On the take

It seems many hotel guests are so light-fingered they nick everything they can from their hotel rooms. Only the item size and limited space in suitcases prevents wholesale asset-stripping.

Everything is seen as fair game - bed linen, towels, pillows, even batteries, light bulbs and kettles. And as hotels would never dare to search their customers' suitcases as they leave, it couldn't be easier to smuggle things out.

Some items are seen as legit. Like anything that can't be re-used. Or anything unused that might have been used and gets replaced for the next guest. So most people freely take things like shampoo, soap and shower gel.

And if there isn't enough loot in your hotel room, then there's always the unattended housekeeper's trolley ready for a surreptitious raid.

Personally I can't shake off my engrained moral stance that it's wrong to nick stuff. Even if it's going to be replaced. Even if it's only worth a few pence. Even if the room cost was exorbitant. Even if nobody will ever know.

So I never pinch anything. Not even the fancy pens and stationery with a swanky hotel logo. Or a bar of soap. Or the sachets of coffee. I'm obviously a glaring oddity among a tsunami of casual thieves.

As for light bulbs and batteries - are people really so hard up they need to grab them? It's not as if they're charming souvenirs. Why on earth bother?

I guess if the hotel is part of some vast global chain, people often think systematic hoisting doesn't matter as it's merely a tiny dent in their obscenely enormous income. That's as may be, but I still think Theft Is Wrong. Call me old-fashioned....

Or maybe it's just my secret nightmare that as I check out, my suitcase bursts open and an avalanche of hotel property tumbles out around me. The embarrassment would finish me off.

The honour police

I'm immensely grateful I'm not part of a community that expects me to beat or mutilate any woman who has brought "shame" on my family by damaging our "honour".

I don't understand how any man who carries out such arbitrary punishments can live with himself. Presumably because he does it in the name of morality and decency. As defined by him and his puritanical brothers, of course.

Umpteen "offences" will put a woman in their sights. An unsuitable boyfriend. Objecting to an arranged marriage. Lesbianism. Revealing clothing. Make-up. A request for a divorce. Exposing domestic abuse. If the men say it's wrong, it's wrong. No arguments. No protests. Just do what you're told, woman.

Around 3000 "honour" attacks are recorded by police every year in the UK. And that's just the ones they get to know about. Many others go unreported because the victims are too terrified to say anything.

It might be obvious to us that what really brings shame on a family is bigoted attacks on its female members and attempts to stop them leading independent and fulfilling lives. But the "honour" vigilantes have a peculiar code of conduct all of their own.

At the end of the day, I guess it's only women standing together and demanding their freedom who can stop this reign of terror and get their lives back. And that takes an awful lot of bravery.

Pic: Banaz Mahmod, 20, from Mitcham, South London, was strangled on the orders of her father and uncle because she left her violent husband for a new boyfriend they deemed "unsuitable".

Mistaken identity

People who know a little bit about me tend to stereotype me as a way-out left-wing rebel who's totally against conventional attitudes and happy to indulge all sorts of wacky lifestyles and beliefs.

In which case they've got me all wrong. Yes, I'm relaxed about a lot of unusual behaviour that most people tut-tut about, but in other ways I'm quite a hard-liner with a strong sense of moral righteousness.

I'm not the least bit bothered by homosexuality, cross-dressing, nude beaches, blasphemy, atheism, legalising drugs, equality for women, the right to abortion, euthanasia, asylum-seekers or vegetarians.

On the other hand I'm firmly opposed to most plastic surgery (unnecessary and dangerous), all prostitution (most prostitutes have post traumatic stress disorder), binge-drinking (unhealthy and anti-social), yobbery and vandalism (frightening and intimidating), rape (whatever the bogus and self-serving excuse), and quasi-anorexic models (who encourage eating disorders).

I won't turn a blind eye to behaviour that's seriously destructive to individuals or the rest of society. I think we should all condemn it forcefully and persistently. I'm not a well-meaning libertarian who thinks people should be free to do whatever they like without outside interference. If we're convinced something is genuinely wrong, we should have the courage of our convictions and say so.

I'm absolutely not one of those clichéd long-haired hippies who spends all day smoking dope and saying everything is cool, indifferent to whatever misogyny or dogma or selfishness or emotional violence is going on under his nose. We can't solve the world's problems by wishing everyone peace and love, we have to get our hands dirty and tackle vested interests that rely on people's woolly indulgence.

Yes, one part of me is a left-wing rebel, but the other part is a no-nonsense maiden aunt. So please leave your stereotypes at the door.

