HERO OF THE WEEK: Kaiser Chiefs

TOP marks this week go to the Kaiser Chiefs for sticking their heads above the proverbial parapet and telling the BNP where to get off.

Admittedly, recording a song with the lyric 'I predict a riot' always meant you'd run the risk of it being picked up by one of the more unsavoury sections of society out there.

But when the Kaisers heard that the track had been used to accompany a video made by a BNP supporter and placed on the website youtube, they took action - and got the lawyers involved.

The video is no more, well not in public, and the Kaisers say they were disgusted to have been associated with the BNP, even if it wasn't an official video.

They say that had they been asked if the track could be used, they'd have said no. Good on 'em. The problem with the BNP is that too few people are prepared to stand up and say what they think of them or call them for what they really are. Racist. And stupid.

After all, what else other than stupidity possibly be behind a member of the BNP - a party desperate to lose its thug image and promote itself as the rational underdog - putting up a video with a soundtrack which immediately conjures an image of violence?

Kinda tells you what they are all about, deep down, doesn't it? Scratch the surface of the 'we care' image and you see what they really are.

But what was the BNP's response to the BBC on this one? Well, at first they said their member hadn't asked because when they do ask they are told no, and that's victimisation. Doesn't condone theft though, does it?

Then they turned round and said they didn't want to be associated with music like the Kaiser Chiefs - a good, all-English band - saying: '"This isn't the type of music our party would ever want to be associated with, like rap music we think it's wrong to play this stuff, what's wrong with Beethoven?"

Nothings wrong with him from where I'm standing, but I reckon they'd probably have a problem with him being a, whisper it, German!

Smokin' fools!

First things first, I don't smoke. But that doesn't make me a smoking Nazi, determined to see anyone who likes a sly fag forced to stand in the rain outside.

And before we go any further, I'm not a reformed smoker who suddenly believes the decision to stop smoking puts them on the same moral level as St Paul, and in lieu of being able to rewrite the scriptures, instead goes around telling everyone else they should stop too.

But I do know a lot of people who do smoke. Some smoke every day, others just when they are out with friends. I don't talk to them about their habit, but I am pretty certain of one thing: When they started smoking, it wasn't because a cartoon cat had regularly drawn breath on a cigar during a five-minute animation which preceded 'Rolf's Cartoon Club' on a Saturday afternoon.

Yet, according to one goon out there, a smoking cat could be seen as glamourising smoking. This goon, anonymity protected of course, wrote to Ofcom after one episode of Tom and Jerry was shown on the cartoon channel Boomerang. Audience unknown, but it's a safe bet Tom and Jerry isn't one of its biggest audience pullers.

Ofcom has now insisted that the owners of Boomerang go through all150-odd episodes of the cartoon, which ended production in the 1950s, and edit out smoking scenes. Presumably scenes where Tom hits Jerry with a hammer, or where Jerry conspires to electrocute Tom can stay in.

But how many smokers do you know who, when offered a ciggie in a moment of peer pressure in their teens thought to themselves 'yeah, I'll do that, it's cool, Tom offa Tom and Jerry did it.' Presumably the same number who think the voice in a train carriage tannoy is that of the engine pulling the train. Possibly called Gordon, Henry or Thomas.

Perhaps Ofcom should have told the anti-terror police about their belief that cartoons influence behaviour in older life. Perhaps that's why young British Muslims turn to terrorism. After all, seeing so many episodes of Wile E Coyote turning to blow up Road Runner with dynamite from the ACME Corporation must make terrorism so glamorous.

I might ring Crimestoppers.

Air farce!

Remember on Sunday morning, that story breaking about the holidaymakers refusing to let a plane from Malaga to Manchester (a real terror threat route if ever there was one?) take off until the two suspicious Asian men had been removed.

Part of me at first thought it was understandable that people would be jittery, but presumably if there was anything odd about these two men, the tighter-than-ever security at Malaga would have spotted them.

But no. A handful of package-holiday tourists have to go and place themselves in the headlines. Like Jo Schofield.

Here's what she told the Mail on Sunday: "The plane was not yet full and it became apparent that people were refusing to board. In the gate waiting area, people had been talking about these two, who looked really suspicious with their heavy clothing, scruffy, rough, appearance and long hair."

Gosh, long hair! And they had scruffy appearances too! When did you last look good at the airport?

She continues: "Some of the older children, who had seen the terror alert on television, were starting to mutter things like, 'Those two look like they're bombers. There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men."

Hang on, no racist comments or taunts were directed at them? Didn't the kids say 'those two look like they're bombers?'

Heath Schofield, Jo's husband, added: "It was a return holiday flight, full of people in flip-flops and shorts. There were just two people in the whole crowd who looked like they didn't belong there."

Ooh, two men not conforming to the British code of looking like a t*t when you land back off holiday in wet Manchester wearing a t-shirt and flip-flops. Supposing these two were wearing traditional Asian garb, where do you think such garb is worn most? Perhaps somewhere a tad hotter than Malaga?

But don't worry, because Heath added: "While we were waiting, everyone agreed the men looked dodgy. Some passengers were very panicky and in tears. There was a lot of talking about terrorists."

So that's all right then. Just because a group of people decide they look dodgy, they should be taken off the plane? Is this not playground bullying on a grown-up scale?

It fell to Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, to put some perspective into the situation: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

"For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense."

