Express & Star

Peter Rhodes on legalising drugs, Yankspeak and how Bodyguard may change how the police regard "innocent" women

SORRY, all you Remoaners, but it seems the Labour leadership's offer of a vote to stay in the EU may be one of those Conference illusions.

Published
Nadia (Anjli Mohindra) - not so helpless

You see them all the time. Three hundred eager delegates cram into a smoke-filled (poetic licence) room, argue the toss and pass a vote. They then walk out with 300 different opinions on what has been agreed.

BODYGUARD (BBC1) was okay, but no more than okay. And it certainly didn't deserve to overshadow Vanity Fair (ITV), with its sly humour and astonishing battle scenes at Waterloo, or the addictive quirkiness and random savagery of Killing Eve (BBC1).

BUT I bet Bodyguard will have one long-lasting effect. They say life imitates art and at the heart of this thriller was the lethal assumption, so stupid in hindsight, that the female Muslim suicide bomber Nadia (Anjli Mohindra) must have been a helpless, terrified victim exploited by powerful and wicked men. Wrong. She was the enemy, the ringleader, a qualified engineer and dedicated jihadist, quite prepared to blow up school children. Anti-terror cops everywhere will have noted this and will never again regard the female associates of jihadists in quite the same way. It is not only sexist and patronising to assume a woman has no will of her own. It can also be deadly.

I SUPPOSE we should all harrumph and tut-tut at Lord Falconer's suggestion that all drugs should be legalised. And yet. I have been watching and reporting on the so-called "war on drugs" for almost 50 years and it is easier today to get any substance you want, at a time and place to suit you, than I can ever recall. If, as Falconer suggests, a future Labour government chose to "legalise and regulate the supply of drugs," then most people would avoid them, some would try them and a tiny minority would become hooked on them and wreck their lives. In short, would anyone notice the difference?

BROADCASTERS continue their relentless destruction of the English language, as in this headline from BBC News: "Trump challenges accuser of court pick." Does it mean anything? Does it convey even a hint of the story below? Of course not. That's because, instead of using plain English, some newsroom minion prefers to show off his/her grasp of American tabloid language. In this case, the word "pick" refers to Trump's preferred choice for the Supreme Court job, Brett Kavanaugh. The story is that Trump is questioning the credibility of the woman who accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault. As the Telegraph put it: "Donald Trump breaks silence to attack Supreme Court nominee's accuser." There. All is understood. If the Telegraph can get it right, why can't the Beeb?

WHERE will this fad for Yankslang end? The ultimate American tabloid headline appeared many years ago. It was on a report about a survey showing that people living in rural areas reacted negatively to movies set in the countryside. It read: "Hicks nix sticks pix." Some English broadcasters are heading that way.