Peter Rhodes on a fluent phantom, mouldy munitions and multi-coloured poppies for remembrance
Peter Rhodes on a fluent phantom, mouldy munitions and multi-coloured poppies for remembrance
It is all very well threatening to arrest people in a march who shout “Jihad!” But what if 100,000 marchers simultaneously shout “Jihad!”? The first requirement of law enforcement is laws that can be enforced.
A reader says he's irritated by hacks referring to Hamas's network of underground tunnels: “Is there any other sort of tunnel?”
Meanwhile, every casualty count coming out of Gaza has been approved by Hamas for maximum effect and should be treated with suspicion. As these exaggerated figures are eagerly lapped up by the world's media, does anyone ever ask what sort of magical bombs the Israelis are using that kill men, women and children but, according to Hamas, never kill Hamas fighters?
It's that time of year again when, traditionally, the nation united in respect of its war dead. Rich or poor, whatever our politics we were bound together by the symbol of the simple red poppy. Remembrance Sunday, once a unifying, democratic and levelling event, has become an opportunity to make a political point or a personal statement by wearing poppies in white, black, purple, rainbow and assorted jewellery designs. Unity crumbles, division thrives.
Do TV drama writers agree every detail of their characters' personalities before the first season begins or develop them as the months go by? In the spooky sitcom Ghosts (BBC1) we have waited until episode 31 to discover that Robin the caveman, who has lived in the place for at least 10,000 years, is not only fluent in French but also speaks the languages of all the folk who have ever lived in Button House. A great little twist.
A reader wonders whether the thousands of artillery rounds taken out of storage in Nato countries and shipped to Ukraine will function properly. Or as he puts it, do they have a shell-by date?
Labour's sparky shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted “inadvertent mistakes” in her new book after being accused of using words from other publications without credit. While she's at it, she might also apologise for choosing what must be the most boring book title of the year: “The Women Who Made Modern Economics.” Zzzzz. . . .