And it has to be said, if victimisation of people because of the colour of their skin is to become the norm, Jo Schofield should be worried....

Is it me or does she look just a tad orange? Yes, I think
you'll find she does. And as a college lecturer, I just worry
about what she's teaching. Thank goodness the two Asian
lads involved actually have a sense of humour and have
admitted they feel sorry for those who thought they were
terrorists. Personally, I just feel sorry for people who think
being orange is normal.

Hero of the week: A 102-year-old

IMAGINE you're 101, and living in a 'home for the elderly'. Which is called the Nunnery.

The staff come over to you shortly before your 102nd birthday, and ask you what you want.

Well, it's a safe bet that the staff wouldn't expect you to turn around and say 'a stripper.'

But all credit to Gwen Dorling, the Norfolk (very)OAP who turned 102 on Monday and asked for exactly that - a stripper!

And all credit to the staff, for lining one up. Whether it was a private display or a public one in the common room isn't reported on the BBC's website - but I can imagine it would make for an interesting health and safety report if another bystander with a dickey heart ended up in hospital because she saw a bit too much 20-something flesh!

Anyone, I hope that by the time I'm 102, should I get to that age, a) I'm still compus-mentus enough to demand a stripper, b) still have the eyesight to enjoy it and c) have become one of those old men able to turn a smutty comment into a 'sweet remark by an old man' just because I round it off with a gummy smile!

You go Gwen!

Spot the difference!

Paul and Heather on happier days? But where did it go wrong?

They look so happy, don't they? The old rocker and his lovely-looking ex-model wife. Both strong campaigners in their own way, just desperate to raise a family together? So where did it all go wrong?

Why did Stella McCartney not take to her step-mum? Surely, as a fashion designer, it was the ideal chance to cash in some family chips and get her clothes on a top-end model for nowt?

I suspect the truth has nothing to do with concerns that Heather was just after Paul's money. I suspect the mis-trust started long before that. After all, could you let your Dad date a lookalike from Children's TV show The Riddlers?

Tiddler from the Riddlers. Possibly Heather's uglier sister. Although I suspect Tiddler's hair is the most likely of the two to be natural.

PRESCOTTWATCH: Crap

Just when I thought the summer was getting boring, John Prescott apparently steps up and tells an MP he thinks George W Bush is 'crap' and 'just a cowboy wearing a stetson.'

Hmmmm, me thinks this isn't true because a) John Prescott never makes such sense and b) he likes being a cowboy. He goes to America and hangs out with businessmen so he can pretend to be a cowboy. Why would he use the term cowboy as a insult.

What next? Craig Bellamy slagging off other people because they are Chavs?

SIGNS I'M GETTING OLD: Radio City

Most upset to find one of my favourite tunes, William Orbit's remake of Barber's Adagio For Strings is now being preceded by a 'back to the old skool' jingle on Radio City. I thought it was still too young to be a classic!

SIGNS I'M NOT YET OLD: My Dad

I'll know I'm old when I don't laugh out loud at father when he tells me, while expressing relief I've got new tyres for my car, that 'it's always good to have safe rubber.'

Michael O'Dreary

DO you know what struck me as the most remarkable thing about the public reaction to the chaos which followed last week's suspected terrorism bust?

It's the fact that virtually no-one who got stuck at airports, sometimes queuing the rain, complained, even when holidays were being shortened as a result. Here were people whose plans were thrown up in the air, pardon the pun, but knew the alternative could have been much worse.

So how did the airlines, who stand to lose cash as a result, react? With the same quiet dignity, stiff-upper-lip-in-the-face-of-adversity which their oft-fleeced passengers did?

Er, no.

Let's quote from cnn.com:

Budget airline Ryanair, which was hoping to run a cancellation-free programme today for the first time since last Thursday, has been extremely critical of the new security arrangements.
The no-frills Irish carrier said the new hand luggage regulations were "nonsensical."
Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary said his airline had seen a 10 percent drop in group bookings over the last couple of days as a result of the travel disruption. "We're seriously considering taking legal action against the Government to force them to get the airports back to normal," he added.

Mr O'Leary wanted the Government to provide extra staff at airports to ensure the extra security measures didn't hinder flights.

In a nutshell, his flights. The ones people use because they are cheap. Those passengers are then beaten around the head by Mr O'Leary to expect no real customer service at all, because they are travelling cheaply.

Ryanair recently posted profits of 115million euros. That's around £80million. Perhaps Ryanair could have hired extra staff to cope with the sudden increase in security. Or perhaps part of the deal with Ryanair from now on should be that it's cheap, but as a result the security is lax so you might get bombed midair.

Companies are great at bleating when circumstances beyond their control threaten profits. But what happens if fog delays a late flight by Ryanair into Stansted and the last, late-night train has left before passengers reach the station? Does Ryanair, as train operators do, provide alternative transport? Er, no.

In fact, Mr O'Leary felt no qualms at all in introducing what can only be described as a disability tax on passengers who needed wheelchairs in airports - by charging them to use them.

If circumstances beyond your control cost mean you can't fly, say a family death, can you get a refund? No you can't. I once tried to change a flight and was told I could do it but I'd have to pay the current price for the new flight - some £50 more than I had paid for the first flight. Did my original seat then go on sale at the price it had been sold for? No, it didn't. It went on for £75 more - because the flight had filled up more since then.

