Peter Rhodes: Stick with invisible ink

I BET there are huge savings to be made in the NHS by stopping doctors prescribing remedies which can be bought over the counter. The proposal, announced by NHS England, takes me back to a strange encounter with a doctor long ago when I had a sore throat. He was one of the old-school GPs; no eye-contact, little patience and much mumbling. "You could always try mumble-mumble," he mumbled. "Try what?" I asked. He sighed irritably, filled out a prescription form and handed it to me. It said "Strepsils." The Strepsils were cheaper at the chemists's than the cost of the prescription.

ON a particularly dull night on the box, we turned to the 2011 movie, Hysteria. Based on true events, Tanya Wexler's comedy, starring Jonathan Pryce and Hugh Dancy, tells how Victorian efforts to cure female hysteria evolved into the invention of the first electric-powered sex toys. It's an innocent little tale but it perpetuates an old movie cliche. In the final courtroom scene, the judge bangs his gavel. These little wooden hammers are widely used by American judges but have never been used in English criminal courts.

THERE is even a website, Inappropriate Gavels, created to fight this Americanism. One emailer tells how he was appointed legal adviser to a TV drama series and strenuously objected to a gavel on the judge's bench. He was overruled by the director.

WHICH reminds me that a couple of years ago I pointed out that Watson, while wearing civilian clothes, would never salute a senior army officer, as depicted in Sherlock (BBC1). A reader told me he had been a military adviser to a TV series. He informed the director that a British soldier would never salute while bare-headed. Again, the director overruled the expert because "it looks more military." Moral for film directors : Never let the facts get in the way of your bright ideas.

AND before all you pedants pile in, I am aware that two English courts do have gavels. One is the Inner London Crown Court where, by tradition, clerks use it to announce the arrival of judges. The other, of course, is used by Judge Rinder (ITV) but it's not a real court and Rinder is a national treasure and is therefore excused the usual rules.

I MUST be missing something in the raging civil-liberties row over an Englishman's right not to have his "end to end" encrypted emails deciphered by the authorities. For a start, what sort of person thinks he needs military-grade coding? Obviously, it's useful for adulterers, drug dealers and terrorists. But why would a normal, law-abiding person need it? It has only been available for a few years and presumably people managed perfectly well before it was invented. Secondly, if you really are dealing in life-or-death secrets, why would you take the risk, despite the maker's assurances, that end-to-end encryption will be secure for all time, and that neither the supplier, nor anyone else will try to unravel it? Thanks, but no thanks. When I go undercover I will rely on my trusty invisible ink, dead letter boxes and cryptic spy-greetings whispered on benches in Hyde Park. The corn grows tall in Vladivostok.