•  My aunt has an insurance policy that covers a variety of domestic emergencies. She had a similar policy with a different company the previous year and it was not entirely clear from the papers in my possession whether the earlier cover had been renewed. If it had been, it would, of course, have been a total waste of money. I therefore telephoned that company to try to find out. I explained the situation and asked if there was a policy in force. They refused to tell me on the basis that to do so would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. I explained that I did not need to know the terms of any policy, merely whether there was one in place. I was even able to let them know the policy number mentioned in the papers I had. It was to no avail. This means that I will now have to go to the trouble and expense of writing to them with the query and sending them an authenticated copy of the power of attorney. The likelihood is that there is no such policy in effect.

• I wanted to cancel my aunt’s credit card as it was no longer being used apart from a regular payment by direct debit in respect of a magazine subscription. Her bank explained that the card could not be cancelled as long as the publishers were applying for payment under the direct debit. My aunt wanted to continue with the subscription so I telephoned the publishers to explain the position and ask them to send me a form of mandate so that I could switch the direct debit to her current account. They said they were unable to do so as the mandate would contain her membership number and this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. I suggested that this problem could be overcome by sending me the form in blank and they could add the number after I had returned it. They felt unable to do this and asked me to write to them sending a copy of the power of attorney. At that stage I did not have the original document as it was with the Department for Work and Pensions. I therefore sent the publishers a copy of a letter from the Office of the Public Guardian, addressed to me, confirming that the power of attorney had been registered. I received no reply. It subsequently became clear that my aunt was no longer reading the magazine as recent editions were still in their unopened wrappers. I therefore wrote to the publishers asking them to cancel the subscription and, by then, I was in a position to send them an official copy of the power of attorney. They rang me to confirm that they would do so and explained that they had replied to my earlier letter but had sent it to my aunt. As I had explained at the outset that my aunt was suffering from dementia, this was neither helpful nor intelligent.

• I needed some information from a well-known financial institution regarding an investment my aunt had with them. I therefore wrote to them, with an official copy of the power of attorney, identifying the investment in question and requesting the information. They replied saying that, as part of processing my request, they were required under current legislation to verify the identity of my aunt. I was accordingly obliged to write to them with certified copies of two types of document, from an enclosed list, as evidence that my aunt actually existed and that she lived at the address I had given. This seemed to me to be absurd as they had been quite happy to accept my aunt’s money when she made the investment, she had been living at her current address at the time it was made and they had been writing to her at that address for the past several years.

I do not profess to have an expert knowledge of the Data Protection Act or the current money-laundering regulations but it does seem to me, from my personal experiences, that there must be many occasions where they are being applied inappropriately or without any application of common sense.

An Internet search revealed that the survey was carried out for the purposes of a report by the School of Psychology at the University of Kent. People were asked when they considered youth ended and old age began. The average response was that youth ended at 35 and, as mentioned above, old age began at 58. I would not seek to argue against the first figure but the second one seems to me to be rather absurd. But, as one who has recently qualified for his State pension, I suppose that I would say that, wouldn’t I. This view is borne out by the fact that the survey showed that what is regarded as being “old” varies with the age of the person being asked. Thus, the average figure given by those aged between 15 to 24 was 54, whereas those in their eighties considered it to be 67.

With life expectancy continuing to increase, the perception of the threshold is also likely to increase. A man of 65 is now expected to live, on average, for another 17.6 years and a woman for another 20.2 years.

It also seems to me that older people of today tend to look younger than those of their parents’ generation at the same age and are, probably, generally fitter.

In any event, old age is to some extent a matter of attitude. In this regard, a suggestion for my male readers. When your wife comes out with the cliché, “You’re as old as you feel”, try the response, “Well, darling, you still feel pretty young to me”. 

Finally, my favourite quotation on the subject of old age comes from the American financier, Bernard Baruch: “To me old age is always fifteen years older than I am.” When he died in 1965, he was nearly 95, so it seems his philosophy worked.