Yet when circumstances beyond the deep-pocketed Mr O'Leary's control put his profits in danger, he expects the government to come and help him out.

Is he laying on extra transport to get people to their destinations when their planes, delayed because of this extra security, arrive late? No. In fact, his website is warning that his planes won't wait for passengers held up by security!

Perhaps when he has a notion of customer service and prides himself on being fair to passengers, someone will listen. But all he's done here is prove that while his airfares might be cheap and cheerful (although the latter can often be called into question) he is merely the former.

(PS: British Airways call for compensation is also a joke. Perhaps when they can go a summer without some part of their team striking and wrecking thousands of holidays, they can start complaining about people ruining their summer.)

(PPS: Monarch Airlines has made similar calls. Where is its increased security? 12 year old boys have got onto its flights without tickets or passports. I didn't think that was supposed to happen even before the tightened security.)

SURVEY OF THE WEEK: Eggs and repeats on TV

TV COMPANIES love nothing more than a bit of cheap publicity to get the viewers tuning it. It's certainly not as expensive as original programming.

That said, original programming isn't really an option for UKTV Gold, which prides itself on showing only repeats. In fact, it's the satellite channel you go to if you want to watch repeats. It guarantees repeats, whereas the main terrestrial channels simply ensure you are quite likely to see a repeat when you tune into them.

So perhaps we can forgive UKTV Gold for turning to a specially-commissioned survey to drum up a bit of interest.

They asked people to name the best TV one-liner of all time. Winner? Peter Kay's "Garlic bread, it's the future - I've tasted it."

Sorry, is someone having a laugh here. That's the best one-liner TV has ever produced. If it is so fantastic, then how come it didn't make it on to a list of famous 'Bolton one-liners' being drawn up to be permanently imprinted on pavements in Kay's home town.

Surely a one-liner has to be funny if it stands the test of time. And surely it doesn't, by its nature, involve the person telling it to put on the worst cloth-cap-and-whipper accent to try and pull it off.

The one that came in at number two, by Carloine Aherne, in her guise as Mrs Merton, asked: "So Debbie McGhee, what attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"

It's something we've all thought, and therefore could laugh at. But how many of us have though seriously hard about garlic bread? And will it stand the test of time.

As Victor Meldrew said: "I don't believe it." And there's one that will, by the way.

PS: Seeing as most academic research boils down to little more than just a survey of people sitting near to a student, I was tempted to include this one from the University of Israel. Apparently eating eggs and bacon for breakfast gives you the best start to the day. Eggs and bacon in Israel? Just who did they get to test that?

Radio Ga-Ga

IMAGINE you're on the M6, stuck in traffic. You turn on BBC local radio to check out the traffic bulletins (I can't think of any other reason to voluntarily tune into BBC local radio) to find out what is going on.

The amateurish presenter goes across live to the BBC Traffic centre in Manchester for the latest (latest as in what was on the computer screen before the traffic person, who is only doing it until a part in an RSC production comes along).

The would-be Othello puts all the gusto into his performance, announcing that the four lorries which had crashed and shed their loads were still there (just as they were 15 minutes before when he was last on air) and that their were long tailbacks (slightly longer than 15 minutes before).

People who were in the service station next to the crash can't get out of the service station (presumably Costa-lot coffee will be offering freebies to those trapped? More likely cashing in a captive audience) and the contents of the lorries spilling onto the road has stripped the tarmac, meaning it has to be relaid (presumably one was carrying Diet Coke, then).

So what do you, having heard that. You're going to be stuck there for hours, possibly.

Well, if it was me, I wouldn't ring up BBC Radio Lancashire and criticise the police for NOT PROVIDING CUPS OF TEA TO THOSE STUCK IN THE QUEUE!

For me, this incident only served to prove that radio phone-ins should be banned. Especially BBC local radio ones. They serve two purposes only: a) to provide employment for people not good enough to broadcast on phone-ins normal people might ring in to and b) to give people deemed to loonie to appear on Victoria Derbyshire's phone-in someone to vent their spleen.

Give them all a blog and be gone with them.

HAIRY MOMENT

Now that a ceasefire has been agreed between Hizbollah and Israel, plenty of aid should be finding its way into the Lebanon.

While I hope the aid gets to its destination quickly, I do feel there is a need to get some good hairdressers into Beirut soon.

The Lebanese capital has provided wave after wave of dodgy mullet and all-conquering perm for the 24-hour news channels of late. Kevin Keegan would feel at home out there.

For the sake of their dignity, and humanity as a whole, Vidal needs to lend some of his men along with the UN peacekeeping force.

HERO OF THE WEEK: The Portsmouth Slasher

EVER been on the motorway, stuck behind the car in the middle lane which seems to drift a bit to the left, then the right, as though the driver's thoughts were elsewhere?

When you eventually pluck up the courage to drive past them, you see the driver is talking on a mobile phone.

Which is illegal. Three points and £60 at least, apparently. Yet, how many people do you know who have been prosecuted? I know none, but I do know a woman who was told off by a rural policeman for speaking on her mobile while riding a horse.

If I can bank on being nicked for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone - simply because it's a cheap way of raising cash - then the police should be doing the same for people who speak on a mobile while driving.

And it appears someone in Portsmouth agrees with me. I quote from the Portsmouth News:

"A mystery vigilante is punishing drivers who talk on their mobile phones while driving – by slashing their tyres.

