TRICKY things, opinions. Most people have them, rattling about their skull. But put them in public, or indeed in print, and rotten vegetables may come sailing your way.

A long time ago, before I wrote this column, opinion used to be a worry. Doubt beset many issues and opinion nudged forward like a nervous rodent, then as quickly shot off again. What should I think about this or that matter? What was the right view to hold?

Reading other columnists wasn't much help because they were all self-important people sounding off about something or other. What made them so sure of themselves? The answer dawned soon enough: because they could get away with it. And because writing columns is great, egotistical fun, which flexes the mind and sometimes leads to colourful confrontation.

Yes, columns can be self-important, but that goes without saying. As for the opinions, they are just that: opinions, one person's take on an issue.

This train of thought has been set in motion by some reactions to my observations last week on Prince Charles and his suitability to be king. One particularly stinging response was printed in the letters page on Tuesday from someone who confessed to having read my column three times in an attempt to make sense of it. Such dedication is remarkable. Surely once should be enough.

As to the observation "what a lot of rubbish Cole writes", I'll have you know that this is well-crafted rubbish, pulled from the dusty corners of my brain and laid out for public consumption or even ridicule.

Anyway, I like an image to sum things up and here is one for this column. Think of it as a box of cereal with the occasional opinions as the free toys that tumble out when the packet is upended. This week's plastic gifts are a wind-up Home Secretary and a toy judge.

David Blunkett is hogging the headlines over what inappropriate favours he may or may not have granted his former lover. The affair has certainly descended into much public nastiness. I don't feel much sympathy for Mr Blunkett, who always seems to take too much delight in being the hard man of New Labour.

There is a true scandal connected to David Blunkett but it has nothing to do with his former lover. Instead it is his determination to foist identity cards on us. Considering that the Government seems to have trouble with any new computer system it installs at vast expense, what faith should we have in their ability to pull off identity cards containing hi-tech features linked to each person's identity?

Something which will cost untold billions is being pushed through to chime with a climate of fear that seems to suit governments well, letting them introduce illiberal measures that may well be opposed in less fraught times.

There seems to be little proof that identity cards would make us any safer. Just look to Spain, where identity cards did nothing to prevent the Madrid bombings. I'll admit that is a crude equation, but it does make you think.

To the cynical eye, all this fuss over David Blunkett's private life seems to be throwing up a convenient cloud of smoke to cover the more important issue of identity cards.

Now for that toy judge.

What an astonishing story that was - judges threatening mass resignations unless their pensions were exempted from new and tighter controls. The judges were apparently concerned about rules putting a £1.5m limit on individual pension funds. As most senior judges used to be extravagantly paid lawyers at the bar, they have built up substantial pension funds.

What sort of example does it set that people considered to be among the wisest and sternest in the land feel they can make such threats?

A national newspaper quoted the constitutional affairs department as saying that "judges would not be exempted from the cap but the Bill would ensure their pensions were treated in such a way they would not suffer financially".

That last bit may well need to be read three or even four times. Er, judges won't avoid the new measures but they will not suffer any loss to their pensions. Just how does that one work out?

Updated: 11:44 Thursday, December 02, 2004