Peter Rhodes on white privilege, TV make-up and why subtitles never get any better

Wednesday's item on me taking a tumble appeared on the same day as the “Rhodes Must Fall” statue protest in Oxford. Pure coincidence.

While some technology leaps ahead, simultaneous TV subtitles are as useless now as they were on that groundbreaking day in 1981 when the on-screen gibberish accompanying the Charles and Diana Royal Wedding was such a hoot. The subtitles seem particularly random on Springwatch (BBC) where we were introduced to the divided eyes of damselflies. These are known as dichoptic eyes. Or as the subtitles had it “I copped it” eyes.

What on earth is going on with Andy Burnham's face these days? The features of the Mayor of Greater Manchester look unnaturally smooth, his eyebrows appear to have been groomed and the new spectacles make him look like a Thunderbirds puppet. He's spending a lot of time on telly these days so is it make-up for the camera – or simply because he's worth it?

Let the virtue-signalling begin. Labour councils across the land have been ordered to compile a list of statues and other monuments on their patch commemorating men associated with slavery. Not to be outdone, Tory councils have received the same instruction from Downing Street. I can see this turning into a statue-league with councils vying to find more slavery-related icons than their neighbours. Which raises an obvious question. If they are so offensive, why have councillors done nothing about them until now?

Building a fairer society will mean creating new perceptions and more opportunities for ethnic minorities. So it was curious, as Edward Colston was toppled in Bristol, that one of the first people to jump up and down on his statue was a white bloke with ginger hair. This defining moment in our history was surely the perfect opportunity for white people, who could well be the long-term beneficiaries of slavery, to stand aside politely for black people who are the descendants of slaves, to vent their rage.

The next term likely to be condemned as racist? How about “white privilege”? Freely bandied around by protesters and academics, this is the assumption that a white person enjoys certain inherent advantages in our society. But it seems to be based on the notion that all white people have a certain mind-set about their place in society. And to suggest “you are white, therefore you think this way” is as wrong and as unpleasant as “you are black, therefore you think this way.”

“So how many times should you break wind in a day?” asks a feature in a national newspaper as it makes an early on the silly season. Some doctors say the normal frequency is 15 times a day, but according to a digestive health charity, Guts UK, anything up to 40 times is healthy. As you read this report are you not haunted by two questions: Firstly, who's doing the counting? Secondly, if 40 anal eruptions a day is healthy, what is the difference between being healthy and being popular?