I managed to miss it entirely in its 1980s day, but I just happened to see an episode of Magnum PI on one of those channels that specialises in re-runs of ancient rubbish. And I was appalled.

Not that I should have been surprised. It was exactly the kind of thing my dad always deplored in American TV shows.

Shootings galore. Bodies littered everywhere. Frothy banter and romantic playfulness between characters who have just been shooting people dead.

“Good” triumphs over Bad with a grin and a joke – and only does so because it shoots better.

In the case of Magnum, the show and the sexy hero are even named after a particularly macho brand of hand-gun.

This is the kind of garbage by which America brainwashes its young. And, by exporting its glamour around the world, infects the rest of humanity too.

It’s what leads to the insanity of US gun law. The law which puts guns in the hands of disturbed individuals like Jason Dalton, the taxi-driver who went on a random killing spree through Kalamazoo at the weekend.

And it’s how America raises otherwise apparently intelligent people to believe that waving guns around the world is the right way to behave on the global stage.

It’s total madness. Unless you happen to be getting rich making and selling lurid TV shows. Or making and selling weapons.

After dithering his way to his “difficult decision”, has Boris put the boot into his old Eton and Bullingdon pal Dave? I fear he may have done.

Of course, it’s supposed to be all about policies, not personalities. The clue’s in the word “politics”. But in a real-life democracy it’s not quite like that. People are naturally more drawn to characters than to principles.

It probably takes a politics junkie like me to recall what the issues were between Harold Wilson and Ted Heath in 1970. And I’d struggle to name the policy differences that divided Disraeli and Gladstone – though I’d have no trouble identifying their portraits, or some of their quotations.

Heath and Wilson, antagonists in most things, were on the same side over Europe. As their successors David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn are now. I’m with Corbyn when he says Cameron’s negotiations for EU reforms were both wrong and a sideshow. But I’m with them both in believing we’re better in Europe than out.

I can’t pretend to understand all the issues (who does?). And I can’t say with any certainty how the future will pan out, Brexit or Bremain (who can?).

We’ll be hearing an awful lot over the next four months from people who pretend to have crystal balls. They won’t agree about the road ahead, and the only certainty is that they’ll all be wrong one way or another. Blind pundits and politicians leading a blind electorate.

It will be impossible to decide whether you personally will be better off in or out. Unless, that is, you’re among the millions of Brits living and working elsewhere in Europe, for whom an “Out” vote would be a catastrophe.

Inevitably confused about the policies, we’ll be left to take this momentous decision on the basis of personalities. Which, let’s face it, is shallow, meaningless, mostly irrelevant, easier to follow and a lot more fun.

So, to be shallow for a moment: has Boris done the dirty on his chum? Will the floppy-haired one’s popular persona sway the outcome of the referendum? And if so, will the end of summer see him swap the London mayor’s office for 10 Downing Street? I wouldn’t rule it out, however much he denies that that’s his plan.

After all, it’s hard to see Cameron spending his last three years in office negotiating the terms of a European exit he says he committed heart and soul to avoid.

On the other hand, if the PM triumphs in a referendum he needn’t – and arguably shouldn’t – have called, what then? A major Cabinet reshuffle in the autumn is the least we can expect.

If the campaigning has turned nasty (and it will), it could be the end at the top level for Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, Priti Patel and co. Precisely those who, if it goes the other way, can expect the top jobs under PM Johnson. And key roles, therefore, in determining where the heck Britain goes once its moorings are cast off from Europe.

Given the uncertainty of that – and the radical right-wing outlook of those people I’ve just mentioned – the vote on June 23 is a far more important issue than any mere personality contest. Yet that is what it surely will become. And the weight of charisma just shifted away from the status quo.

So Cameron, the smooth politician, may yet end up as the clubbable pro-European whose misjudgements take Britain out of the club.

I was updating my website the other day, and my friend Lucy was impressed. I think. “Great photos,” she said. “I bet they weren’t taken on an iPhone!”

Well no, they weren’t. And I’ll take the comment as the compliment I’m sure it was meant to be. But it did put me in mind of an old story.

Welcoming a famous photographer to a dinner party, the famous chef told him: “I love your photos! You must have a wonderful camera.” The photographer smiled and said nothing.

At the end of the evening, after tucking in to a sumptuous meal, he expressed his gratitude to his host. “Fabulous food,” he said. “You must have a wonderful stove.”

Some of the most remarkable and memorable images ever taken were developed on glass plates or snapped with box Brownies. And millions of the dullest are taken every day using state-of-the-art cameras more sophisticated than I’ll ever be able to afford.

