Hero of the week

TWICE this week, I've been late to work because of Paul Crone.

For anyone not 'lucky' enough to live in the Granada ITV region, Paul Crone is the guy who does the 'and finally' segment on Granada Reports. You know, every local TV station has them. The one who goes to interview a dog which can do the weekly shop with a blindfold on, or does a bungee jump with a parrot that's just completed its 30th.

But Paul - or Cronie as he likes to be known - has gone one step further (and you'll see why that's an unintentional pun in a minute) by filling airtime at the end of Granda Reports with various charity activites. He raises a lot of money for the North West Air Ambulance, and that has to be commended - although I'd argue that airtime he uses for that would be better used leading a campaign to make the Government fund the air ambulance.

But if he wanted to use his fame to raise money, could he not just use the airtime to show some of the people who have benefitted from the charity he wants to raise money for? And if he really has his heart set on walking around the North West, does he really, really have to do it with a large van following him at around 5mph every step of the way.

Twice this week, at totally different points of my way to work, I've got stuck behind this van. I felt quite sorry for Paul the first time - he was high up in the hills and it was chucking down - there he was in shorts and a t-shirt. Why he needed a van full of people warm, dry, and causing tailbacks, I don't know.

The second time was on a very busy city dual carriageway. All the traffic was forced into one lane to overtake Paul. I'm prepared to hazard a guess that the big van with his picture on it wasn't his idea, more the idea of his sponsor or Granada. Cos corporate types love nowt more than being associated with charidee.

Which is why I dread going shopping on either Red Nose Day or Children In Need night, because work-shy sops in supermarkets take the opportunity to don a) a red nose or b) a Pudsey Bear costume and rattle a can under your nose while the shelves go unstacked, and quite possibly, families across the region go hungry. There's a case of Children In Need living up to its name!

My point is this, charity is supposed to begin at home. It is supposed to involve, in the case of Children In Need, picking up the phone and ringing an 0800 number and pledging, say, a tenner. You've know you've done it, no-one else need to. Like when the brown envelope comes round at work when someone's leaving. You put your money in - generous or as tight as you like - but you know you've done your bit. Then you have to come up with something witty for the card, but I digress.

Anyhow, charity, it appears, is no longer about helping people, but being seen to be helping people. Why else do Asda, Tescos and Sainsburys fight over the charities they want to support. Is it supposed to make us feel good when the queues are stretching back from the tills because the 18-year-old gromits on weekend duty keep botching up because they are more interested in who 'got off with who' down Jumpin' Jak's last night rather than running a checkout? Are we supposed to feel a warm, glowing sensation when the irritating woman on the areoplane tannoy wakes us up (having already done so to announce drinks, then food, then the film, then the £2.50 headphones, then the duty free, then the reminder about duty free) to ask if we have any loose change to help children in Africa? Are we heck - it's all about corporate types feeling good. In the case of the areoplanes - sod the fact their areoplanes are killing the planet, they're helping Variety Club kids have a holiday with our loose change!

What I'm getting at is that charity seems to have gone beyond helping people and for many is more about corporations feeling good about themselves. I think there is an element of attention-seeking among some too - any local newspaper journalist will tell you that. People who sit in bath-tubs of beans or have their legs waxed for charity and then want it in the paper that they've raise £30 for kids in Rwanda aren't doing it to raise the money. They want the attention. And they get it, sadly. Just think how much was spent on the beans to fill the bath tub, or the waxing products to remove Builder Bill's hairs.

At work, this week, I've had 15 emails from a charity organiser telling me about someone who is visiting every football club in England, telling me he has time to do interviews at each stop. So what?

But amid all this is a true hero. A woman who, despite fighting cancer herself, has raised £2million for charity. Not through quick 'look at me stunts.' Far from it. Nor has it been due to being tied up to some big corporation. Stand up, Jane Tomlinson.

She's done remarkable things for charity. She has just ridden across America. You'd be hard-pushed to know that though. Sure, she got some publicity, but she didn't hawk herself round asking for it. She got on with the task of raising the money and going through real pain - no lads, worse than a leg wax - to raise money for the cause. There was no picture-opportunity at every stop en-route. No live link-up to the studio. She got on with money, did a bit of publicity when people sought her out and, I think, Sky News did a one-hour show on her at the end of her race. And even then, her husband said she didn't want to do any more publicity.

That makes her a true hero in my book. A charity star. A woman who shows that charity really is about the giving, not the glory. A woman who gets on and does it - regardless of whether a single person is watching. And for as long as we have people like Jane Tomlinson, there is hope for us all.