Up to 20 motorists have emerged from their homes to find their tyres have been punctured overnight.

And the phantom slasher is even leaving notes on his victims' windscreens using letters cut from newspapers.

The note reads: 'Warning. You have been seen driving while using your mobile phone.'Police confirmed they were investigating 20 reports across Gosport, Lee-on-the-Solent, Fareham and Portchester."

Inspector Kevin Cuffe said: “Whoever is doing this may feel they have some sort of justification, but there’s never an excuse to vandalise the property of others.”

I beg to differ, Inspector Cuffe. Sometimes people feel they have no choice - and if people can't be trusted to keep their phones off while on the move (and using hands free simply makes people more likely to start moving their hands while talking and driving) they shouldn't be on the road.

And thanks to the Portsmouth Slasher, many of them aren't.

Lucky - we were this time

Yesterday began and ended in a very surreal way for me. It ended being surrounded by a group of punk rockers on a late night train home from work. They were very friendly, all German and all with exceptionally large spikes on their heads. They were a bit naffed off that their plane had been delayed, though.

The day started oddly too. Ben Shephard appeared to be in my bedroom. In that haze of semi-consciousness I realised my girlfriend had turned on GMTV and was watching intently all the live reports on the 'chaos' at the airports.

I didn't know GMTV did rolling news. Evidently, Ben Shephard didn't realise either, given his gaudy attire - and the fact they still managed to find time to run the 'win £10k' competition amidst this chaos.

But still, in time of threat and terror, it's important to show those doing the threatening and terrorising that they won't win - by getting on life with normal.

I wonder if they would have still run the competition had the story not been about the arrests of 20-odd people, but about a dozen planes blowing up in the sky?

I also wonder if the woman who rang Radio 2's travel line to ask if the duty free shops were still open would have felt the same need to check that she'd be able to get her 200 L&B tax free?

I ask the question not to poke fun at GMTV, but to make a serious point: Just how close were we to not being at a 'phew, that was close' sentiment but one of utter disbelief and horror.

We'll probably never know. But it's not the first time attempted terror plots have been foiled, and it is a safe bet it won't be the last.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect to yesterday is that we got lucky this time. All the money in the world won't guarantee another group of would-be bombers will slip through the net in the future, causing untold carnage.

Toparaphrasee a well-quoted from the IRA at the height of its campaign against mainland Britain: "We only have to get lucky once. You have to be lucky everyday."

However, it was much easier to get lucky against the IRA - their bombers didn't want to die too,
which somewhat reduces their options. They had to conceal their bombs somewhere, and get out of the way. Many described it as cowardice.

But how do you combat people whose brains have been so bombarded with the most twisted ideology of Islam going that they are prepared to die?

Well, you work even harder to make sure they don't become so disconnected from society that they become prey for the preachers of evil and hate in the name of Islam.

Those who have blown themselves up in recent years in the name of a jihad aren't the preachers. Bin Laden still rocks around in the Afghan mountains, as do many of his henchmen across the world.

They pick on generally intelligent young men who feel isolated from mainstream British society, largely because they belong to a minority religion. Making sure they don't feel isolated is the toughest task of all - teachers, councils, the police, they all have a duty to make sure that these young men can be poisoned by making sure that, from an early age, they are shown the evils of what has been done.

What can the Muslim community do? Well, it needs to make sure it turns in the people it suspects of promoting terrorism. That already happens, but the wider public needs to see what is happening. Actions speak louder than words, they say, and it is never more true than now.

Many Muslim communitites do link with the police, but the wider community needs to see it happening so more people feel comfortable going forward.

The evil preachers of hate need to be exposed for what they are. Spineless, shameful, cowardly mouths. Take Omar Bakri, the preacher of hate exiled from the UK after speaking favourably about the 7/7 bombers.

He was banned from coming back from the Lebanon after those comments. Surely the best place for man who promotes violence against the West is in the Lebanon? Fighting alongside those terrorists who believe everything the likes of Bakri spout?

Funnily enough, when the bombs started falling around him, he asked to come back to the UK, on humanitarian grounds. That makes him a coward. It makes all those imposing war on the West cowards.

They are the ones the Government needs to target, cutting off their supply of disillusioned youngsters. We all have a part to play in that, because we can't get lucky every time.

Just another day on Northern Rail

A short story for today's blog all about 'a' passenger's attempts to get to work on by Northern Rail.

This is Northern Rail, the firm which will run all of the North's local (ie non express services) until 2012-ish, and get £2bn in subsidy from the Government to boot.

For £2bn over eight years I'd like to think the Government would expect passengers to benefit from a) new trains which don't smell of wee and which are cleaned regularly, b) trains which run on time and c) accurate information when the trains don't run according to timetable.

Apparently not.

This passenger, you see, got to his local railway station about 10 minutes before the train is due to arrive. It's a small train station, which has one train an hour stopping at it. The train station had four railway lines going through it, two of which have platforms for trains to stop. The other two don't, and waiting for his train, this passenger often looks at the Virgin trains sailing past, wondering why £2bn doesn't buy some nice new trains for his daily journey.

Anyway, the trains appears to be running late. But despite being in an age where Tony Blair can carry on international diplomacy from a Caribbean beach, it hasn't been possible to link up a tannoy at this passenger's station to a manned station for staff to announce the delay.

