Mike Priestley: North of Watford

I'm a relatively infrequent visitor to the doctor's, fortunately, so whenever I'm prescribed something it's quite an occasion. I read the label. I read the box. And then I settle down with the leaflet inside it.

It can be an unsettling experience. Last week I was prescribed some nasal drops for a minor ear and sinus problem. Two drops up each nostril three times a day was what the doctor ordered.

The leaflet told me this: "After using these drops in the nose, irritation, dryness, sneezing, headache, lightheadness, itching, feeling sick, nose bleeds, blocked nose, loss of smell, difficulty breathing and holes in the tissues dividing the two halves of the nose may occur".

What? All I'm suffering from is a bit of pressure on my inner ear and according to the leaflet I could end up a total wreck!

Eager for further alarmist reading, I rushed to the medicine cupboard and found the remains of a box of tablets my wife was prescribed last year when she had an over-acidic stomach (the result of stress induced by living with me, she says).

Here's a part of what the leaflet in her box had to say: "The following side-effects may occur very rarely: kidney problems, pancreatitis (indicated by the sudden onset of abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting), headache, fever, muscle pain, joint pain, changes in heart rate, blood problems (may be indicated by bruising, bleeding points in the skin) and including anaemia (indicated by tiredness), hair loss, impotence, enlargement of breasts in males, liver damage or confusion in the elderly or very ill.

"Very rarely this drug may cause a severe allergic reaction. This will cause faintness and other symptoms may include an itchy, raised rash, difficulty in breathing and swelling of the tongue and throat."

I ask you - wouldn't you rather have an acidic stomach? Take those at the same time as you're using the nose drops and a bloke could end up with big bosoms and a connecting hatch between his nostrils!

I appreciate that the drug companies have to cover themselves. They are so litigation-conscious nowadays that they want to list every conceivable side-effect, however unlikely, so that if you do develop a problem they can say "Well, we did warn you, and you still went ahead and took the medication. So it's your responsibility." Fair enough, given the barmy world we currently live in.

But it's enough to frighten you to death, isn't it?

Welcome drop of common sense...

First reaction (from me, at least) to news that plans for tougher new EU drink-drive laws have been shelved was that common sense had prevailed. My view, stated here before, is that the present drink-drive limit in Britain - a couple of pints or glasses of wine - is just about right.

I'm with the RAC on this one. Instead of lowering the limit to spoil the pleasure of people who are able to drive perfectly safely within the existing one, the law should be concentrating on that hard core of people who continue to drive not only when they've been drinking but when they're drunk.

So it was good to learn that Neil Kinnock, Europe's transport commissioner, had decided against introducing new rules which would have almost halved the legal limit for British motorists.

Except, alas, that the only reason he has done so is so that the EU will appear to be less interfering. There were strong hints that national governments in Europe were expected to carry out the changes in the law instead.

And I'm almost certain that will happen before long in Britain. There is a near-puritanical attitude in some quarters to any consumption of alcohol by anyone who then intends to drive, in whatever circumstances.

If you don't believe that, consider the case of Mr Cyril Stammers, who lives down in Suffolk near the lovely town of Woodbridge. Mr Stammers had his cheerful bearded face in the papers last week because he had succeeded in having his year's ban for drink-driving overturned on appeal (although the conviction and fine remained).

He had had a few drinks in his local pub and instead of driving home along the roads had gone across country, using farm tracks and bridleways, as was his custom. He knew he would meet no other vehicles along the way. Nor was he likely to meet any pedestrians.

What he did meet, though, at 1am halfway along his three-mile route, was a couple of apparently pre-alerted police officers who stopped his Range Rover and breath-tested him.

So somebody had taken the trouble to contact the police and advise them of Mr Stammers's route. And the police had taken the trouble to lie in wait on what we must assume was otherwise a quiet night for proper crime around Woodbridge.

And when they stopped him, what did they charge him with? Driving a motor vehicle on a bridleway, thereby churning it up? That would have been a reasonable enough case to bring against him.

But driving while over the limit, through fields, a long way from any roads, habitation or people? Come off it!

Meal-out 'afters' we can well do without

I had a bit of a disappointment when I lunched at the Pierre Victoire restaurant in Bradford the other day. It had nothing to do with the food, which was as splendid as it always is, well presented and excellent value for money. Nor was it the quality of the service, which was brisk and pleasant.

It certainly wasn't the ambience. The basement of the Wool Exchange, with its gleaming ceramic wall tiles and the plaque commemorating the laying of the foundation stone by Lord Palmerston, is a superb setting for a restaurant. And the music - jazz playing gently - was a help to digestion rather than the screeching hindrance you can come up against in some places.

No, what miffed me was the fact that a service charge is now added to the bill. You are warned on the bottom of the menu that this will happen, but it doesn't really prepare you for the surprise of discovering that your bill is 15 per cent bigger than your mind's eye had expected it to be.

If you don't want to pay it on principle, you must make an issue of it. By so doing, you'll be implying that the service you've received wasn't up to scratch. You'll feel that you've offended the staff, and you'll be embarrassed and won't want to go there again. So you pay up without saying a word.

Pierre Victoire is far from alone in adopting this method, making customers pay the staff wages through this extra levy. I wish all restaurants would abandon it.

That doesn't mean, though, that I'm in favour of tipping instead. That, too, can lead to awkwardness. Should you or shouldn't you? If you should, how much?

Far better, surely, for restaurants to forget all about service charges, pay their staff a decent wage and incorporate the cost into the prices on their menu. That's more open and less potentially embarrassing than advertising what in effect is a falsely low price for a meal, with the true price becoming apparent on the bill at the end.

Sally's sinning ways

Soap sin is in the spotlight again, in the wake of the Roman Catholic Church's report on the harmful effect it could have on young people.

Soaps have always had their racy moments. Coronation Street, for example, has had its share of strumpets. Elsie Tanner, ever in search of the man of her dreams, was anybody's for a gin and tonic. Bet Lynch was bedded by many a man in her quest for true love. Maxine is currently carrying on that tradition.

But there has certainly been a switch of emphasis recently. The sins have become more serious. In the Street, Sally Webster (Sally Whittaker, above) is agonising her way through an adulterous dalliance with that bounder Greg, leaving the girls with her husband Kevin (another adulterer).

In EastEnders, Grant Mitchell is involved with both Tiffany and her mother while his own mother, Peggy, has been between the sheets with Frank Butcher.

In Emmerdale, Biff biffed Lady Tara on the eve of her wedding to someone else. And who knows what they're up to in Brookside, where anything seems to go.

The Church is right to be concerned, as these supposed slices of 1990s life offer increasingly convoluted storylines and confused morality. What would Grandma Grove have made of it all, I wonder?

Enjoy Mike Priestley's Yorkshire Walks

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.