Survey of the week: Slop

Guess what. A study of UK social networks has revealed the emergence of a new demographic – the Framily, this being a combination of our friends and family.

The Framily Findings Report – an in-depth study into British group behaviour during everyday life – has revealed that the boundaries between friends and family have blurred to such an extent that most Brits have a mixture of both in their core social support networks.

It goes on: "While traditionally, society rules that the family is the foundation of Brits’ everyday life, the study has uncovered that 16% of Brits’ spend just as much time with friends as family, and one in four spend more time with their friends than their blood relatives."

It added: "This is demonstrated by 67% of Brits saying that they consider their best friend to be a family member…while 54% reveal that their best friend is actually a sibling or cousin. And our families and friendships have become so intertwined that almost 60% of people today consider their parents a friend over and above their parent / guardian role.

The study of over 1000 - gosh, 1,000 - adults show that the new British Framily is the primary group of family and friends with whom you regularly share evening meals, with 15% cooking and eating main meals together more than five times a fortnight.

And it turns out that "Evening meals appear to be the centre of the Framily day and it is clear that for the Framily, sharing the day and social interaction is the most important thing on the menu. 96% of those questioned revealed that their Framily meals are about telling stories, talking about their day and having a laugh – not preparing or experiencing time intensive, sophisticated cuisine but instead simple, tasty and hearty meals. "

Now who could have asked for this survey? Let's see if this helps. "While 91% said that the Framily meal is eaten around the dining room table, the food needs to reflect the warmth and all embracing personality of the Framily with pasta and sauce (56%), lasagne (45%) and casserole or a stew (54%) being the top Framily meals.

Now we're getting to it. Now who would put a survey forward which creates a social group which primariy gets together to eat. Step forward. Dolmio. Just fancy that.

Jenni Trent Hughes, spokesperson on behalf of Dolmio, says that Framilies embrace all the best bits of a traditional family unit and by acknowledging and welcoming friends to join this unit enhances our lives and feelings of acceptance.

Bobbins. What she means is people live further away from families, work longer hours so don't have time to prepare meals from scratch so end up putting mince on the frying pan and putting on the slop they call Dolmio. What would Mamma say?

She goes on to say that Framilies bond best over dinner. Presumably even better over one which uses the Italian culinary world's answer to Ikea in a glass container.

Cue the expert, some chappie called Trent Hughes: “This new social trend embraces our family and friends – and brings them together in one big, happy Framily.”

But he adds that the framily will never replace the family.

Which brings us neatly to the following question: Why the bloody hell bother in the first place?

Bloggin' all over the world

IT appears I'm not alone. I'm not the only person who turned to blogging because they get bored on the train.

Sadly, I'm not as witty as girlonatrain but I try my best.

But seeing the girlonatrain blog did send me through several other blogs as well which I enjoyed and thought I would share.

There's also afreemaninpreston which I hope to one day understand.

And his site in turn took me to Call Centre Confidential which, once you get into it, is very amusing.

Proof, if it were needed, that even at the age of 26 I need to be gainfully employed at all times...

Click on it to see it in all its glory!

Bozza nonsense

Oh dear. Boris has gone and done it again. He's offended people, apparently.

Remember two years ago when, after Ken Bigley's death, he was suggested Liverpool enjoyed wallowing in grief? Fair dos, he was sent up to Merseyside and made to apologise the great and the good in the port city, singing the praises of Liverpool to the point where I expected him to appear on telly with a Scouse accent the next day.

Sadly, that comment means every word he writes or utters is now scrutinised to the nth degree to see if it causes offence.

And so it came to pass last week that, when commenting on the political problems besetting the Labour Party, he managed to cause offence again.

"For 10 years, we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with happy amazement that we watch as this madness engulfs the Labour Party."

Now, by that comment, do you sudden assume everyone in Papua New Guinea eats each other? No, of course not. But the fact is they do have a history which does include rather a lot of family nibbling.

So stand up Jean L Kekedo, the high commissioner for Papua New Guinea in London, to claim the moral highground of self-created distress as this flippant comment.

He said he was angered by the comments, and, as David Cameron's chief - possibly one concrete - policy is to offend no-one, Bozza had to backtrack.

Johnson later said: "I meant no insult to the people of Papua New Guinea, who I'm sure lead lives of blameless bourgois domesticity in common with the rest of us."

