And that's not all. . .

Let's see, what missiles are being thrown our way today?

People who are exposed to the second-hand smoke from others' cigarettes are at increased risk of hearing loss, experts believe.

Oh good, it is nice to see they believe in something. They probably decide they believe in Father Christmas around 23rd December. Where is this item of research from? Which august publication has this startling revelation?

The latest study in the journal Tobacco Control, involving more than 3,000 US adults, suggests the same is true of passive smoking.

Obviously no vested interest here then.

"Hearing loss can often be very frustrating and lead to social isolation, if not quickly addressed. 

Good, because I'm not bloody listening to you.

"Before you next light up a cigarette, consider how it could impact not only on your own long-term hearing but your friends' and relatives' too."

OK, will do. But not as much as I'll consider how it will impact your vision, when I stub it out on your cornea, you utter mong.

Meanwhile, over at Harvard. . .

Mothers who puff a pack a day or more while pregnant run a 30-percent higher risk of having kids who become criminal offenders, according to a study published Tuesday…

Well hang on, what about control groups? What about mothers who visit McDonalds throughout pregnancy? What about mothers who had a drink every day? What about mothers who wear odd coloured socks? What effect do they have? I think we should be told.

Elsewhere, Hugh Jarse of The Institute of Mythical Anthropology and Zoology said this:

'Passive smoking attracts goblins and imps to the house, and smoking when pregnant increases the chances of your newborn being replaced by a fairy changeling by up to a percentage I'm just about to make up. It also makes you very greedy. Dragons smoke all the time, and those selfish bastards are obsessed with gold. I am getting paid for this, aren't I?'

I made one of those studies up, I'll leave it up to you to guess which one.

The One That Doesn't See The Problem . . .

I was genuinely shocked by the tone of the report on the BBC/ZNL evening propaganda broadcast on the Ten O'Clock News last night.

Now, I don't normally hold with the view that the BBC news is overt in its support for the political views of the Government. I do accept that they quite subtly push the agenda, but the constant trotting out of the Gorgon phrase 'hard working families' aside, I don't think it is too in your face.

However, the story that Barclays have decided to secure funding from someone other than the taxpayer was met with near screams of protest from the financial correspondent with the odd diction (his name escapes me). The line was that Barclays - 'that most quintessential of British banks' had taken mid-east cash to avoid government dictation of how they should run their affairs. It was, the Beeb claimed, so they could continue to pay their directors huge bonuses.

I am of the opinion that as Barclays is an independent and private enterprise, what they pay their employees is a matter for them. If the shareholders don't like it, then they can do something about it. Why the hell is the BBC lambasting them for daring to strike out by themselves? As a tax-payer I'm quite happy about it. I don't especially want my cash to be pumped into banks. If it goes wrong and the bank looks like it is going to collapse, the government should turn round and say 'Sorry, that was a one time offer.'

But for the BBC to turn around on the news and effectively criticise them for taking cash from some Arab investigators rather than from the government, and for deciding to run their own affairs rather than to be under the control of Brown and his chums is a shocking state of affairs.