So he rings up National Rail Enquiries to be told the train is running 20 minutes late. Which was a relief. Until he saw the train approaching - on one of the tracks which doesn't have a platform. It simply sails past. So he rings National Rail Enquiries back, and they confirm it has, indeed past his station, and he'll have to hang around until 1pm for the next train. This is after telling this passenger the train had stopped at his station and that he must not have seen it. He is then told that sometimes trains do this (miss stations with passengers waiting on them) to make up time when running late. Good idea that - miss out stations to get to a destination on time!

He decides to ring Northern to ask what's going on. A friendly woman can't tell him what is going on but promises to ring back. It's begun to rain on the platform and the only shelter is in a bus shelter on the platform which looks like kids use it to recycle their bottle at night while emptying their bladders at the same time.

The friendly woman rings back and says she's sorry, but a points failure further up the track meant no trains could use the track with the platform on it. Which was a surprise to this passenger as a) there are two track with platforms and b) in the meantime, a freight train with about 100 noisy trucks behind it has pulled up at the station on the track which is apparently still out of action.

She can't promise that the next train at 1pm will be able to stop at the station, and says she'll have to have a think about what to do. She does that, and rings back offering a taxi to this passenger's destination - it'll take about 10 minutes to arrive.

That's good, thinks this passenger, because the next train due might not stop and isn't due for 25 minutes. 20 minutes later and there is no sign of the taxi, so he rings National Rail Enquiries to ask if the next train is indeed going to stop at his station. He's told it is, but it's running 20 minutes late.

Which is kind of strange because soonerner had the man on the phone said this, than the train pulls into view - some five minutes early! Still no sign of this taxi meant to arrive 15 minutes ago so this passenger gets on the train (which is rubbish-strewn and has a faint smell of wee about its vestibule) and sits down. The conductor comes up and insists the previous hour's train never ran at all - 'that's why we're pulling extra carriages' - but looking at this passenger's face of thunder, he decides to check his facts (communication exists between trains and stations, apparently, not between stations and stations though).

He comes back out and says: "Oh yeah, it was sent down the wrong track."

Now this passenger knows that it may not have been Northern's fault, but surely £2bn in subsidy, seeing as its not being spent on new trains or even extra carriages, could be spent on communications so that the staff - and perhaps the passengers - knew what was going on.

Silly Bea!

Best quote of the week so far comes from Princess Beatrice, sadly afflicted with having Fergie as her mother.

Ok, so it brings all the trappings of wealth with it, but, hell, you've still got Fergie as your mum.

But it appears that far from being dismayed by her mother's behaviour - as most teenagers are, even if their parents are, in fact, normal - Beatrice wants to be like her mum.

"I see myself as a mini-mummy" she said the other day.

Funny that, bea, it's what the rest of the world has been seeing for some time!

SURVEY OF THE WEEK: Stupid crime

You expect surveys from companies promoting their products to be daft.

You don’t expect them to be dangerous.

I know crime stats are ridiculed by opposition politicians – but what if they come from an insurance company?

Well, they ain’t gonna say the world’s a safe place, are they?

The geeks at the spreadsheets working for Zurich Insurance have revealed Britain has a walking wealth of 339billion.

That means the average Briton carries with them items with an ‘on the street value’ of £851. Quite what ‘on the street’ means, it doesn’t say. High street value? Equal monetary value to £851 of drugs? I dunno.

And there are some quite astounding findings. Apparently professionals over the age of 35 have the most expensive taste in gadgets. Gosh, so it’s middle aged men in suits who like playing with their Blackberries. I’d never have guessed!

Women tend to carry £904-worth of goods with men, with men £725. It’s a good way of drumming up new business, isn’t it. Tell greedy criminals how each person on the street is a potential cash windfall down the pawn shop, and scare half the country to death to boot.

But let’s look at the stats. £851-worth of stuff each? Mobile phone = £100. iPod – maybe £200. Wallet with cash = £60 (average person carries £40 apparently). What else is there? Blackberry perhaps. Add another couple of hundred.

I’m still falling short of the target here. Why’s that? Surely Zurich hasn’t based its figures on actual claim people have made? It wouldn’t be that daft, would it?

Green lectures make me fume

LATE last night, I heard a woman from the Caravan Club defending the hordes of people who clog up the roads with their mobile sardine cans.

The perennial argument has been made all the more relevant this year by the fact that our jet-setting foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, has just taken off on her hols with caravan in tow.

Just at the point when a Middle East ceasefire is on the cards and our foreign secretary has upped sticks and headed off on hols - with her security guards not far behind in something similar.

You can almost imagine the scenes when the police started handing out the summer assignments to their elite. Caravan with Beckett or Caribbean with Blair?

But, anyway, I was quite impressed with Mrs Beckett for her decision to go on holiday in a caravan, assuming that she'd headed off somewhere in the UK. At least she'd be close by if all hell kicked off and George 'W' Bush decided he actually wanted UK input into the Middle East solution, rather than just the opinion of his new best friends in France.

So imagine my disappointment when I read - in the Daily Mail - that she'd actually hopped on to a Channel ferry - and bought baguettes in the Duty Free! - and was staying somewhere in France!

Silly me for thinking that the former secretary of state for the environment - whose responsibility included rural affairs and farmers - had finally realised the importance of helping the countryside by spending money on it, and staying on a campsite being run by a farm family which had diversified in the wake of the foot and mouth crisis.