Note how Labour don't seem to have taken any offence at Boris's inital comments, but is he really accusing me of leading a life of blameless bourgoi domesticity? How dare he! I want him round here, now, to apologise! Off with his head!

Hannibal the remake: Perhaps someone could eat Hilary Armstrong?

Blair's legacy: It's possible

I've had an idea. One you'll like. One Tony Blair's little people, the ones who reckon he should appear on Blue Peter to give him a legacy, will also like. One which will cement him in political history - for the right reason.

In this autumn's Queen's Speech, he should include a bill which would make it law that a general election be held if the leader of the ruling group is ousted/resigns/dies and so on.

There. I've said it.

Were such a Bill to become law, it would bring to an end the constant talk of conorations of a party's next leader. It would stop the constant bickering between rival factions in a party. And it means that we wouldn't have so-called political journalists on 24 hour news channels around the clock predicting what will happen rather than reporting it.

Think about it. As soon as Blair let the cat out of the bag that he still planned to resign, and his mates said it would be within 12 months, the future was set in concrete. For the next 12 months the pages of newspapers, and the hours of news channels, will be filled with rumour, conjecture and the sound of every Labour MP with a gripe against Blair trying to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I'm probably quite sad. I enjoy reading about politics. I enjoy scandal. But what I don't enjoy is a bunch of elected representatives diverting all their energies to ensuring whatever happens when Blair leaves bests suits their own personal wishes.

This latest whoo-haa all seems to stem from the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Last week, deep in the Welsh valleys, he began putting together a letter which called for Blair to set out a timetable for his departure. Why would an MP do that? An ultra-Blairite MP at that?

Could it be that he felt aggrieved that he had been constantly overlooked by the PM for promotion after pictures of him appearing in just his y-fronts appeared on a gay website? There you go, Tony Blair's future appears to hang or fall by the whim of a vengeful exhibitionist. Brilliant, eh?

Blair's mates - David Miliband and repulsive Hiliary Armstrong, who could be described as school mistress-like if she wasn't so dense - then appear and say they think he'll go in a year. Will it be a succession to Gordon Brown? They won't say, but then Jack Straw - ex-foreign secretary, probably dumped because he was getting too many headlines off Blair - pops up and says Brown should follow on. Then Alan Johnson appears on TV and refuses to rule out going for the leadership himself. And amid all this, David Blunkett pops up to say he doesn't want to get involved until his diaries have been published. That's in November by the way, his diaries that is.

On the backbenches the letters are flying around, some in favour and some against Blair going, and no doubt everyone will be thinking who they should line up alongside. It's all good stuff, if you're in the Westminister village. But what about the rest of us? The ones who voted for people to run the country.

No surprises here, but it takes a voice from outside the Westminister bubble to speak some sense. Up in Sedgefield, which Tony Blair has been an MP since the 1980s, you'll never hear a bad word spoken out Blair. The one time I was sent there as a reporter, shortly after the Hutton Inquiry was published, it was like being in some political Stepford Wives - no-one had a bad word to say about Blair. It was like a spin doctor's wet deam. And a reporter's nightmare.

Still, it was here that the voice of common sense prevailed this week. Step forward John Burton, Tony Blair's agent.

He said, in the Northern Echo, that: "It is pathetic and disappointing. You have a mixture of left-wing extremists who have always been against Tony, a few failed Cabinet ministers and a small number of loyalists who have now turned.

"But they should remember that they are there because of Tony - 170, 170 and 70 majorities are landslide victories, and Tony won a lot of them their seats.

"It is a disgusting way to treat people. If it was local councillors behaving like this, they would be kicked out of the party, but when they get down to Westminster, they think they can say whatever they like, irrespective of how it hits the party.

"I am disappointed because they are tearing the party apart and actually making less chance for themselves to get re-elected and less chance of another Labour leader, be he Gordon Brown, John Reid or whoever, winning the next election."

And there's the point. Those in Westminster jockeying for position (and airtime) don't care what people think of them at the moment because they know an election is a way off.

If a change of leadership meant a new election, they'd have to put up a united front. They'd vote, discreetly for their new leader and off the country would go to the polls.

I don't think there is a bigger act of arrogance by MPs currently embroiled in their self-created whirlwind of political nonsense than to assume they should be the only ones to choose the new leader. And the same applies to the Labour Party membership.

Parties are elected to run the country, not control it. In 2005, millions voted for a Labour Party led by Blair. As the man who, possibly more than any other prime minister, has pushed forward the cult of personality and image, he should be the man that ensures we never again have to endure this guessing game by allowing the people of the UK the right to decide who leads the country when a PM steps down.