I don’t suppose Shakespeare’s pen, Rembrandt’s brush or Michelangelo’s chisel were any finer than those wielded by their forgotten contemporaries.

Like most people – nearly everyone, in fact – I’m among the forgettable, not the greats. But my pictures have appeared over the years in several newspapers, magazines and books and on a few walls. Enough to pay for the equipment I have. And the sales have included a few taken with cameras more basic than those that come built-in with many of today’s smartphones.

If I’ve got better at it with time, it’s not just because my kit has improved. Though of course it has – up to a still fairly modest point. It’s because of all the time, thought and effort I’ve put in, and all the mistakes I’ve made and learned from.

As with any skill, practice may not make perfect, but it surely makes better. Without practice, you would never have mastered walking or talking.

It seems these days everyone wants instant gratification of every desire, including the desire to be an artist. Buy a camera – or a phone – and hey presto, you’re a photographer. Buy a better camera and instantly you’re a better snapper. Except it doesn’t really work like that.

The world is full of people who think they can write because they have a laptop. Or make music because they’ve downloaded the right software. Or drive better than you or me because they’ve spent more on their car.
Self-deluded, all of them. Or perhaps deluded by advertising. Consumers, not producers.

I could never have been Wayne Rooney, no matter how many of the hard yards I’d put in as a kid. But I kick a ball better even now than Rooney could have done if he’d never tried.

I’ll never be a famous chef. But I cook a meaner rogan josh than anyone who never lit a stove or sliced a tomato.

I’ll never be the world’s greatest photographer. But I’m better than Annie Leibovitz would have been if she’d never put in the hours.

Of course, with photography a lot of it’s about being in the right place at the right time – and with the right equipment. But that takes dedication and application too.

And it’s not just about being there. I hate to think how many snaps I’ve grabbed of the places a bird has just flown from. How many times I’ve looked at a bland shot of a glorious landscape and wondered why I took it like that.

Or how many flashes go off every night aimed at Big Ben, the Parthenon or the Golden Gate Bridge, too puny and distant to have any effect. I’ve never been guilty of that particular stupidity, but I’ve often laughed at it in others.

“Right time and place” applies to other arts too. Nobody yet rustled up a perfect coq au vin on the Tube. Or danced a 10-out-of-10 paso doble slumped in front of Strictly.

I have taken photos while watching telly – well, you have to try out different things, don’t you? But they weren’t among my best. And you won’t find them on my website.
 

Sad farewell to a rare beacon of intelligence
 

Ian Herbert, chief sports writer of The Independent, paid a touching tribute in his column on Monday to the “unknown sub-editor”. That person who checks, trims and gives a final polish to the work of those writers whose names you see in any paper. Often enough, that person has been me.

For the second time in my career, I’m in at the death of a great national paper. This time it really will be a great loss.

I hope The Independent thrives and flourishes in its online form. But I will miss its friendly presence on the newsstands, where for 30 years it’s been a too-rare beacon of intelligence and reason among the national dross.

The brilliant Danish scientist and wit Piet Hein summed it up beautifully in verse:

         Most people find that it suits their book
     To be a bit cleverer than they look.
     You’ll find that the easiest method by far
     Is to seem a bit stupider than you are.
 
This wise message doesn’t seem to have reached the United States, the land irony forgot. With their politicians, at least on the Republican side, what you see is what you get. So, for example, George W Bush, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump really are as mind-bogglingly stupid as they seem. At least that’s the way it looks from here. And I’m pretty sure we’re not wrong.

On this side of the pond, where irony rules, Hein’s idea was taken to heart long ago. The obvious example is Boris Johnson, a highly intelligent man who rose to prominence by pretending to be a clown. And then there’s David Cameron. Not a clown, certainly – unlike Boris, he’s not funny and doesn’t try to be. But neither, I suspect, is he either as amiable or as shallow as he appears.

He’s the canniest player of the politics game around. Either that or he has the best coaches and advisers. At times – last May’s General Election, for example – he can seem lucky. But then, as the great golfer Arnold Palmer observed: “The more I practise, the luckier I get.” Palmer and the PM both have a record of snatching victory from the jaws of threatened defeat.

This time, though, Cameron may have painted himself into a corner. It’s a corner several of his predecessors have found themselves in. Most notably John Major, but to varying degrees every Conservative leader since Ted Heath. It is, of course, the corner marked “Europe”.

Cameron, a confirmed pro-European, had no need to promise a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU – except to get the turbulent anti-Europeans in his own party off his back. And, perhaps, to fend off the threat of UKIP.

