see any problem in reporters pursuing celebrities either, especially those that make use of the press for their own purposes.  Should we accept without question the statements and views of those who appear in our newspapers or on our TV screens?  Where such activities are concerned, I think the press has a duty to expose hypocrisy.  Oddly, even the anti-phone hacking campaign Hacked-Off has said that phone-hacking could serve a public interest where a crime might be uncovered.  Does this sound like a fudge to you?  Not clear to me where they are drawing the line.  It only serves to underline the difficult of regulating press activity.

And of course where a crime is committed the whole matter becomes simpler; you don't need more legislation, existing provisions are strong enough - just take the culprits to court, journalists, editors, newspaper owners or whoever.  The same applies to intrusive publication of private information.  And we have another problem here.  How did the phone-hacking affair come to light in the first place?  It wasn't the police; they decided not to pursue the phone-hacking evidence.  It certainly wasn't the Government; they were much too cosy with the editors.  No, it was the Guardian newspaper that revealed all.  Now that's a blow for press freedom.  And maybe even for self -regulation.

So what of the political parties?  I am rather surprised that the Labour party and, more particularly, the Lib Dems, seem to be in favour of legislation to back up press regulation.  I thought this might seem an illiberal proposal to them.  But of course it's an easy position to call for implementation of the Levenson proposals without actually commenting on anything but the government's cold feet.  And the Government's hesitation is indeed a bit of a shot in the foot, since they set the inquiry up.

But let's see what the press come up with on Tuesday.  Sometimes, where civil liberties are concerned, arrangements have to be a little messy.  We have to put up with some things we don't like in other words.  I saw an episode of the TV programme The Hour the other day in which a black man was interviewed on a programme where a racist had just stated his views.  The black man said, 'this is the country I want to live in, where a racist that no one likes and very few agree with, can freely state his views in public, where the right of such a man to speak his views is respected and where he is not prevented from speaking'.  Amen.  Many other countries restrict their journalists (or pop singer protesters) in various ways or punish them afterwards.  I want us to criticise those countries and reform them, not teach them how to restrict freedoms in an acceptable way.

DIVERSE PERCEPTIONS

There have been some interesting ‘equality’ debates here recently.  One of them at least made the US press.  But a lot of tosh has been spoken and written about this incident too.  We seem to have lost the equilibrium we once had, where humour was humorous to all and was seen as humour, and where offence elicited apology, rather than legislation and punishment and mediaeval public shaming.  I am not at all defending the two useless prehistoric commentators, but subjecting them to a retraining programme would seem to be more useful to society than burning them at the stake.

I confess I am not yet enamoured of female football commentators.  I heard one commentating on a cup game recently and I would like to listen to her again.  But all the others I have heard simply annoy me.  It’s not just that the timbre of the voice is wrong, but there is something that sounds phoney in a women being enthusiastic about a football match.  I keep waiting for her to make a sarcastic comment.

OK, that’s me probably sexist too.  But, like the viewers who prefer young female newsreaders, it’s just what soothes my soul and holds my interest.  And it is significant that we do seem to prefer huskier voices from female presenters and news readers. But surely no one objects to seeing persons of different sex or race in any role these days.

The sexist commentators were probably joking and maybe even being ironic, though I’m not sure either of them is that clever, and many people have since tried to dismiss this banter as ‘laddish’ or the female outcry as ‘overly sensitive’.  But wasn’t this the same argument men used to use in the office when they hung up Playboy calendars and pin-ups or smacked their secretaries on the bottom? 

Now, I’ve been careful to avoid suggesting anything about presenters’ sexuality, though several popular radio presenters are gay and nearly every gay celeb you’ve heard of is now hosting a show  (and the two dinosaurs were probably trying to tell us something about their sexuality too).  This post isn’t about sexuality; it’s about customer satisfaction.  The reason that so many camp men rise to prominence in the broadcast media (OK, it’s also probably something to do with artistic natures and creativity), is because we, as the listening public, like their voices.  I accept that there are deep, masculine voices in the media that set hearts a-flutter and probably a few shrill ladies’ voices that are liked too, but the fact remains – the male and female voices that please us most (or displease us least) are somewhere around the middle of the spectrum.  It’s the same as us preferring middle class dramas, but that’s a whole nother post sometime.

We have already had the recent Countryfile case.  It’s the same argument – we just don’t so much like older presenters in certain roles these days.  Why should the BBC be branded ageist for telling her that?  There are plenty of other programmes where we quite like the gravitas of older totty.  I suppose I can’t call them that either now.

One of the problems these days is that we have lost the freedom to joke without being branded something awful under some equality law.  Moreover, the sensitivity of minorities has been stimulated by do-gooders, campaigning societies and media, and cynical solicitors (offering to seek compensation).  There was a lady in the news the other day for winning a compensation claim against her employers for unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination.  It turned out she had never worked for more than a few months anywhere and this was her third or fourth successful claim.  I’m sure there must be others like her who live on the proceeds of equality legislation.  But the main problem is of course that times have changed.

