Richard Ingrams' Week: The judge who is deciding what we can see on TV

"Some viewers may find the following scenes disturbing." Whenever I hear that particular warning I automatically think, "Then why are you showing them?" The answer of course is that they will spice up what might otherwise be a rather dull news report.

Rather surprisingly, a decision was made last week not to show a BBC programme on the grounds that it might upset viewers. Even more surprisingly, the decision was made not by the BBC but by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Eady. The programme in question, Family Wanted, concerned the story of an unnamed child forcibly taken away from its mother by social workers on the grounds that she had too low an IQ to be a responsible parent.

As none of us have seen the programme we cannot judge the rights and wrongs of the story. But the BBC maintains, quite rightly, that children are being forcibly removed in this way almost every day of the week and that it ought to be a matter of public concern.

Mr Justice Eady however, does not want viewers to be upset by scenes of a weeping mother having her child taken away from her. Although he does not say so it may also be the case that he doesn't want lawyers to be upset by having the proceedings of the family courts being subject to public scrutiny.

Earlier this year Mr Justice Eady caused controversy when he prevented The Mail on Sunday from printing certain stories about the chairman of BP, Lord Browne. Now, it seems, he is given the power to decide what can or cannot be shown on television. Some readers may find the above facts disturbing.

Only an expert's opinion will do

I know six young people from personal knowledge who have suffered from schizophrenia (one of whom committed suicide). All of them came from good families with no history of mental illness, and in each case the parents blamed the use of cannabis which the children had acquired at school.

My personal experience has no scientific value. All the same, I prefer to rely on it in setting the cannabis question, rather than the findings of any official scientific enquiry.

Modern society, however, has swallowed the idea that until a suitable body of experts has been appointed to look into any disputed question and issued a 400-page report, judgement must be suspended. The consequence is that while we wait for the scientists to reach agreement about the dangers of cannabis, a great many lives may have been ruined.

Much the same sort of thing goes for global warming. Most of us are by now aware of the climate changes that are taking place. But there are still plenty of pundits who are prepared to insist that there is nothing out of the ordinary about natural disasters such as the recent floods.

The experts must pronounce. And, meanwhile, mere journalists cannot be relied upon. In the same way, the facts about the death of Princess Diana in 1997 are well vouched for. We all know by now that it was an accident caused by Mohamed al-Fayed's drunken driver.

But no. There has to be an official inquest lasting several months and costing thousands of pounds before the final verdict can be arrived at.

Regularly passing through Connaught Square by taxi on my way to Paddington, I had never been quite sure which was the posh house the Blairs had bought for £3m-plus.

But now you can see quite clearly that it has to be number 29. That's because, as I noted this Wednesday, there are several armed policemen posted outside the front door - even though Blair is currently in the Middle East.

There is also a row of traffic cones on that side of the square to stop people from parking anywhere near the Blair residence.

It isn't hard to imagine the feelings of the Blair neighbours who up to now have been able to park their cars outside their houses. But being self-obsessed, Blair most likely never thought about such things when he moved into the Square. I shouldn't think it worries him much now either.

Nor will he be overly concerned about how much it is costing the state to keep a posse of armed men outside his front door night and day when they could be doing something more useful.

If Blair needs that amount of security he should at least be required to defray some of the cost. He might also be persuaded to find somewhere to live where he won't seriously inconvenience the lives of other people.

More from Richard Ingrams