Blair spins out of control

This may sound like a stupid question, but who determines what one person's legacy becomes?

According to the Cambridge Online dictionary, it is 'something that is a part of your history or which stays from an earlier time'. But who determines whether that legacy is a good or a bad thing?

And, more worryingly, why is taxpayers' money being used to pay for people around Tony Blair to dream up ways he can leave a positive lasting impression on the British public?

The memo in the Mirror earlier this week, hilarious as it was, wasn't so much an exit strategy for Tony Blair as the political version of a lap of honour for the political version of Sunderland Football Club.

Over the course of TB's season in the top-flight, having comfortably knocked the spots off rivals to take New Labour into the big time, we've had one disappointment after another.

Yet his cronies, who, due to security reasons, I would guess are the only people he gets to spend any time with, believe they make sure Tony leave on high, leaving the 'public wanting for more.' He's 'the star who won't even play that final encore.'

And it's Blair who accuses the media of being obsessed with his leaving date! Surely an appearance on Blue Peter (much as it would be amusing to see the po-faced lobby correspondents all sitting on beanbags in the background) and a tour of Britain's top 20 buildings won't make people forget the problems of late?

Iraq. Tuition fees. Afghanistan. America. NHS cuts. Congestion charging. None of those make for a proud legacy in my opinion.

But a Labour supporter might argue Iraq needed sorting, tuition fees help universities create better graduates, Afghanistan tackled the war on terror, our relationship with America has helped trade, and NHS cuts only come as result of local mismangement of the massive funds put in by Labour. Congestion charging, well, how else do we save the planet?

Which proves my point. Blair's legacy, in my opinion may be one thing, but to the next man, or woman, it might be something totally different. We see Churchill as a hero, yet the British public kicked him out shortly after the end of the second world war.

Blair will never go down in history as a Churchill. Sure, the War on Terror has come our doorstep, but have Blair's actions ended it? No. Has he gone a long way to sorting it? Different people have different views, and regardless of how many appearances he does on Newsround or Desert Islands Discs, those around Blair won't be able to spin opinions formed over the last decade.

What this latest memo serves to do is prove that, despite the general disdain for spin, those around Blair still convince him it is possible to turn the truth on its head and hide the bad things. You can't spin history - Blair should know that. And if he doesn't, you have to question how he ever ended up behind the door of number 10 int he first place.

Midnight matchmaking...

What's the point in your life when you'd think to yourself 'Things can get any worse for me?' Begging on the street? Waking up and worrying because you've no whiskey to have on cornflakes? Or genuinely beliving that your life will be better if you open your heart up about a relationship on the radio?

Ok, so I know it's only a few weeks since I last had a pop at local radio but really, have you hard 'Lovelines with Graham Torrington?' It appears to be syndicated on pretty much every radio station in the country late at night. There's nothing more annoying in the car than flicking between stations and hearing the same thing again and again. And Graham Torrington, or GT as he is known, takes it to a whole new level.

I stumbled across his show the other week when driving home after the late shift at work. I couldn't find any decent music so kept hitting the search button. Up until that point in my life, I thought the unshameable went on Jeremy Kyle (more on him in the future).

But oh no. There's late-night love phone ins. If you cringe when you hear 'Jonny in Toxteth wants to say how much he missed Molly from Woolton and hopes they can become a real-life Romeo and Juliet when he gets out of HMP Walton' type mentions on shows which play slow ballads to a)send people to sleep and b) keep Richard Marx in royalities, you'll hate GT's Lovelines.

GT's programme is interactive. With little music. With people who ring him up when he picks the discussion topic of 'our strangest fantasies.' Women called Sheryl, Beryl and Cheryl ring him up and talk out how they love firemen (queue jokes about hoses and poles) while Roger, Ricky and Roland queue up to tell about their Navy dream (submarines, anyone?)

That's all in 20-minute drive home. I only kept it on because it's preferrable to listening to the sound of car engine rattling, or Radio 1's late-night dance show - and often you can't tell the difference between the two.

But the point of no return in the 'has my life come to this stakes' came shortly after midnight. GT turns into the Midnight matchmaker. And reads out the profiles of several people who've put their details on Dating Direct, which sponsors the show. There was one the other night 'wants to meet someone who is a passionate Christian and a devotee of Italian food.' And they wonder why they end up on late night radio looking for a partner.

