I blame the scapegoats by John O'Farrell Read Free Book Online

friend's
bedroom and getting his equerry to make them an apple pie bed; the late nights
sitting on the floor and talking about life, as the butler brings in a silver
tray with mugs of blobby coffee; all of this will take place in private. Or
perhaps the real reason Charles doesn't want William filmed is that he doesn't
want everyone witnessing the embarrassing period when his undergraduate son
goes all left wing, arguing for the abolition of the monarchy and desperately
trying to play down his privileged background.
    Actually my family aren't that well off - we
got Windsor Castle when property prices were much lower. And we had to do loads
of work to it, especially after the Wars of the Roses.'
    And he'll cringe when
dad phones to say he's coming to visit. 'Well, don't all arrive in the big
ostentatious Sikorsky. Come in the little helicopter. And tell granny not to
wear her crown.'
    Poor
William is as desperate to be a normal student as Edward is to run a normal
production company. In the old days there were pretenders to the throne. Now
the royals pretend to be commoners. But Uncle Edward can't remain a royal and
monopolize broadcast access to the royals. Since his company has always
struggled, Edward should now return to state duties. A new position in the
royal household needs to be created - Edward should be appointed the 'Stalker
Laureate', official harasser and invader of the royal family's privacy. 'The
strange man who got inside the royal apartments today turned out to be the
Queen's youngest son. Police found pictures of the Countess of Wessex in his
wallet and said he had regularly been filmed trying to get into royal
residences.' Edward might even find his celebrity status back up with the rest
of them. Then the only problem would be stopping him making a documentary about
himself.
     
     
     

Lack
of identity cards
     
    6
October 2001
     
     
    When
identity cards were brought in by the BBC, a comedy producer I knew decided to
test the system by making a few changes to his pass. For a while he was waved
through without question. Then one eagle-eyed security officer called him back.
The guard took a good look at the photo on the card, which featured a shady man
wearing sunglasses and a headscarf. He then checked the name on the pass which
read 'Abu Nidal'. Now completely satisfied, he said, 'All right, sir! In you go
. . .'
    It still seems possible that compulsory
identity cards will be the response to the heightened state of world tension.
Because the great thing about ID cards is, of course, that they will prevent
terrorism. Yup, after years of plotting, encrypted messages, international coordination,
secret training and smuggling weapons, the terrorists will be asked for their
ID cards and they'll go 'Drat! Foiled at the last minute! All those years of
planning and I forgot to forge an identity card!'
    ID cards would of course represent an
outrageous infringement of basic human rights. Because they'd mean regularly
presenting strangers with a deeply embarrassing photo of yourself. And to make
sure the authorities recognized you from the picture, you'd feel the need to
pull the same gawky expression that was momentarily caught in the photo booth
at the back of Woolworth's. Perhaps to set an example our politicians will
agree that their own identity cards should feature excruciating pictures of
themselves from their younger days. A long-haired Tony Blair with huge round
collars and sideburns; a young John Prescott with a big quiff in his Teddy boy
gear; Estelle Morris with a perm and huge Deirdre Barlow glasses; and then
Robin Cook - well, he's fine as he is.
    Whether it means the end of historic freedoms
cherished since the Magna Carta I somehow doubt, but I'm against them for other
reasons. They've got all the information they want about us already; the
trouble is that most of it is wrong. There's probably a computer database
somewhere that thinks that 'Mr Duke Edinburgh of Buckingham Place, London'
might be