Why is no-one helping the Burmese?

What is going on in Burma? And why is no-one doing anything to help?

In front of the eyes of the whole world the Burmese army is slaughtering peacefully protesting monks and their supporters - and while these atrocities are being caught on video the west is sitting on their hands.

And even more insulting to the plight of the protestors, the west are shifting the responsibility on China.

When an oppressive regime is slaughtering its citizens it is not up to the neighbouring nations to step in – it's the world's problem.

As always the selfish western nations, chiefly the US and the UK, are reluctant to get involved for one simple reason….

No-one from our side has died.

If a British citizen, or an American for that matter, gets caught up in this mess then there will be action.

Then the police of the world would walk the beat and start twirling his truncheon.

Obviously the life of a westerner is more important.

Look at the tsunami coverage – it wasn't about how many people died, it was how many British people died and how many American people died.

It makes you wonder why we have the United Nations if they can't be used in a situation like this.

The situation reminded me, for some reason, of 9/11, where an oppressive regime had its hand in the death of a number of its own people.

However, when American lives are lost the west falls over itself to provide relief and condolences.

Racism caused by brain shrinkage?

There is northing worse then people playing the race card.

One of the most serious allegations that can be levelled against someone is that they are racist - so it is abhorrent when the few, no matter what their race, bandy the term about.

However, where racism is clearly evident it cannot and should not be excused.

Which is why I was extremely sceptical of new research produced by Bill von Hippel of the University of Queensland.

According to von Hippel, brain atrophy can account for some of the racist language used by the elderly.

Brain atrophy is the shrinking of the brain as we age - and this new study claims that this can lead to 'unintended racism'.

von Hippel says: "Because prejudice toward African Americans conflicts with prevailing egalitarian beliefs, older adults attempt to inhibit their racist feelings, but fail."

Senility can cause an untold range of problems but is it logical enough to cause racism in some cases and not in others.

And why would it effect just the white population?

It seems to me that this study attempts to put a biological reason behind the evils of bigotry and that is something which is hard to swallow.

After all, wouldn't young racists simply have the tendency to turn into old racists?

Treatment of the McCanns beyond biased

I have been very disappointed throughout the whole of the Madeleine McCann furore and the media treatment of the couple.

Since the child disappeared they press have been nothing short of scandalous.

It seems that, in the eyes of the British press, the parents, who are incredibly irresponsible, can do no wrong.

The tabloids, and unfortunately some of the broadsheets, have been more interested in damning the Portuguese police than providing an accurate account of a mising child.

A newspaper is supposed to act like a mirror held up to society, reflecting the events so that the public can see the world for what it is.

But for some reason, maybe it's a class issue or maybe even a race issue, the McCanns seem to be exempt form criticism.

And it seems to me that they deserve to be criticised. It must be hard to lose a daughter but at the very least they have been awful parents.

Why would any parents in their right mind continually leave three young children on their own, at night, while they go out for a drink?

There are also rumours that they couple drugged their children - with the police claiming that the McCanns other children were difficult to awaken after their elder sister went missing.

The fact remains that only the McCanns know whether or not they were involved in the death of their child.

So I don't know why the Daily Mail is so sure that they are innocent.

Why is Di's death still an issue ten years on?

I couldn't have agreed more with Polly Toynbee's piece in Saturday's Guardian concerning the tenth anniversary of the death of Diana.

It's funny to think that more than a decade after the death of a pampered Princess -who by all accounts just did the odd bit of charity work - that there is still so much media interest.

"For outside the chapel, where police with barriers expected multitudes, there were barely more watchers than at an ordinary August changing of the guard. An outraged Daily Telegraph had called for ten giant screens to satisfy the expected throng, Toynbee wrote.

"But journalists and camera crews from around the world almost outnumbered Royalists, with a shortage of Diana worshippers to film. Most who thinly lined the rails were curious tourists, few were British. Whatever that strange wailing, teddy-bear hugging spasm of public anguish was ten years ago, it ended here yesterday."

And I totally agree. I was actually glad to see that hardly anyone turned up for the tenth anniversary service because it was ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is that ten years ago a normal, average, run-of the-mill woman died. She just happened to be a princess. It was a tragic end to the life of a lady who the public did not personally - so why all the crying and candlelit vigils?

I just hope that the whole matter would just be put to bed once and for all.

Seeing Diana on the front of every right-wing claptrap broadsheet and tabloid was getting beyond tiresome.