Imagine if a documentary series that usually draws a small audience showed a programme about a religion which some followers objected to. With the power of the internet, they could soon persuade plenty of others to send in complaints. Also, outside of broadcasting, suppose for example that I object to neighbours being allowed to disturb each other with excessive noise. If I read about such a case in the newspaper, can I then complain to the Environmental Health department about it, despite living in a different town and never having experienced the disturbance for myself? As much as I might hate noise, even if I heard a recording on the radio, I wouldn’t know what it sounded like above the ambient noise, and I wouldn’t know any background to the case. Clearly people should only complain about things they’ve experienced first-hand.

What had probably driven such a large number of people to complain is the sudden realisation of the sort of content that it being paid for by the Licence Fee. So why didn’t any of the original listeners to the show complain? It seems the mainly young audience don’t see anything wrong with swearing and making lewd remarks on the phone to an elderly man, or with publicising sordid details of a woman’s private life. And why don’t they see anything wrong? Because they are continually exposed to this sort of behaviour every day on TV and radio.

When Andrew Sachs appeared in Fawlty Towers in the 70s, John Cleese played Basil Fawlty, a hotel manager who was rude and unpleasant to guests, for its comic value. However, not only was it fiction, the character of Basil Fawlty was a good model of how not to behave, and not to be a good hotel manager, which was what made it so funny. Today, however, so-called comedians see the need to be foul-mouthed and rude to real people, but they are not laughed at as fools because they are behaving improperly, but rather their victims are laughed at. The likes of Ross and Brand are considered role models by young people, who will go on to copy them when they are out in the street. No wonder our society is becoming what it is.

The BBC needs to stop paying what is effectively public money to the likes of Brand (£200,000) and Ross (£6 million). Brand has already resigned. I’ve never seen what’s so great about Jonathan Ross: he’s an untalented and irritating presenter at the best of times, who seemingly got where he is simply through having a speech impediment, so this latest incident would be a good excuse to get rid of him. A lot of the blame must also fall on the editor who decided to broadcast what was a pre-recorded show. And if Ofcom does fine the BBC, how about subtracting the fine from next year’s Licence Fee, rather than it going to the treasury? The fact that each household would only receive a rebate of a few pence just illustrates how pointless this sort of fine is when any big organisation is involved, but at least it would eliminate the often-raised complaint that Licence Fee payers were effectively paying the fine.

Then this afternoon, it was reported that Jennings had been found guilty, but had not been punished by the court – the magistrates said Merseyrail should find a less draconian method of dealing with it. This seemed reasonable: she was guilty of antisocial behaviour; however, it would have been much better dealt with by an on-the-spot fine.

I would have thought nothing more of the issue if I hadn’t read Miss Jennings’s comment:

Putting my feet on the seat, which I am sure everyone has done in the past, with the cost of it all, probably cost a lot of money.

How dare she assert that “everyone” has put their feet on the seat of a train. For the majority of people, if they have ever done so in the past, it was as a young child, and following a sharp word from their parents, they never did it again. As adults, most people would never dream of putting their feet on the seat.

I can imagine similar words coming from someone who had been fined for dropping litter. They would say “everyone” drops litter occasionally. Again, they are totally wrong. I never drop litter, and can’t understand the mentality of anyone who does. Even if the wind blows my crisp packet out of my hand, I chase after it.

Some people commenting on news site discussion boards have suggested that there are far more serious crimes going on (particularly on Merseyside) that should be given priority. How naive: do they really think that if the rail employee was not working on the trains, he’d be a police officer out on the beat? Of course not. He probably gets paid significantly less than even a Community Support Officer, and if this job wasn’t available, he might be claiming benefits.

By tackling low-level anti-social behaviour, we can make a start on improving society, so that we return to a situation where we don’t need “draconian” penalties and “enforcement officers” on trains as people are considerate enough not to put their feet on seats, smoke or use abusive language that offends other passengers. And we have to be even-handed: you can imagine the uproar from the tabloid press if an “A*” student from a middle-class background was let off, while a young mother on benefits was prosecuted. Anyway, I doubt the sort of young person who was brought up to keep his feet off the upholstery is the type who carries a gun when he rides his bike.

As a footnote (if you’ll excuse the pun), Miss Jennings received an “absolute discharge” from the Magistrates’ Court. Far from being let off, this counts as a criminal conviction, albeit one that becomes “spent” after just six months. According to the Criminal Records Bureau, a person may be required to disclose spent convictions if he or she “wants to apply for a position that involves working with children or working with the elderly…” If she intends to become a teacher, let’s hope no-one asks her for a full disclosure. If they do, I’m sure there will always be jobs going as an “enforcement officer” as an alternative.

When it was finally announced that Rooney would be playing, I thought: wouldn’t it be ironic if, after all that hype, he’s the one who puts England out of the competition – most likely by missing his penalty, as that’s how England normally lose?

Well, in the event it wasn’t quite like that, but it was close. Rooney was sent off for stamping on an opponent, meaning his teammates had to play on for over an hour with only 10 men. England then lost the subsequent penalty shoot-out.

Whether or not Rooney’s dismissal prevented the team from scoring a winning goal can be left for the pundits to decide – and ultimately no-one will ever know. But it can hardly have helped, and will certainly have given the opposing Portugese team extra confidence.

For a team game, surely you need a good team? Yet the media persist in concentrating on one or two players who make the headlines.

By all accounts, Rooney is an unpleasant young man both on and off the pitch. He’s an extremely bad role model. It’s time the media stopped glorifying this sort of behaviour, and revering this type of person. People would do well to remember what Rooney’s most significant contribution to the 2006 World Cup was.

The government continues to press ahead with its plans for a national ID card scheme with the claim that they will help combat terrorism. (This is despite the fact that all the most recent terrorist attacks – or attempted ones – were carried out by British citizens who would have been perfectly entitled to carry cards.)

ID cards are controversial for many reasons, but it also seems they would have allowed trouble-makers to travel to Germany this summer. Passports are not required for travel within the European Union. All that is required is a form of identification proving EU citizenship. Unlike passports, the police could not confiscate ID cards as people need to carry them to identify themselves – one day it could even be compulsory to carry them. Therefore the thugs would be free to travel.

Admittedly, suspected hooligans are supposed to report to a police station each day that England is playing. However, the size of the penalties indicates that handing in passports is considered an important measure – one that would be almost pointless if a national ID card were to be introduced.

• Charge stag-nighters for bail-out, say MPs – The Guardian
• Stag parties ‘should pay’ for consular help abroad – politics.co.uk

All I can say is: what a great idea. These people are an unfair burden on British embassies across Europe, and on the taxpayer who funds them. More significantly, the people who go abroad for their dubious, drunken celebrations are a complete disgrace to their country. What are the people of eastern Europe going to think of the British when they see them descend on the capitals of culture every weekend just to be sick and cause disruption? Perhaps the prospect of a hefty levy should they forget where the hotel is could be a sobering influence.

Ian Davidson, MP for Glasgow South West, referred to “drunks and halfwits”, a description that sounds only too accurate.