88 year old Heinrich Boere, a Dutchman of Dutch-German origins, is currently on trial in Germany for the murder of three Dutchmen during the Second World War. Boere clearly sided with the German side of his family and joined the SS serving in occupied Holland. When the war was over, he admitted the killings to Dutch authorities but escaped to Germany before he was tried – presumably for war crimes. Now – an old man and 65 years after the event he finds himself in the dock.

Please let me make it clear. Boere sounds, from the newspaper reports, like a thoroughly distasteful man. He is reported to have said in an interview with Focus magazine – “Yes, I got rid of them. It was not difficult. You just had to bend a finger”. Clearly there is no remorse in this mans soul and my sympathies lie entirely with the families of those three men. They certainly do not lie with Herr Boere. And the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime are abhorrent and a lingering stain upon modern Germany.

But I am still somewhat puzzled by this. Whether Germany now likes it or not, the SS was a legitimate and government sponsored paramilitary organisation that carried out the will of the incumbent regime of the time. They were also in the middle of a war. And, it is claimed, the three Dutchman that caused Heinrich Boere to “bend his finger” were active members of the Dutch Resistance and, as such, enemies of the State. To Boere, his SS cohorts and the German regime, these men were terrorists.

And their execution is no different to thousands of other executions that have taken place throughout history. Wars are littered with the bodies of such people.

Now I am not unhappy to see Boere put on trial. One wonders why it took so long. But for me it raises a serious question. If 65 years after the event the current government can decide that Boere’s actions that day constitute a crime then what of every other soldier in every other war that has – or may – face the order to execute an individual for their activities against the state? Do they need to stop and think to themselves that one day, their own country may turn against them?

Let’s start out by saying that I know smoking is an unhealthy thing to do. I accept that.

I happened to be in the eye department of the local hospital recently. Stuck to the wall of the waiting area was a poster that simply said in large letters ‘Smoking Causes Blindness’.

The cigarette packet in the photo, in common with all packs sold in the UK, states quite clearly that ‘Smoking Kills’. As a smoker I am told that I have a high risk of a heart attack, a stroke and lung cancer. Because smoking causes heart attacks, strokes and lung cancer. I have also been told that the pain I sometimes get in my knees and the fact that my feet and hands are often cold are due to impaired blood circulation caused by smoking.

These days, no matter what eventually sends me to my grave, I bet someone will put it down to me being a lifelong smoker. Just about every ailment, it sometimes feels like – is caused by or made considerably worse by smoking.

And then there are all those other people around whom I have smoked at one time or another whose death I have quite clearly contributed to. Because, according to other notices, posters, leaflets, government health warnings and the anti-smoking brigade – so-called ‘passive smoking’ also kills.

It’s black and white. Smoking kills. Passive smoking kills.

In the first, say, 70 odd years of the 20th century, the vast majority of people smoked. And those that didn’t were constantly living in a thick, smoke-laden atmosphere. In buses, trains, restaurants, clubs, pubs, cinemas, theatres, offices, factories, shops – smokers lit up anywhere and everywhere. And at home, if your Mum didn’t smoke then your Dad probably did. And your brothers and sisters and the Uncle that dropped in every now and then… Smoke and smokers were everywhere and it was virtually impossible to escape from them.

So here’s what I want to know. How did the human race survive the age of tobacco? Why didn’t we all die out?

I had the pleasure, during most of my working life, to be able to wear more casual clothes but there were a few years in the middle there where I was expected to dress daily in a suit, clean, uncrumpled shirt, tie and shiny and unscuffed shoes. In other words, the standard business uniform.

It is an interesting phenomenon that ‘dressing up’ has an immediate impact on one’s self confidence. You feel different, walk different, interact with other people in a wholly different way than you do when wearing jeans, t-shirt and pair of trainers. And, conversely, people also treat you differently. But the one ingredient that is most important for this to work this way, is simple comfort. And I have always had a problem with the tie. I hate the bloody things.