The recent case of a Christian B&B losing their discrimination case is a case in point.  This was not so much a conflict between religion and sexuality as an elderly couple failing to keep up with the times and modern law.  There is no point referring back to pre-war morals or what your Mum told you; it will be laughed at today and, if campaigning gays or blacks or Muslims are involved, you will probably be victimised and pilloried too.  The law against bullying by minorities is a somewhat off-white area.

The Race Relations Act was designed to stamp out racism of the kind that causes conflict.  But of course it, and other such equality laws, now serve mostly to highlight the differences between us. 

And the ludicrous aspects of the Race Relations Act recently came to light with the statistics for racism and homophobia in primary schools.  I have news for whoever decided to start this exercise – kids in primary school are some of the most vicious and cruel humans on the planet.  They will so quickly spot weaknesses or differences in their classmates and so quickly join with the majority against the minority.  This is the start of bullying and it must be nipped in the bud and the kids firmly taught what is right.  But, I’m really sorry, very young kids have no idea what racism or homophobia is and branding them as bigots for the rest of their lives helps no one.

If parents can’t do the job, that sort of life training is surely what teachers should be doing.  Not passively recording dubious discriminatory acts. 

There are evolutionary traits still in the human being that will manifest themselves from time to time.  We will all, at least once in our life, say ‘that fat woman’ or that ‘bloody Chinese bloke’ or hit out to assert our masculinity or femininity or say that we prefer to look at or listen to someone or other.  But is labelling these outbursts useful?  I am so happy that we do not now have to prove our superiority in the workplace by any means other than mental ability.  And I am pleased that we now recognise that teasing might also offend and be considered bullying or harassment (though a recent study found that men are programmed to tease in relationships more than women).  But the workplace would be a dire and thankless environment if we couldn’t use humour at all.  The current trend in stand-up humour seems to be reviving the old form of insult in the name of humour.  Maybe that will help to break down these new barriers, though it doesn’t make me more comfortable.

We can only discriminate against someone if their difference is pointed out to us.  If the differences don’t matter, the insults don’t matter either.  I just hope we can find equilibrium soon.

GAGS OFF

I shall try not to say, ‘PC gone mad’.  Oh, I just said it.  Anyway the fact is that PC is mad, so technically it can only go madder (though not in fact possible) or saner.  Can the latter at last be happening?  Is there finally a non-PC backlash?

I did wonder this the other day when there was the outcry about Frankie Boyle who likes to attack taboos with his humour.  Personally, I don’t find much of this stuff funny and so it does come across as tasteless and gratuitous.  It’s outrageous and insulting to specific persons, but not, I think, wit.  Maybe it’s also rather lazy, puerile writing.  It reminds me of when I was at school and we used to tell jokes like, ‘why did the leper lose at poker?’*  I’m not even always sure about Michael McIntyre who occasionally raises a laugh by slating someone/thing just for effect (rather than for real humour).  But I accept that many people like this.  It is in any case often the way stand-up is.  And I have always appreciated comedians like Joan Rivers or Ruby Wax who rarely take prisoners (but who I think are consistently funny too). 

And humour has fashions, like anything else.  Maybe there is no place these days for the comedians of yore (although I though the Christmas Ronnie programme was pretty popular.) (Perhaps that was only amongst the older population?).  But maybe attitudes have fashion too?  Has the PC approach had its day?

A propos my last post, I imagine for example that the BBC will be careful to find good reasons in future why it is appointing certain persons as presenters.  It won’t necessarily flood our screens with old people.  That case rather goes against the trend, except that in their final judgement, the tribunal also criticised the BBC for being obsessed with recruiting ethnic minorities.  Maybe that misguided policy will change too?  But hopefully with selection of the best candidates, rather than some extension of the present positive discrimination.

Anyway I was much encouraged by former Home Secretary Jack Straw’s comments on Pakistani gangs.  I have always thought quite a lot of him and his willingness to say ‘Pakistani’ earned him much respect from me (since that’s what they are).  You can read the position of the police here.  This reticence was understandable, if palpable nonsense.

I wondered too if the present government was detecting a mood for greater incorrectness, or whether it just wished to start a movement to break down the sillier aspects of correctness, when it stated in the Education White Paper last month that it wished to increase teacher authority in schools.  I think even parents have had enough of this ludicrous situation where teachers have to put up with abuse because they can’t punish pupils without breaking some over-hyped code.

Next, it would be nice to see a few more infringement of rights cases thrown out by the courts.  Especially those brought by women who never seem arsed to do any work, but winge loudly on their mobiles about how badly done by they are as they go down the shops to buy fags, diet Coke and undersized underwear and then fall over steps they can't see under their bellies.  Oh, am I allowed to say all that?

*  because he threw in his hand.