The youths who carried out the looting were not stealing because they were hungry. They were stealing hi-tech goods, designer clothes and booze. It was criminal behaviour pure and simple. Some of the rioters were mobilized by Blackberry messaging. It is unlikely that someone on the breadline would own a Blackberry.

There also did not appear to be a political motivation to the riots and, even if there were, that does not justify murder, arson or theft.

After 13 years of New Labour, Tony Blair’s soundbite “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” rings more hollow than ever. David Cameron is now talking tough. Whether his government fares any better than its predecessors remains to be seen.

The police need to be given greater powers and more support from our politicians. It seems to me that, at present, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. After the student protests the police were widely criticized for using overly aggressive tactics. After the first day of these recent riots, they were criticized for not being tough enough.

There are proposals to allow police to compel people to remove face masks which, I presume , will include balaclavas and hoods, where they suspect that they are related to criminal activity. That seems eminently sensible.

It is apparent that CCTV cameras have proved very useful in identifying rioters. I believe the use of these cameras should be increased significantly and the objections of the civil liberties lobby ignored. An innocent person has nothing to fear from being caught on camera.

Although we probably cannot now afford it, when the economy improves the government should give serious thought to resurrecting the identity card system.

It is believed that street gangs were behind much of the rioting. The police need to take urgent steps to break up or, at least, control these gangs, whose members appear to show little or no respect for the law or any form of authority except that of the gang leaders. It is a promising sign that Mr Cameron is to seek advice from Bill Bratton, the former US police chief who is credited with drastically reducing the level of street crime in New York, Los Angeles and Boston. A policy of zero tolerance could well be effective over here.

Being tough on crime is one thing. Being tough on the causes of crime is likely to prove even harder.

Westminster Abbey provided a magnificent setting for the ceremony and the pageantry of the day was, of course, impressive.

Yet why did I enjoy the occasion more than previous televised royal weddings? I think there are several reasons. First, I suspect that I am becoming less cynical and more sentimental as I get older. Secondly, we were all in need of something joyous to celebrate. The news generally has been miserable for a long time. Thirdly, Prince William seems to be a genuinely good guy and he and his brother are much more men of the people in ways that their father has never been.  Fourthly, the wedding had a fairy tale element in that a future king was marrying a commoner. Fifthly, the bride, Catherine Middleton, is not only a young woman of great beauty, charm and dignity but also one who appears totally unspoilt. Finally, the young couple were clearly so happy that it was infectious.

The wedding also provided a good excuse for a street party in the afternoon.

I Am Slave was impressively written and made; the acting was first-rate, particularly that of Wunmi Mosaku in the central role. She must be a very strong contender for a BAFTA. If you missed it, I expect it will be repeated so look out for it second time around.

Whilst I appreciate that Channel 4 is reliant upon advertising revenue, I felt that the advertising was excessive. The production ran from 8:30 until 10:00 pm and I counted no less than five advertising breaks during the course of the drama, not including the adverts shown immediately before and after. They not only irritate but they seriously interrupt the narrative. Thank goodness for the BBC.

Having just read more on the subject on the Internet, it appears that the number had increased to to almost 40,000 but that the page has now been removed from Facebook, apparently by Siobhan O’Dowd, the woman who created it. I have not seen the actual page as I cancelled my Facebook membership several weeks ago and do not wish to rejoin. It seems, however, from other sources, that the majority of the more recent postings were either critical of Moat or of his supporters. Thank goodness for that, but it still horrifies me that thousands of people consider him to have been a hero deserving of legend status.

Raoul Moat had a history of violence against his female partners. Very shortly after being released from prison, after serving a short sentence for assaulting a child, he shot and seriously injured his ex-girlfriend,  Samantha Stobbart, who was also the mother of one of his children; he shot and killed her current boyfriend, Chris Brown; and he shot, at point-blank range, PC Rathband who was unarmed and merely sitting in his patrol car. He then fled and went into hiding for several days before shooting himself after being confronted by the police.

