Suppose a group of animal rights militants, posing as builders, had gained access to the House of Commons and stormed into the chamber, the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy. Up at court last week, where would they be today?

In jail. The ever-present terrorist threat would have absolutely demanded that an example be made. Six months behind bars would be the least that the offenders now faced.

As we know, a group of activists with their own slant on animal rights, which they believe shouldn't prevent them urging dogs to tear to death a terrified animal for their own pleasure, did invade the House of Commons. But the court appearance of these eight foxhunters earned only the judicial equivalent of a mild ticking off - a conditional discharge. On the steps of the court, they brushed this aside, virtually declaring that they would do the same again.

Some would view this as contempt of court. Certainly it amounted to an "Up Yours" to Judge Timothy Workman, who handed out the, er, punishment. Could he have ordered them back and into jail - to demonstrate who was boss and, more importantly, that justice was not to be taken lightly? Maybe. But would he have wanted to? Good question.

"To your credit,'' he told the foxhunting anarchists, "the incident was brief.'' The same could have been said of the assassination of President Kennedy. Judge Workman added: "There was no violence.'' Except of course by the Commons' officials, who obviously felt a need to tackle the intruders. Not trained for this task, they could easily have injured themselves.

The protestors' leader, Otis Ferry, had been arrested earlier for entering the Prime Minister's garden at Trimdon. While awaiting trial for the Commons' invasion he lunged at the Prime Minister from a crowd on General Election night. His freedom today makes a mockery of the law, and indeed the high concern for security, which is about to bring bullet-proof screens to the House of Commons.

Choose the right cause if you wish to break the law, is the message. Foxhunting will do admirably. And if you play polo, so much the better. A co-invader of Ferry's was excused court one day to play polo for England.

Altogether, a text book lesson in how to breed the respect for the law that the Prime Minister rightly wishes to restore.

Do you have a child who takes advantage of school dinners? If so prepare to switch to pack-up.

Dinner ladies are about to vanish. The Government intends them to undergo a training course, towards a National Curriculum qualification in "school dinner studies''. Hailing them "the unsung heroes'' of the education system, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly says: "The new vocational qualification will recognize for the first time the crucial skills and experience that dinner ladies, school cooks and support staff bring to their work.''

She means they are not good enough, for her Department states: "The new qualification will be aimed at achieving high standards and bringing a new professionalism into the kitchen.''

Of course, the effect will be to drive many dinner ladies out of the kitchen - and discourage other women, or indeed men, from taking their place. Why are politicians blind to the blazingly obvious?