Feeling the pinch

If you thought nobody would have the nerve to steal from a charity shop, you'd be wrong. In fact right now thefts are rocketing because crowded shops make it easy.

The recession has tempted more and more hard-up people into charity outlets, and it's hard for the staff (often elderly volunteers) to keep a close eye on what's going on.

Usually there's no security equipment and volunteers have no specialised security training. So things like clothes, DVDs and books are disappearing in droves.

Whether the thieves are taking things for their own use or to sell on to others isn't clear, but it's certainly making a big dent in charity income.

The British Heart Foundation estimates they're losing up to £2.5 million a year - money urgently needed for medical research and improved treatments. And that's just one charity.

Do the thieves believe their own needs are more important than those with heart disease? Or do they simply not care and just see charity shops as easy pickings?

If people really are desperate enough to steal, you'd think they would at least choose big commercial companies that can afford to lose some of their fat profits rather than organisations trying to help the sick and vulnerable. Have they absolutely no conscience? Or shame?

It might also deter people from donating to charity shops if they think their offerings will simply be ripped off for nothing. Donations are slowing as it is, with hard-pressed households hanging on to things rather than replacing them.

It's depressing to see how many people have the morals of a turnip.
.................................................................................

How about that? Scientists have discovered the world's first known vegetarian spider. Bagheera kiplingi, which was found in South America, lives almost exclusively on the leaf buds of wild acacia plants. All the other 40,000 species of spider are thought to be carnivorous. Let's hear it for those ground-breaking arachnids!

Dishonesty

You might think we all have a similar idea of what's dishonest and what's not. But new research shows that what's dishonest to one person is quite okay to someone else.

Only 31% think it's wrong to keep money found in the street while only 43% think it's wrong to get an elderly person to leave you something in their will. And only 49% think they shouldn't buy a pirate DVD.

On the other hand 86% would disapprove of wearing a dress and then returning it to the shop and 82% would disapprove of taking stationery from work (although two thirds have done so!).

Whether you see something as dishonest depends a lot on how you see the situation. It seems women are more likely to see an action as dishonest. But they're also more likely to excuse it because of the person's circumstances or their character.

I'm somewhat flexible about the meaning of dishonesty myself, because circumstances do shed a different light on things.

Suppose you steal a few things from work in retaliation for your boss treating you badly? Suppose you conceal a sexual fling from your spouse because you suspect they do the same? Is that dishonest or is it legitimate?

Poverty and need can drive people to be dishonest by stealing clothes or food or money. Are they truly dishonest or are they just desperately trying to survive in any way possible?

Making huge profits by overcharging people, or buying a cut-price repossessed home, are seen as perfectly normal. But are they in fact acts of dishonesty? It all depends how you look at it.

Of course I've been dishonest plenty of times myself. Who hasn't? But I'm not spilling the beans in such a public domain. I don't want PC Plod on my doorstep in half an hour's time. So I'll just let your fertile imaginations run riot.

PS: It strikes me that the question of dishonesty, like all ethical issues, really boils down to the question of am I doing any harm to someone else?

PPS: A report today says five executives of the failed car firm MG Rover milked it of pay and pensions worth £42 million while 6500 employees lost their jobs. So will the executives be prosecuted for dishonesty? Somehow I think not.

Uneasy traveller

There are some countries I simply wouldn't visit, however beautiful and unusual they are, because the prevailing poverty and injustice would make it impossible for me to enjoy myself without feeling utterly callous.

I'm always bemused that people can casually jet off to places like Thailand and Burma and apparently be unconcerned about the living conditions of the locals - the sexual exploitation and political repression and grinding penury.

I know it's argued that tourism benefits the downtrodden by bringing money into the country, but in practice much of the money doesn't reach them. It just goes to airlines, hotels and tour operators, leaving most people feeling even more exploited.

Then others say "Well, it's not up to me to decide how a country should be run, that's their business. And if conditions are bad, of course I sympathise but there's nothing I can do about it." But if we can choose between a trip to an oppressive country and a trip to a more civilised one, isn't it just a simple matter of morality and decency to choose the second?

I really wouldn't feel comfortable strolling around with plenty of cash in my pocket, gawping at the scenery and soaking up the atmosphere when the 'atmosphere' consists of wretched souls struggling to eke out an existence and bitterly envious of all the material goodies I take for granted.

And since you ask, yes, I'm all in favour of the UK boycotting the Chinese Olympics in protest against their abysmal human rights record. It's shocking that so many politicians and businesses are resisting a boycott because they're more concerned with trade than human dignity. But then again, what did you expect?