How can any rational person consider such a man to be the subject of hero worship? The examples of comments from Moat supporters that I have read indicate a lack of both intelligence and literacy. In that regard, I found the You Tube clip of a radio interview of Ms O’Dowd on Talksport particularly illuminating. It is very worrying that so many people share her views. How can they be uncritical of his actions or blame them on Samantha Stobbart or the police? Do they not have any sympathy for his victims or their families? What value do they place on human life?

I have already written on the Broken Society (blog of 24.2.2010). It seems to me that the Raoul Moat fan club confirms that our society is not only broken but sick too.

So England are out of the World Cup. What remains of the much-heralded “golden generation” has failed in a major tournament yet again. Their performances this time were so abject that even the most biased supporter cannot sensibly argue that the team did not get what it deserved. After the humiliating defeat by Germany, my dominant emotion was anger rather than disappointment. I didn’t really expect them to prosper in the tournament, but nor did I think they would be quite so awful. At least I am now free to support Holland and Spain.

If this sounds unpatriotic, I can assure you that I am not. I fervently support England in other sports, particularly cricket and rugby union; Great Britain at the Olympics; and Europe in the Ryder Cup. I used to be a big England soccer fan but not for the past few years. The present crop of England footballers is, in my opinion, obscenely over-remunerated, seriously over-rated, under-skilled compared with many other international teams and, with few exceptions, generally lacking in articulacy, charm and charisma. Frankly, many of them are simply not even likeable. They compare very unfavourably with their counterparts in the England cricket and rugby union teams.

The Football Association may well sack the England manager, Fabio Capello. That is the sport’s usual response to an unsuccessful team. I doubt if that will solve the problem. The words “bricks” and “straw” come to mind.

The conversation apparently took place about two weeks before the story appeared and, in the interim, Miss Jacobs had, it is now alleged, tried to sell the story to one or more other newspapers and had also retained the services of Max Clifford, the publicist. It has been reported that The Mail on Sunday paid her £75,000. The paper maintains that it had not set up the “sting” and only learned of the conversation after the event.

As a consequence of the newspaper story, Lord Triesman resigned his two football posts and English hopes of staging the 2018 World Cup have been damaged, possibly fatally.

I have considerable sympathy for Lord Triesman. His remarks were made in what he believed was a private conversation with a friend. They were not intended for a wider audience. He was naturally embarrassed by their subsequent publication and he had no real alternative but to do the honourable thing and resign. His position would have been untenable if he had remained as leader of the World Cup bid. 

The behaviour of Melissa Jacobs appears despicable. It is unclear why she behaved in the way she did. She may have been a woman scorned, simply motivated by money or both. She has been vilified in the Press and on the Web. Her victory in damaging Lord Triesman appears to have been Pyrrhic.

It is unsurprising, but nevertheless gratifying, that The Mail on Sunday has also been widely vilified. It has tried to justify its publication of the story on the basis that “The public is clearly entitled to know about such allegations”. Now there’s a surprise. It is highly debatable whether the public is entitled to the information in the disgraceful circumstances in which it was obtained. I have read that an abortive attempt was made to prevent the newspaper from publishing the story. This indicates that the law was unable to assist. Surely there should now be a coherent law of privacy upon which reliance can be placed in situations such as these. In the meantime, the  Triesmans of the world are reliant on the judgement of people such as the editor of  The Mail on Sunday. God help them. I think the vast majority of Englishmen will not think that the article was in the public interest. Indeed, quite the reverse if the country’s hopes of hosting the World Cup have been seriously jeopardised. It would serve the newspaper right if the football fans among its readers switched allegiance to another publication. 

I read today that Gary Lineker had resigned as a columnist for The Mail on Sunday because of  the  publication of the story. It is not clear to me whether that was as a matter of protest or because he felt that he had a conflict of interests on account of his role as an ambassador for the 2018 bid. Whatever the reason, he has done the right thing.