I don't know whether or not the young woman with an apple in her hand committed a traffic offence but that's hardly the point. The furore that has arisen over the costs of prosecuting her is not simply over the rights and wrongs of the case. She should, in my opinion, have had the dangers of her action pointed out to her before being sent on her way to sin no more. Similarly, the Riverdance fan in Manchester who asked a woman PC for directions. She told him where to go and then, according to him, told him his stereo was too loud and she was issuing an on the spot penalty. Why didn't she ask him to turn it down and impose the penalty if he refused? Now he's refusing to pay too, so the taxpayer is probably in for another £10,000 of waste. Perhaps that police authority will recruit Riverdance to offer as evidence in court. But our rage is not merely out of fellow-feeling for the penalised. It springs from our frustration at the officer who shrugs and shakes his head when we ask if he or she will catch our burglar or the duty sergeant who says staff shortages prevents them stopping a rave. As I wrote two weeks ago, music from one rave could be heard seven miles away, but the police didn't respond to numerous complaints because "they didn't have the manpower". Was that because they were all out nailing apple eaters and Riverdance fans? Probably not, but that's how it can feel sometimes. We need our police force and they need us on their side. I fear that on the spot penalties will drive a permanent wedge between us and them unless common sense prevails. Last week a Home Office survey revealed that only one crime in every 100 ever ends up in a full court hearing, although some of them have committed quite grievous crimes. Three-quarters of them escape detection and most of those arrested escape with a warning or have the charges dropped. When such people get off scot-free and a helicopter is sent up over an apple, we get mad - and who could blame us? *********** Letters tell of perils of pot I've always set my face against the taking of drugs, including cannabis. This was not for moral reasons. I see little moral difference between enjoying a spliff and sipping a tot of single malt. They are both capable of robbing you of your senses and are each seductive in their way. My objections were based on the tide of misery that followed in the wake of drug-taking, conveyed to me in letters and phone calls over 20 years. When someone in trouble sought solace in cannabis or harder drugs, all hope of them solving their problems and mitigating their original misery went up in smoke. It was fine for glitzy newspaper editors and famous sportsmen to say they enjoyed a joint or two at the weekend and it did them no harm. If you have a glittering career it's easier to keep a rein on your habits. You can pay for expensive therapy if necessary or find some other diversion. If you're jobless and alone there is no such relief. My letters came from people, mostly young, who pinned their hopes on an hour or two's release from emotional pain or deprivation and then got sucked into a never-ending downward spiral. I have always advocated the prescription of cannabis for pain relief and consider it a scandal that decent people, or their carers, are forced to seek out dealers to get some ease. Given the opportunity, I would put it on prescription tomorrow, but that is a different issue from recreational use. It was a while before I began to realise there were good medical reasons why cannabis was dangerous. Last month I talked to a leading psychiatrist in London, who told me he considers it a scandal that no one is telling cannabis smokers that their habit is several times more likely to lead to lung and throat cancer than the ordinary cigarette. Now the British Lung Foundation is echoing his words. When cannabis was declassified it gave the impression it was harmless. Tell that to the many parents who have written to me at their wits end over sons or daughters with cannabis-induced mental illness. The mental health charities, Rethink and Sane, are calling for the Government to investigate the link between cannabis and psychoses, particularly schizophrenia. They believe the drug can awaken an otherwise latent tendency to these illnesses in certain people and the evidence is enough for Government sources to be hinting that such a review may take place. There has been a lot of hot air expressed on both sides of the "Cannabis - harmless or deadly?" debate. Perhaps now we can have a reasonable discussion. * Denise Robertson cannot enter into any personal correspondence. *********** Gamble that's not worth taking In view of the thousands of letters I've had over the years from people whose lives had been ruined by gambling addiction I was quite worried about the proposed Gambling Bill, which paves the way for eight Las Vegas-style super-casinos in Britain. This week a woman was sentenced to three months in jail unless she pays back the £12,000 she stole from her employer to feed her addiction to fruit machines. That is what gambling can lead to. I'm therefore hugely relieved to find that the bill also contains a clause which will limit the size of teddy bears in the grab-a-prize machine in amusement arcades. So that's all right then. *********** Never too young to learn Moves are afoot to make sex education compulsory in primary schools. If I had my way it would start in infant school, before children were exposed to the scary myths peddled in the playground. Of course, I'm not talking about how to obtain the morning after pill or the merits of condom use. That's for later. I'm talking about the wonder of loving relationships, planned parenthood and the need to build a home for the longed for baby. That's a lesson you're never too young to learn. *********** Aiding genuine asylum I suspect I'm with most people when I say I want to see immigration controlled, but not by quotas. Quotas mean that one deserving case might miss the chance of sanctuary. I want everyone genuinely fleeing persecution to be welcome here. In the week we commemorated the Holocaust, I thought of the shameful way we turned away Jews in the 1930s and sent them to their death. That must never happen again. But it's obvious that a proportion of incomers are neither genuine refugees or people who want to serve their new country. The figures for just one county illustrate the size of the problem. According to the leader of the council there, in 1996 Kent had 50 asylum seekers a year. By 2000 this had escalated to 15,000. That's a frightening rise. Some mechanism to let the genuine in, admit those people who have talents we need and keep the others out must be found before a tide of ill-will arises that will impact on the very people who need our compassion most. ********** Sometimes I have difficulty in believing my eyes and ears. Such a moment came last week when I read that someone is turning the tangled lives of David Blunkett and Kimberley Quinn into - of all things - a musical. The show is to be previewed in the West End in April and the producers describe Blunkett's fall from high office as "having huge entertainment potential." To whom, I wonder? Surely no one with an ounce of compassion in their make-up. The co-producer describes it as a tragi-comedy, but I fail to see where the humour comes from. The writer is an experienced Fleet Street journalist, the composer an American. Are they so devoid of imagination they must trawl through the trash and pillory people who have trouble enough already, as well as two innocent children - one as yet unborn? | 