There's nothing wrong with online dating - I know lots of people for who it's been a roaring success. But to ask to have the details read out on the radio by husky GT and his midnight matchmakers, God help me, if things ever get that bad...

PHOTO OF THE WEEK

I'm going to be rather sad. Each week I'm going to put up a photo I've taken. And being dead original, I'm going to call it My Photo Of The Week. Even though I may not have taken it in the past seven days, and this photo is case in point of that.




It's a rather large ferry heading out of the River Mersey at sunset. You can see a larger version of the photo here

Molly's jolly is a Campbell's soup

THE rather grotesque face of Molly Campbell has been plastered across the big screen in our newsroom most of the week. That's one of the downsides to have 24 hour news channels on all the time during the so-called silly season.

I didn't really give two hoots about her until she held a press conference in Lahore to say she wanted to stay with her dad.

That's a 12-year-old girl holding a news conference which was shown around the world instantly. Mad, isn't it?

But what is even more mad to be is that everyone seems to have forgotten that her mother, Louise, is her legal guardian, not her father. So whether Molly likes it or not, her father kidnapped her when he took her out of the country to Pakistan.

And if the Pakistani authorities had any sense, they'd send her back to the UK asap. Because since when did a 12-year-old's wants over-rule the British legal system?

When I was 12 I'm pretty certain I didn't want to go to school, only wanted to exercise when doing a paper round and would have preferred my mum left my tea outside my room so I could keep on the old Sega MegaDrive all night.

But strangely, I went to school every day, did PE and had a tea round the table. Why? Because it's what 12-year-olds who don't want ASBOs. They do as their told. And the same applies to Molly.

Molly, incidentally, insists she isn't going to be forced into an arranged marriage. And she wants to change her name to Misbah. Misbah Campbell. Presumably, it still remains out of her control when her surname will change.

Last post for the grumpy ones

I've always had sympathy for post masters working in small, rural post offices, struggling to survive as the Government appears to go all-out to force them to shut.

Switching benefit payments direct to banks, and ditto with pensions, cost them a lot of business - after a storm of middle-class protest, the Government agreed to help the out with grants. And many have diversified.

Go into the Ribble Valley, the most scenic part of Lancashire, and you get wonderful tea shops in post offices. In areas where the post office has already shut, local communities have opened them in churches and pubs.

So where am I going with this? Well thanks to the way it is funded, the BBC's local radio stations provide the world's worst news bulletins after 7pm in the evening. In the North West, all the stations merge together to provide a north west news round-up rather than say, a Lancashire one, which you might expect on BBC Radio Lancashire.

And the location at which the late-duty news reader is normally based often determines the amount of coverage the area gets in the regional bulletin, or so it seems. Therefore I assume that the reader on duty the other night is from Lancashire - hence the appearance of a small-scale protest about Blackburn's central post office.

At first I assumed the post office was to close - which would be something of a blow to Blackburn. But this staff protest was in opposition to the post office being franchised out to a private company to run which these staff claimed would lead to lower standards of service.

Lower standards of service than currently exists in pretty much any central town or city post office? I'm not some sort of post office spotter but in recent years I've had to use central post offices in Newcastle, Birmingham, Chorley, Liverpool, Accrington, Burnley and, yes, Blackburn and I can assure those protesting that it is not possible for the service to get any worse.

One woman in the obligatory BBC vox pop - and I still can't believe this was seriously such an important story to prompt a place in a five-minute regional news bulletin - claimed this privatisation would mean all the staff with 'old school training' would end up leaving.

A threat or a promise love? She boasted that Blackburn Central Post Office offered personal service which would be lost. Personal service? Getting them to look at you in the face would be a nice start. They certainly aren't customer friendly. They see a long queue and go for a break. How else can it be that at 1pm every day, only five of 15 counters are open? They are the most miserable, poh-faced people going, but you can understand why.

The central post offices are the grimmest places going. I'm not a snob - hey, I'll shop in Morrisons every now and again - but I feel dirty when I come out these beige-coloured, grey-carpeted hovels, having normally spent 15 minutes queuing up with a collection of drunks and asylum seekers (who hold the queue up because they can't speak English and the staff's attempt at speaking to them in their native tongue involves slow, loud English) just to be served by people who evidently hate their jobs.

If post offices are to work in the future, they need to attract people to use them, not just those who have to use them. And that involves good customer service. So if franchising these branches out to companies who will redevelop them and operate them more efficiently, so be it. And if Grumpy and Co who work in them now leave in protest, then all the better.

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.)