But at least she wasn't on our airwaves from first thing this morning trying to encourage me to turn the thermostat down by 1 degree a day to help reduce the level of carbon emissions going out into the world.

No, that would be Tony Blair, who should be on holiday by now, but isn't because he thought Dubya might want to chat with him on world affairs - a situation which makes him look rather desperate, doesn't it?

The same Tony Blair who, instead of making the relatively short hop by plane from American to the Caribbean, opted instead to fly back to the UK because he didn't want to 'be out of contact on a long-haul flight' at such a critical time in the peace negotiations.

That's peace negotiations which he appears to be have been sidelined on. That critical time was last Thursday and Friday. It's now Monday and the bombs are still falling.

So presumably Mr Blair intends to fly out of London to the Caribbean sometime this week. That's two long-haul journeys which have replaced one relatively short-hop as a result of burst of self-importance.
And he has the cheek to start lecturing us on how to save the planet!

Going green appears to be trendy again, thanks largely to David Cameron's Tory Party. But surely the likes of Blair should start practising what they preach. Fewer long-haul flights would tackle carbon emission problems to a degree. Think of the pollution reduction we'd all benefit from if senior politicians from all sides stopped gladhanding around the country whenever an election - be it local, national or byelection - for the sake of a few votes.

Imagine if Mr Blair started using video conferencing. If Blackburn with Darwen Council can set it up so people can watch meetings taking place in one of its two town halls at various locations, I don't see why government hasn't embraced it.

Mr Blair also needs to consider who he is preaching too. It doesn't matter how many of us turn the TV off rather than leave it on standby, or how many of us opt for cooler homes (global warming = higher temperatures = no need for heating!), if his mate at the White House doesn't promise to tackle America's polluting industries.

But perhaps his mate at the White House isn't listening to him that closely any more.

HERO OF THE WEEK: Martin O'Neill

To be a hero, you have to be a bit nuts. After all, firemen run into burning houses day in, day out.

On a much more mundane level, you have Martin O'Neill. The golden boy of British football management worked wonders at Leicester City and Celtic before taking leave to look after his ill wife.

Since then, he's had (apparently) the pick of the top jobs: Newcastle (crazy fans but lots of money), Middlesbrough (not so much money but still European material), the England job (glory, glory, glory - possibly) and maybe even the Sunderland job (new chairman, chance to bounce back into the Premiership).

It would appear O'Neill has resisted the lure of each in favour of joining ... Aston Villa. A club which has its players in revolt, a chairman who sacks managers for fun, and a transfer kitty which resembles a piggy bank after its owner has signed up for an IVA.

He admits he is petrified. He doesn't know who the owner of the club will be next month - four constoria are in the running for it, but that hasn't stopped him.

Maybe he believes his own press - although I doubt it - about working miracles. But good luck to him, he's gonna need it!

Man of Straw? Don't bet on it

This time last week, Sunday newspapers were dropping their weighty presence onto doormats across the country, proclaiming a Cabinet rift over the Middle East crisis.

For the people of Edinburgh, this was not not 'new' news. The evening paper in Scotland's capital, the Evening News, broke news of this rift via a chat with former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw the Friday before.

A day later, via a 'statement' to Blackburn's Muslim community, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph carried a similar story. Quite how an MP makes a statement to one particular section of his community without first doing it through the media confuses me, but that's not the point.

It has been suggested since that Mr Straw made his remarks because he is worried about some sort of Muslim/Asian rebellion within his own constituency, Blackburn, over the Government's rather lack-lustre response to calls for an Israeli ceasefire.

It's true that Blackburn does have done of the highest ethnic populations in the country - percentage-wise that is - but it's total tosh to think that is what was bothering Mr Straw.

As Foreign Secretary during the Iraq war - one Britain instigated in the face of massive public opposition - Mr Straw went through a very sticky patch in Blackburn. An ex-ambassador turned up to stand against him in the general elections, the Tories and the Lib Dems sought out the anti-war vote and Mr Straw suffered abuse on a day to day basis.

But he still survived. His share of the vote, and indeed number of votes, fell. But so did the votes of the Tories. If ever there was a time Mr Straw was going to buckle to fears government policy was going to cost him his elected political career, it was then.

Certainly not a year later, and some four years off the next general election. And anti-government sentiment in Blackburn on the issue of Israel is by no means as strong as it was on Iraq - an issue which incidentally cost Mr Straw's agent his role as leader of the local council in 2004 thanks to the fact he stood in a largely Asian ward and chose to align himself closely with his mate in the Foreign Office.

So if that's not the reason, then what is it? Well, what's changed significantly since Iraq began? Ah yes, Mr Straw's job. Weeks after pictures of him showing Condoleezza Rice around Liverpool and Blackburn been shown around the world and he was a shock loser in a Cabinet reshuffle. Out went his trips around the world and in came the prospect of Parliamentary reform courtesy of the Leader of the Commons role.

And no matter how much gusto and spin is put out by Mr Straw and Number 10 about what an important role it is, it simply isn't the same - and Mr Straw is smart enough to know that.

Having diligently backed Mr Blair's line on Iraq, at the possible cost to his support on the ground in Blackburn, it was an odd way to be rewarded.

And I think Mr Straw's very open concern at what was going on in Israel and Lebanon, contradicting the line from the PM, was designed to show Mr Blair that he mess with Mr Straw at his peril.

