Society

Do you remember the rather brilliant comedy sketch featuring Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse in which they played laid-back police officers in Amsterdam, bragging that they no longer have to deal with the crime of murder in the Netherlands since the Dutch legalised it? Don’t laugh too hard. In 2000 the Dutch government decided to make it even easier for pimps, traffickers and punters by legalising the already massive and highly visible brothel trade. Their logic was as simple as it was deceptive: to make things safer for everyone. Make it a job like any other. Once the women were liberated from the underworld, the crooks, drug dealers and people

The new Intercontinental Hotel in Westminster seems determined to become the chosen haunt for the political great and good. The swanky hotel has opened its doors — and more importantly its late hours bar — to the Village. Cabinet Ministers and media luvvies have been spotted conspiring long into the night. I also hear that one leading conservative-supporting website was recently given free rein for the evening for less than a thousand pounds. The bar’s decor is stuffed with political photographs and Spitting Image puppets, as you might expect; but whoever commissioned the greatest works of Gerald Scarfe, which stretch along an entire wall, must be hoping that this week’s rumpus is

There has been much hilarity in the wake of the abdication of Queen Beatrix. The obvious comparisons between Willem-Alexander of Orange and our own Prince Charles have been laboured elsewhere; but I was reminded this morning of the Queen’s response to the another Dutch abdication in 1980. The story goes that Her Majesty’s Press Secretary telephoned her to report that Queen Juliana had just abdicated, to which Brenda replied: ‘typical Dutch’, before promptly hanging up. Seasoned Royal watchers will know that Elizabeth frowns on abdication, not least as a dereliction of duty, but also due to the impact it had on her own father.

One of the most frustrating things about being a policymaker must surely be when something that sounds so very sensible and straightforward in your ivory tower ends up being a bit messy in practice. Take the ‘bedroom tax’: it’s not actually a tax, but Labour enjoy calling anything they don’t like a ‘tax’ (odd, given their own penchant for taxation). This is a housing benefit cut for social tenants living in homes with more bedrooms than they need. It was announced in the 2010 emergency budget and comes into effect from April. Very sensible, you might think, especially when private tenants don’t get extra housing benefit for spare rooms. The

A friend of mine who has worked in the City all his life, and is by no means a leftist, can still explode with rage at the nom-doms and corporations, who expect to stay in Britain without paying tax. When their representatives say they will leave if the government taxes them, he replies “Fine. If you don’t like paying the taxes the rest of us have to pay, there’s a big road heading out of London called the M4. Take it, and hang a right at the sign marked Heathrow.” He understands that the notion of the state granting tax exemptions to fortunate classes ought to have died when the French

Is there anything more pathetic, more risible than rich and privileged Britons whining that their cadre fails to receive a fair shake in the matter of admissions to this country’s most prestigious universities? Oh, sure, I suppose there must be but the smugness and evident sense of entitlement on display in these matters remains enraging. Today, for example, Anthony Seldon, headmaster of Wellington College, complains that his pupils are suffering unreasonable discrimination. Worse still, apparently, a presumed “bias” against public school pupils is a “hatred that dare not speak its name”. As the Americans say, cry me a river. The evidence for this notional bias is, needless to say, emaciated.

It won’t take long for the US decision to allow women in combat roles to travel here according to The Times today, on the basis of, it must be said, unnamed sources. And the paper’s leader is duly supportive of the idea: ‘The number of women who want the risk and pass the tests will not be large, but those who earn a place at the spear tip of Western defence should be assigned there.’ On this reckoning, the right to join combat units – to kill – is just one more of those equality hurdles to surmount, like women becoming bishops or CEOs. I’m against, myself. Partly this is