I HAVE decided to go in for a new hobby. Collecting something or other is often the way, so how about a collection of loaded logic?

When gamblers wish to cheat, they load their dice in order to fix the roll. People in a tight corner do much the same with their arguments, especially if they are politicians or other officials trying to find a wheedle-out route.

A good example has to be delivered with a stony face, as if the speaker remains blithely unaware of the utter nonsense they are speaking. First up in my collection is a brazen piece of slipperiness from Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. I have already had it framed.

It fell to Mr Clarke to defend the Government's introduction of identity cards. There are plenty of arguments to be had over the question "ID cards: good or bad?" Generally, I favour the anti camp, fearing that we will end up having to hand over our hi-tech ID cards, containing some 50 pieces of personal information, for all sorts of transactions, from withdrawing money from the bank to checking in at a hospital. Do we really want the Government to know so much about our every move?

Labour favours ID cards with a feverish passion but it has got itself in a bind over whether or not the cards will be mandatory. Its manifesto said the cards would be rolled out "initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".

So how voluntary is voluntary? Put on the spot, Mr Clarke insisted that people were free to decide whether or not to commit their details to the Government's database because the decision to apply for a passport is entirely personal. And so it is - unless you wish to travel abroad, when it bloody isn't.

I like to imagine that Mr Clarke was really pleased with that piece of Orwellian double-think, high-fiving himself in the mirror after dreaming up such a shining piece of loaded logic.

A different example of wayward logic appeared in a letter to the Evening Press, published last Monday, in which a train conductor observed that "when you pay for your journey you are paying for a journey not for a seat".

That will be a comfort to all those seat-less passengers huddling in the draughty corridor outside the loos for their entire journey, as if auditioning as extras for a Third World film.

Anyway, this set me thinking. What would life be like if train logic were adopted everywhere? You would go to a pub and ask for a pint of beer, only to find the landlord requesting that you cup your hands. He would then pour the beer into your upturned hands, observing that you had only paid for the beer and not the glass.

Budget airlines would have a perfect excuse to cut what remains of their already skimpy cloth, handing excited holiday-makers a parachute as the plane circled above Benidorm. "You only paid for the take-off, no one mentioned anything about landing. Off you go."

COPPERGATE is back on the York agenda. After the Coppergate II debacle, in which the council-backed proposal was roundly condemned by a government inspector, the city council has returned with a new blueprint. It appears to be based on that old newspaper favourite, the spot-the-difference game.

Concessions have been made to that inconvenient lump of history known as Clifford's Tower, but only a few, and shops still reign supreme.

Why don't they just go the whole hog and turn this medieval monument into a Tesco? After all, Tesco's is taking over the world. The other day, cycling home from work, I had to swerve round a Tesco store that had sprung up out of nowhere. I swear it wasn't there in the morning. Blink and a new one arrives, fully formed. Every little helps.

What chance is there that Coppergate III/IV/V or whatever, ends up being a classy development that respects its historic location? The omens aren't exactly promising.

Updated: 10:53 Thursday, March 23, 2006