Mr Straw didn't opt for some off-the-record briefing to make his comments. The papers weren't littered with 'senior minister concerned at' blah blah - it was an on-the-record statement made to one of the lobby correspondents he knows best.

The Sundays picked up on it, and it appears to have inspired other ministers to become more vocal - at least behind closed doors - about the Government's line on Israel.

Margaret Beckett has shown herself to be thoroughly useless in this crisis. At least when Mr Straw was towing the party line you got the feeling he knew what he was on about. Pushing him out of the way for Mrs Beckett is rather like asking your granny to take over running a kitchen when Gordon Ramsay has been in charge - you may not agree with Ramsay, but you know he knows what to do. And so it was with Mr Straw.

She has seemed totally incapable of explaining why a ceasefire can't be called for now. Almost every other country has called for one, and Britain should have shown teeth to America and done the same. This nonsense about a lasting ceasefire is just that. Get them to stop now and work out a longterm plan then. That's how it should have been done.

But no, instead of condemnation of both sides, we have a Prime Minister who relishes his role as an international statesman making global calls to other world leaders to try and find a solution. When not drinking with rapper Snoop Dogg.

And while he is searching for this lasting solution, bombs are falling on homes on both sides of the border. Some of those bombs actually stopped in Scotland en-route from America. So much for seeking out peace, eh?

What it boils down to is not concern for those dying in the Middle East, but those seeking political capital out of it. That's my opinion. Mr Straw uses it to show he has teeth, and isn't afraid to nash them. Blair uses it to strengthen his relationship with Dubya while playing international statesman. Other members of the cabinet see a crisis coming and distance themselves from it, but won't go public for fear of retribution in the future. And Mr Blair ends up delaying his holiday because, in a nutshell, he doesn't trust anyone else to do his bidding while on a 10-hour flight to sandy shores - such confidence in Mrs Beckett - and because no-one wants to follow his line.

And while all this is going on, people continue to die. Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it?

SPORT: The real football starts tomorrow.

FOR hundreds of thousands across the country, 3pm tomorrow marks the end of high hopes. Reality comes crashing in. The dread of what the next nine months will hold bites.

Yes, the football season gets under way in England tomorrow. Not that you'd know it from the coverage in the national press. As far as some of them are concerned, it's still a fortnight off.

But for anyone who has yet to witness a double-digit million signing joining the club, they know the truth. The REAL football starts tomorrow.

It's so easy being a fan of a Premiership club. Sure, supporting Sunderland must have been painful last season, but at least you got to see the liked of Cristiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry and Wayne Rooney knocking in the goals against you.

Down a league in the Championship, you don't even have that consolation. A drubbing is made all the more embarrassing by the fact it could be against Derby or Luton.

Not that I have room to talk. Preston North End are hardly the most glamourous club going.

Supporting a Premiership club also comes with the benefit of seeing your lads on telly most weeks - particularly if you play in Red and have a ground quite close to the Trafford Centre. If it's not live on Sky, it's being shown live in pubs tapping into dodgy Norweigan channels.

At clubs like Preston, the arrival of Sky TV cameras for a Friday night or Sunday lunchtime - primetime all the way down here! - can make back page news in the local papers. Bring out the bunting, we might get Chris Kamara telling us what's what.

If Jose Mourinho shops at football's answer to Harrods for his signings, then most Championship managers make do with bring and buy sales down the village.

There's no point spending big in the Championship. There's no room for showboating down here. It's good stuff, but if it gets too good, the players are soon being tempted away to the Premiership - with club chairman unable to refuse because he/she knows the cash will ensure the club remains in business until next season at least.

So, unless you're one of those clubs just down from the Premiership with a bit of cash to splash - or Leeds United on a quest to sign every striker in the land - it's a case of hunting lower down the leagues for a 'hidden gem.'

Everyone reckons their manager is good at spotting such buys during the close-season. That bargain buy from Scunthorpe will shock everyone in the Championship, you insist at the pub. And shock he will. Not only tomorrow, but week in, week out until the manager gets sacked or he quietly gets sent out on loan - possibly to Scunthorpe.

And the best thing about pre-season is the friendly games. Victories against Premiership teams who have, in truth, just fielded the youth team, and you reckon you are on to a winner for the start of the season. Lose against lower league teams, and, well, it doesn't matter, the manager was just trying something that didn't work. Better do it now than when there are 3 points at stake.

And so it goes on. Right up until the whistle blows at 3pm. You wanna see it live? Be in the ground. You're soon back to earth with a bump. But while the quality may be lacking, the Championship has so much that the Premiership can't offer. Unrivalled optimism about making the playoffs, fans with a passion which goes beyond the norm.

And a car park which isn't filled with SUVs bearing number plates from 300 miles away. Oh yes, none of the glitzy stuff to bring in Tarquin and his friends from the stockbroker belts around the UK - and it's all the better for it. Real football. And long may it stay that way. As long as we're winning.

RETRACTION: Hero of the week

Not the most auspicious of starts this, but I blundered. Made a big mistake. Need to retract now.

Having watched one whole episode of 'non-celeb' Love Island at the weekend, I was quite impressed with the way scrawny Lee 'Bombhead from Hollyoaks' Ottway stood up for the current love of his life, some blonde lass also on the island.

