I wonder how long it will take the DM to notice that its website has been hacked, and delete this article?

Mr. Cameron has found himself in an uncomfortable and untenable spot. This is what happens when you are determined to force through goals that the vast majority of people, professionally and personally, oppose. And not without good reason.

To be fair, the current blueprint for changes within the NHS aren't actually Cameron's plans at all but were first mooted when his political grandmother, Margaret Thatcher, was in power.

They were subsequently licked into shape by Tony Blair's champagne-socialist cabinet - shame, shame on him - but not implemented. Nonetheless, Cameron's determination to push them through to their full and detrimental technicolour conclusion should not be underestimated.

The reformation of the NHS has been controversial from day one for the simple fact that when you strip away all the hyperbole and management-speak it amounts to one simple thing: a privatisation of the NHS.

If there's one thing we know for certain about Conservative behaviour, it is how they love to flog the family silver. It's their thing. Not for nothing are they known as the eBay of politics (well, in our house anyway).

Problem is, when they are done with their pillaging of our national stock, it can take decades before we even begin to grasp the full significance of their privatisation propensity.

If we have learned anything about David Cameron's style of governance it is this: if he doesn't like the advice he has been offered then he will simply ignore it - as he did with the whole raft of opponents to his Welfare Reform Bill.

I fear, greatly, that the Health and Social Care Bill will be rubber-stamped by MPs - and not least because of the degree of financial interests that our Honorable Members (sometimes its hard to say that without laughing) have a stake in.

At the last count, 31 Lords and 18 MP's have extremely lucrative interests in the health industry - including health providers such as BUPA, pharmaceuticals and consultancies.

It doesn't require great intellectual insight to see how their voting may be swayed by their personal priorities and how reforms, as set out, will directly benefit them.

I appreciate that it is entirely legal for our elected - and unelected - members to have financial investments aside from their roles as MPs, and as long as they list these in the parliamentary register then everything remains above board.

But come on: Legal it may be - in a system of rules that they created - but that does not always equate to moral. And certainly not on this occasion.

What a ghastly, Orwellian disgrace the detention of war hero David Jones at Gatwick airport is for daring to question why Muslims can pass through scanners with their faces completely covered.

Mr Jones, the creator of Fireman Sam, a former member of the Household Cavalry and an all-round nice bloke, was detained and accused of racism because a Muslim security guard said he had offended her by cracking a joke about what would happen if he covered his own face in his scarf. He made a good point and highlighted a very real problem, but of course, the truth is not allowed if it offends a minority group.

What followed is a tableau of all that is wrong with Britain’s obsession with "protecting" minorities to the exclusion of all other civilised considerations.

Welcome to Britain, where all people are protected from prejudice, unless they are white

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1naLMePRO

a former member of the Household Cavalry and an all-round nice bloke

I'm struggling to understand the point of his comment : "What would happen if I put my scarf over my face?". Well, nothing would happen, I guess. But why would he want to do that at all? Could it be to take the piss out of the veil-wearing moslem woman in front of him? Yes, in fact that's the only explanation I can think of.

In which case he was rightly pulled up for it. There are usually notices around in all sorts of places where staff interface with the public, such as post offices - and airport security points, I'd imagine, declaring something like : " Our staff have the right to work free from intimidation, threats, insults......" and so on. Sounds very much as if he stepped over that line, though I'm thinking they perhaps acted a tad heavy-handedly in detaining him for a short while (questionable whether they had the right to do so?)

Good use of Orwellian too. I expect David Jones is now gleefully looking forward to the bullet in the back of the head after his detention at the hands of the thought police corrected him.