It's wholly predictable that when anyone goes public with any opinion that's remotely supportive of the resident population of this country rather than of immigrants they're immediately accused of being racists, or of "fanning the flames of racial tension".
Margaret Hodge is the latest to fall foul of this infuriating political correctness. The Industry Minister had the temerity to suggest that in a country which is short of council houses at affordable rents (thanks - though of course she didn't say it - to the shameful policies of successive governments, including this one), priority should go to British families rather than to those who have just arrived.
It sounds fair enough to me, although perhaps her use of the word "indigenous" was unfortunate, because in the cultural mix which is Britain 2007 what does it mean?
British citizens of all sorts of backgrounds will have been here for some time, or are likely to come from earlier generations born here. Unless they belong to a long line of ne'er-do-wells (and some do), over the years they'll jointly have made a positive contribution to the life and economy of the country. They'll have earned the right to expect to be adequately housed.
It doesn't seem reasonable that they should have to remain on a waiting list for housing while others who have just arrived here and claim greater need are allowed to jump the queue. It breeds resentment. And that pushes people into the arms of the BNP.
The problem is that if things are indeed done the way Mrs Hodge says, it simply isn't fair. This remains a country in which people by and large still believe in queuing, still like to abide by the principle of first come, first served as the decent way of doing things. Anything which seems to condone queue-jumping upsets them.
Mrs Hodge's suggestion is that social housing should be allocated on a points system which would give more weight to a person's length of residence, citizenship and NI contributions. Given that this would apply to citizens of every racial background who meet those criteria, I can't see that anything racist should be read into it.
Slopping-out silliness
There are a growing number of days when, hearing the news or reading the newspapers, you have to check the calendar to make sure it's not April 1.
Latest of these came this week when we were being warned that we might be fined if we don't keep a slops bucket in the kitchen to store our waste food in, ready for recycling.
Apart from the fact that we don't have much in the way of waste food at Priestley Towers (we tend to buy it to eat, not to throw away) this would seem to be a very unhygienic thing to do. Unless the stuff was collected every couple of days it would start to stink.
And given that the talk now is of fortnightly emptying of wheelie bins, I reckon a three-times-a-week slops patrol is unlikely to materialise.
So what'll be next? Maybe all families will be told to keep a pig in the back yard to feed the slops to. Well it would eliminate the carbon-footprint cost of collecting it (and it would keep the wages bill down)! But what, then, would happen to the pig poo? How often would that be collected?
Or would we be ordered to shovel it into a barrow and wheel it to the local allotments, where allotment-holders would be under instructions to bury it immediately before the gases from it could contaminate the atmosphere?
Too silly for words? Possibly. But again, possibly not, the way recycling hysteria is going. I'm as keen as anyone to help to save the planet by not throwing away what can possibly be re-used. But even I'm getting more than a little fed-up with the way we're being bossed and bullied into one daft idea after another.
Trophy for rudeness
I felt rather sorry for Prince William last Saturday - not so much because he had to sit through that boring Cup Final and try to look interested but because of the discourtesy shown to him when he made the official announcement that launched the event at Wembley.
Before he began his few words he paused, obviously waiting for the hubbub to die down - as it would have done in polite company. It didn't, and he had to compete with thousands of talking, shouting and cheering voices. Small wonder his cheeks turned a bit pink.
I have an inkling as to how he must have felt. "Hushing" out of respect for the speaker is a thing of the past. Because of the job I do here at the T&A, from time to time I've been invited to open events or start races and walks (usually in my own time and free gratis, or in exchange for a small donation to a charity).
While I've been saying my brief bit, painstakingly crafted to fit the occasion, there have been times when people have been haggling loudly for bargains at stalls or talking animatedly among themselves.
I've wondered if it was just me who was so boring and insignificant that they couldn't be bothered to keep quiet. But if Prince William gets the same treatment, the reason has to be widespread rudeness.
He can't duck out of this sort of event in the future. But I can. And what's more, I will do.
Railroaded!
The scheme announced by Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, above, to "streamline" the planning procedure for major infrastructure projects such as power stations and airports is nothing less than a blueprint for riding roughshod over public opinion.
A proper democratic system can't be rushed. Any attack on it is yet another attack on the very principle of democracy by a Government which seems to find it a bit of a nuisance. It should be resisted by us all.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article