I concluded that he was either stupid or honourable for standing up to the incredibly big - and rude - basketball player Dennis Rodman. I then went on to say I would plump for the latter.

Having watched the programme twice more since, I have concluded I was wrong. He was just being stupid. In fact he is stupid. A stupid fool to be precise. A stupid fool whose family must of winced last night when he revealed he'd not been able to 'pleasure' himself (I'll not use the four letter word he used) since arriving on the island.

Thattuesdayfeeling's 'hero of the week' award might be new, but it can't be sullied by such actions, so he's being stripped of it.

In his place goes the Queen Mum..





Why? Well, according to the biography extract of one of her former staff (well, she won't have any current ones will she?) she used to do great impressions of Tony Blair.

The thought of a 95-year-old woman, loved my the nation, amuses and impresses me almost as much as I'm sure it would mortify the establishment-chasing, celebrity-hunting, all-round wannabe socialite Mr Blair.

That's not bad going in one week is it. Giving out an award, then retracting it and awarding it posthumously.

SURVEY OF THE WEEK: James Blunt

According to the papers earlier this week, James Blunt is one of the most irritating things in peoples' lives.

In fact, since bursting on to the scene less than a year ago, the ex-army officer crooner has not only managed to top the music charts, but also oust some old favourites from the pet-hate charts.

Apparently, people find him more irritating than traffic wardens, tailgaters, brown-nosers and ex-smokers.

Only cold-callers, caravanners and queue-jumpers irritate people more.

I feel sorry for James. It's not his fault - in fact it's his good fortune - that his opening musical gambit, 'You're Beautiful', was played everywhere last summer. There was no escaping.

I remember hearing it in a cafe on the left bank of Paris. A friend remembers hearing it in Thailand. I bet there was no escape from it in Tibet, Moscow or Iraq either!

But does that make him irritating? Surely it's just his music.

This survey was carried out by health drink firm Lactofree. I can only assume they didn't ask journalists to take part, because everyone knows journos find nothing more irritating than public relations firms trying to pass off stupid surveys in a cheap attempt to get a product publicity.

End of the line for railway greed

I might be alone here, but there is something which always amuses me when big companies start complaining.

And what is even more amusing is when they try to use the law to protect their large profits.

Last week, GNER, the firm which has had the monopoly for many destinations from London on the East Coast Mainline lost its High Court appeal to try and stop a rival get up and going.

A firm, Grand Central plans to run three - yes that's just THREE - trains a day from Sunderland to London, calling at five stations en-route. Four stations, including Sunderland, currently

Grand Central will compete with GNER at just three stations, and possibly one more when another service, from Bradford to London, comes along.

What has got under GNER's skin, by all accounts, is that whereas it has paid a £1.3bnpremiumn for the right to run services to all East Coast stations, Grand Central will only have to pay to get access to the track for its six services a day.

To quote the new story which accompanied the High Court decision last week: "GNER claims the rival service will see it lose £109 million over the next nine years, because Grand Central will have the right to some of its fare revenue, while paying only a fraction of its charges to use the line."

It had claimed, in court, that such a situation was 'discriminatory and unlawful.' It has since started making veiled threats about increasing fares and reducing on-board facilities as a result.

This is the same GNER, by the way, which gratefully took subsidies of up to £61million in the years following privatisation, and only in recent years has it been paying government for the right to run the service.

Now, I'm not a businessman, but what I do understand of commerce tells me this: A private firm like GNER would not be offering the Government £1.3billion for the right to run services on the East Coast if it didn't think it could make a handsome profit in return.

And what's more, the 'threat' of rival starting up on a set route, at set times, shouldn't come as a shock to them.
Hull Trains has been doing exactly the same further down the East Coast line, stopping at Doncaster and Grantham to compete with GNER.

Hull Trains's services have been so successful they've recently got permission to increase their daily services to London by one a day, to six.

But why is GNER so worried? Having used York railway station more times than I care to remember, it's quite clear to me. GNER trains are regularly full at peak times and getting on at York can be a nightmare.

And whereas as when travelling by Virgin on the West Coast, there are still plenty of cheaper fares, I've often felt I'm paying through the nose just for the privilege of travelling aboard GNER.

Reliability, in my experience, is another issued with GNER. Check the arrivals boards at Newcastle or York on any day and you'll see what I mean.

So with a new company further up the line, GNER now has to face up to a commercial reality of privatisation:
competition.

It's something which needs to be rolled out across the rail industry. At present, it isn't privatised, it is franchised. And because the train companies know the travelling public have no choice but to use their services, they do their best to get away with the cheapest possible service going - and I don't mean by that the cheapest ticket either.

Anyone who has been stuck on one of the old Northern Pacer trains which rumble around the North will tell you that.

Anyway, the average man or woman living in York can choose their gas supplier (privatised), their electricity supplier (privatised) and their phone company (privatised).

So why, on the trains (apparently privatised), is the main operator so surprised to have to compete. It's warning fares will have to go UP now.

If that's the case, then expect the local Metro service between Newcastle and Sunderland to become much busier. Travellers are daft. If a cheaper service is 10 minutes on the train at another station, they will travel.

And that's what scares GNER. Having paid through the nose to print money up and down the east coast, it's suddenly discovered the goal posts have moved, that something else has cropped up to make their day a little harder. It's monetarytary answer to leaves on the line. And it's nice to see they know how that feels now!