Not so Charlie now?

Blogger of the Year PETER RHODES on the unmasking of Jihadi John, freedom of speech on campuses and the rise of shower paranoia.

SO Jihadi John was a grand young lad until MI5 started harassing him. At that point he reacted as any young man would, by going to Syria and chopping people's heads off. Does anyone buy this narrative? Or is the truth that Mohammed Emwazi was, from his early years, as mad as a box of frogs?

I'D be interested to hear the views of his classmates at the age of about 14 when kids have an uncanny ability so spot contemporaries who are, as they charmingly put it, mental (or more commonly men'al, with a silent T). How many former pupils of Quintin Kynaston Academy have witnessed the unmasking of men'al Emwazi and muttered: Told you so.?

MEANWHILE, in the continuing war on terror, the Government wants to limit free speech on university campuses. So we aren't Charlie, after all?

ON the continuing theme of politicians robbing one generation to pay another, a reader says there are times in life when low interest rates are useful, and other times when higher rates and a dash of inflation are very helpful. The truly lucky ones, he declares, are those of us who managed to be first young, and then old, at just the right times.

AS good advice goes, the above item is about as helpful as the old tip on how best to avoid heart attacks: don't have parents who had heart attacks.

IT is not enough to be born of the blood royal. It is not enough to prove your valour as a rescue-helicopter pilot. It is not enough to marry a beautiful woman and produce heirs. In order to achieve full status as a prince of the British Monarchy you must also go to faraway places and wear a silly hat. Arise, William, the Samurai warrior.

I WROTE recently about the Conservative David Tredinnick who says astrology could have a role in health care. Tredinnick is an old Cornish name and I'm disappointed the MP doesn't mention the benefits of befriending a pisky, the Cornish equivalent of leprechauns. If you want extra luck, offer an incantation to the Queen of the Piskies, Joan the Wad. For all dental problems consult the Tooth Fairy.

A SURVEY on the nation's showering habits has generated an enormous, angst-ridden response, mostly from women journalists. No surprises there. Thousands of years of religion and culture have convinced women that they are sinful and unclean and generally in need of a good purification. As religion declined, the multi billion-dollar cosmetics industry took over with the relentless advertising message that women are not only sinful, unclean and impure but also wrinkly, hairy and yellow-toothed. No wonder that so many women have been driven to hygiene-paranoia. This survey, by a skin-care company, assumes that we should all shower at least once a day. Well, who says so? Was the human skin ever intended to be drenched in hot water and stripped of its oils every 24 hours? And once you assume a daily shower is essential, how easy it is to convince yourself that two or more showers a day are even better. It becomes a sort of mania. Show me someone who has three showers a day and I'll show you someone whose problem lies not in the armpits but between the ears.

MY own personal-hygiene arrangements are brisk and regular. Every three months Mrs Rhodes hoses me down in the back yard. Whether I need it or not.

Read more:
Not so Charlie now?