Peter Rhodes: Colour blind in the loo

CUSTOMS officers in Austria detained a woman whose hand luggage included her late husband's intestines. She explained that she suspected foul play and wanted them examined by experts. And you thought the worst thing that could fall out of the overhead lockers on to your head was a bottle of duty-free?

A COLOUR-blind reader raises a ticklish issue familiar to all of us red-green defectives. It is the "nondescript blob" of colour on the WC lock which is supposed to indicate whether a toilet cubicle is vacant or engaged. If, to you, red looks like green and green strongly resembles red, you are lost. So what do you do? Stand outside the cubicle for several minutes or rattle the door and risk irritating the occupant? My reader says the only foolproof way is to wait until a loo queue forms and then join it. What's wrong, he asks, with a lock displaying the words "vacant" or "engaged" in plain, unmistakable black and white?

IF you wondered how Paul Gascoigne's unfunny and upsetting comment to a black security guard ("Can you smile, please, because I can't see you?") ended up in a criminal prosecution, you are not alone. The hacks have been chewing it over, notably Brendan O'Neill in The Spectator who denounces it as a show trial, and Dominic Ponsford in Press Gazette who warns that freedom of speech is at risk. But some lawyers, too, are voicing concern.

TWO legal websites, The Secret Barrister and the UK Criminal Law Blog, call into question the "racially aggravated" part of the charge against Gascoigne. The law states that: "An offence is racially aggravated if (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group." Was there any evidence of such hostility from Gazza? Should he have been prosecuted? Most importantly, does this case significantly change the rules on free speech and public performances? It's all a bit academic, given that he pleaded guilty, but still worth reading. See Thesecretbarrister.com and ukcriminallawblog

WHY are we so reluctant to change our gas and electricity companies, or even opt for a different tariff? Probably because of the small print, like this from my electricity summary for the past year. First, it offers ways of paying less. Next it warns: "Remember – if you switch tariffs, your terms and conditions may change significantly." If that's supposed to be an offer, why does it sound like a threat?

THANKS for your emails on the subject of American greetings we can well do without (Mexican wave, high-five, thumb-gripping etc). A reader says: "Don't forget that ridiculous greeting, the fist bump." As if we could.

NOW here's a coincidence. On the very day that an open-air park for nudists was announced in Paris, the Australian state of Victoria declared mooning and streaking to be criminal acts. See? It is entirely possible to report this without using the phrase Down Under. Almost.