I know and understand the history of the modern tie and how it has developed from the cravat and before that the neck cloth. But sweep that history aside and what are you left with? Basically – a noose. And nobody has ever been able to adequately explain to me exactly what the point of a tie is. What is it’s function? What does it do? Apart from half strangle you of course. It is, without doubt, the most pointless article of clothing in any man’s wardrobe and is well overdue for retirement.

Women – for whom the tie is an optional and, frankly, unattractive accessory – are of course the lucky ones in this respect as their fashion changes from day to day. Men, on the other hand, have been forced to wear the basic suit – and obligatory tie – since Beau Brummell first learned what buttons were for.

Todays ‘kick ass blogger’ is someone who was lucky enough today to take a long walk here in England and arrive back home without getting wet. You can gather from that this was not my experience! I give you – Retirement Rocks, a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.

I have had my knuckles rapped by none other than my wife. She feels that in that last piece I got carried away and have caused offence to the worlds catholics. She gave me a good telling off I can tell you! She particularly felt that calling for the citizens of Vatican City to be hauled into St. Peter’s Square and burnt at the stake was one sentence too far and didn’t believe I had made it clear that this was just a metaphorical burning and not a real one.

So – to be fair – let me state right out that I have nothing against catholics. I think you’re wrong but I have nothing against you. I have had many, many catholic friends over the years and, as with every walk of life, there are good catholics and there are bad catholics. My argument is not with you – it is with the way your organisation has behaved over the last two thousand years, – especially the first one and a half millennia – and, I suspect, wished it still could.

From the earliest days of the intentional corrupting of the teachings of Jesus, to the final act of the Inquisition (1858) I do not know how many people have been slaughtered for their beliefs; how many wars have been waged in the name of God; how many people have been tortured into false confessions of their imagined heresy; how much land and property has been stolen to fill the church coffers; how many people have been forced into a life of poverty; how much earlier the catholic dominated world would have progressed in the areas of science and art and literature and music had these not been repressed… I do not know. But I do know that just one, single life, taken in the name of Jesus invalidates everything he stood for and corrupts beyond redemption his teachings.

This does not mean I despise catholics. I do not understand how anyone can happily belong to such an organisation but that, as they say, is between you and your God. I do not judge people or choose my friends based upon their religion.

If I gave offence then yes – I am sorry to hear that. But at the same time, I would urge you to delve into the history of your church.

There is a promotional ‘ad’ seen often on BBC News 24 where the Vatican correspondent makes the statement that the Vatican ‘works in centuries not in years’ and if that is indeed the case, then the current papal incumbent will not have been at all surprised to have just been served with a lawsuit pertaining to events 700 years ago. Must seem like only yesterday in fact.

I have to admit the news that The Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ have filed a lawsuit to have their good name reinstated by the Vatican is one of those news items that gave me enormous pleasure. The Association’s members are, they claim, the rightful heirs to the famed Knights Templar.

In 1307, the King of France – Philip IV – had bankrupted his treasury waging wars and had borrowed heavily from the Templars. Following unsubstantiated rumours of heresy and ‘ungodly’ practices within the order, he saw having it outlawed a way out of his financial difficulties and persuaded the Pope – Clement V – to do just that. On Friday 13th October, in a well organised Europe-wide operation, Templars were rounded up, arrested and their lands and wealth confiscated. Hundreds were tortured to force admission of heresy and many were executed – most usually by burning at the stake. The Vatican always did have a thirst for blood-letting in imaginative and inhuman ways but of course, I am sure God instructed them to do this so it’s all right then.

The lawsuit, while claiming that it is the good name and reputation of the Templars that must be exonerated, also calculates that the value of land, money and possessions that were seized by the Vatican 700 years ago is, today, worth some 79 Billion UK Pounds (100 Billion Euros). I like that bit!

Bearing in mind I am just talking about the leadership here and not the millions of Catholics across the world who practice this cursed religion – but I’d like to see the modern day Templars storm the Vatican and burn everyone within out in St. Peters Square. The world would have been a better place over the last 2000 years without this evil spreading it’s hatred, intolerance and vile doctrines.

Good luck to them I say. But I would still go after the money – they have an excellent case.