I think that having a revolving piece on the fourth plinth is a fantastic idea. It ignites our imagination and gets Londoners who otherwise wouldn’t have thought about it discussing contemporary art. Many seem to have confused their dislike of modern art with a dislike of the idea of having revolving pieces displayed there. For all the complaints about Marc Quinn’s sculpture of a limbless lady (and I really liked it) it got people discussing art and culture in a way that would never happen with a permanent statue of Sir Keith.

This is ridiculous for many reasons, here are my top 3 – Just because an individual or couple has jumped through the legislative hoop and found a ‘father figure’ doesn’t mean the man is going to be around in 10 years time when the (as yet unborn) child needs fatherly influence most. Secondly, children who do not have a father figure, maybe because he died, has moved away or the child is brought up by lesbians, will still meet and spend time with male figures, at school, relatives, family friends etc. Thirdly, the amendment is anti gay. By the nature of their relationships lesbian couples are less likely to be able to provide the father figure the amendment requires. Any MP that believes in equal gay rights should vote against this amendment on Monday. If passed homophobia will be back on the statute book.

Many of those pushing for the amendment on Monday have no interest in lowering the limit. They are simply anti abortion. If they wanted fewer abortions to take place after 20 weeks they would make early stage abortions easier, removing the 2 doctor rule and improving access in the NHS. Instead we are stigmatizing abortion and the women that make the choice to terminate their unwanted pregnancy. This amendment threatens some of the most vulnerable women in our society yet it is being used by the pro life lobby as just another battle in their campaign to ban abortion. MPs that support a women’s right to choose must vote it down.

I think the reason the Olympics attract such controversy and cynicism is because we have come to expect too much from a 2 week sporting event. The Olympics only feature in the news when protesters are trying to extinguish the torch, Chinese officials are threatening to deal with protesters who attempt to interfere with the torch when it goes near Tibet or when the budget for London 2012 overruns. The news coverage is so far removed from a sporting event that we have lost site of what the games is all about. Until the Olympics becomes about sport again the public’s cynicism will continue to grow.

The flaw in the argument is that its all a bit similar to everything we have heard before. We were told that unless there was an upper limit of 90 days the sky would fall down. MPs blocked 90 days, yet our streets have not been deluged with terrorists who the police could only hold for 28 days. The debate around our response to terrorism relies on striking a balance between preserving our liberty and making it as hard as possible for terrorists to carry out attacks. This risk is the price we pay for freedom. The price has a long way to go before it becomes too high.   

However, films like this along with the Christmas cards with happy beaming families surrounding Daddy MP make me uncomfortable. A politician’s ability to come up with family friendly, or any other, policies is not dependant on having children themselves. Yet the unintentional implication of the Cameron ITV piece along with all the other MPs that expose their families is that they are somehow better able to do the job than the childless or the unmarried. It is that implication, albeit unintended, that means I have greater respect for Gordon Brown in keeping the cameras away from his children than politicians that believe that their breakfast time is newsworthy.

To read many of the papers this week though you would think that Israel had launched a full offensive against the Gaza population. The Independent on Monday went so far as to describe it as a ‘massacre.’ I find it staggering that so many media outlets have brought into the Hamas propaganda. Let’s not forget that Israel provides most of the power, water and medical supplies to the Gaza strip. The screaming editorials offer no answers as to how Israel might defend itself. It has stuck rigidly to every peace agreement it has signed. The people of Ashqelon would be much safer today had troops not withdrawn from Gaza. Israel has, over many years, made every move possible to bring peace. It is tragic that their citizens are now left hiding in bomb shelters. What’s worse is how little support they are receiving from their so called friends in Britain.

My problem with Radiohead’s stance though is that it reduces the environment to trivia. By saying that climate change is about not going to Glastonbury rather than reducing carbon emissions from energy production the impression is given of it being a problem that is solved through stunts. However many eco friendly heating systems Tom Yorke installs the effect will be negligible when compared to the growth in emissions from coal fired power stations. We need governments make big choices about nuclear power. Sadly this is one problem rock stars can’t solve.

The comments have the potential to be more than just the musings of an elderly churchman though. By suggesting that Sharia law should have a role in our legal system Williams implies that there is a significant body of Muslim opinion that would prefer to be governed in this way. But of course mainstream Muslim opinion thinks nothing of the sort. The Archbishop has given this minority view an airing it didn’t deserve. Many will now have the impression of Muslims as desiring their own alternative legal system. It may be necessary to deal with the conflict between state and religion that some members of all faiths occasionally come up against. But after Rowan William’s contribution a solution looks further away than ever.  

I agree that generally speaking celebrities are fair game for the press. The argument goes that they could easily drift into obscurity but rely on the weekly nose picking picture in Heat to sell their next record, calendar or autobiography. Britney is different though. The illness is not part of a media strategy designed to promote her brand. It is the tragic breakdown of an increasingly vulnerable woman. For individual media outlets opting out of this circus is a no win game. The pictures will still be taken and viewers or readers will be lost by not showing them. That doesn’t mean this hounding is justified. Were the pop star physically ill she would be given some privacy and dignity. The mentally ill though seems to make her fair game. It is time for the press to show some common decency and let her recover in private.