Lately, his staff have been talking up prospects of that vote coming as soon as June to capitalise on the supposed success of his efforts in negotiating European “reform”. But what exactly will that reform be? And how popular will it prove?

The peril for Cameron is that it will look like a damp squib at best – from whichever way it is observed. To many the attempt to reserve a “brake” on benefits to foreign workers will seem merely petty and mean. A bid to make Europe nastier, not better.

Others will share the view, put about by more than one national paper, that Cameron’s attempts to do a deal with Brussels are “pathetic”.

That turns out, unsurprisingly, to be the word used by UKIP’s Nigel Farage. A man who will need to find another job if Britain does indeed exit the EU. And who may, incidentally, be another who has taken Piet Hein’s advice to heart. Or not.

Cameron – and, arguably, Britain – could be in trouble if too many people take those papers too seriously.

One, the Daily Express, led at the weekend with the extraordinary claim: “92% want to quit the EU”. That wasn’t quite the 92 per cent of actual voters which really would add up to bother for Cameron. It was in fact the rather more predictable view of those who took part in “an exclusive online poll” on the Express website. That is, those who have been targeted by what the same article admits has been the paper’s “five-year crusade to get us out of the EU”. Hardly unbiased opinion, then. And hardly a random sample.

So should Cameron be worried? Either by the dithering polls or by the dithering of his pal Johnson, who seems to be trying to jockey himself into a position to inherit?

The PM is certainly in a dilemma – one of his own making. If he calls the referendum for June and wins, he’ll only have done what he said all along he would do. If he calls it and loses, his premiership will be as good as over. Among other things.

If he delays, it will look horribly like the self-dug pit Gordon Brown found himself in after appearing to change his mind about holding a snap General Election in 2007. Apparently unnerved by opinion polls, Brown soldiered on in No 10, but his premiership was in trouble from then on.

The risk Cameron faces now is not unlike the one he triumphed over at the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014. Maybe he’ll pull it off again.

Now, as then, it is not only his future, but that of the whole country that is in the balance. Now, as then, it will ultimately be decided by people who can’t possibly know or understand all the issues involved.

Is Britain better off – economically, socially, politically or in any other way – in or out of Europe? After a lifetime’s support for Europe, I’m no longer sure.

The unelected bankers of Brussels? Or the unelected bankers pulling the strings in London? Devil? Deep blue sea?

It is 20 years since I moved into a shared house, the only English native in a community drawn from France, Spain, Italy and Germany. There were two things my German friend, Marco, could not fathom about Britain.

One – this may not surprise you – was our sense of humour. The other was that all our rubbish went in the same bin. And from there into landfill. He couldn’t understand the wastefulness.

We could take our bottles and jars across town to the bottle bank – if we could be bothered. But our paper, our cardboard, our plastics, our metal cans, our food waste all went in the same black bag.

At Marco’s home in Germany, all those things had separate colour-coded receptacles. Sorting and recycling were not matters of choice for the concerned few – they were legal requirements.

We’ve come a long way since without quite catching up. And we could learn from the Germans’ environmental good sense in other ways too.

Rainer Baake is the minister responsible for planning Germany’s future energy provision. The key things he is now working on are efficiency, storage of electricity and “digitising” the grid, along with other energy uses such as transport, building and “industrial heat”.

He isn’t obsessing, as Britain is, on nuclear power. He puts it in the same bracket as coal, oil and gas, belonging to the dirty, dangerous past.

“The question is not about technology any more. We have them,” he told an international renewable energy summit in Abu Dhabi. “There are two clear winners, and they are wind and solar. We have learned how to produce electricity with wind and large-scale solar at the same cost level as new coal or gas generators. I am confident we can succeed and that we will have a superior energy system.

“It is not a question about costs, because these new technologies produce at the same costs as the last ones. And, I should point out, they are much cheaper than nuclear.”

That last point should resonate here in the same week that doubts and delays were raised – yet again – about financing of the proposed new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

When plans for Hinkley were announced in 2007, Vincent de Rivaz of EDF Energy promised: “EDF will turn on its first nuclear plant in Britain before Christmas 2017 because it will be the right time.” He added, warningly: “It is the moment of the power crunch. Without it the lights will go out.”

Six years later, after several false starts and collapsed deals, Mr De Rivaz said: “In 2023, this project will arrive exactly when the country will need it.”

Last October the switch-on date was revised to 2025 and a funding agreement promised “within weeks”. Last week it was postponed sine die.

Meanwhile the projected cost of the plant has risen steadily, from £10billion in 2007 to £18bn – or £24.5bn if you believe the European Commission’s 2014 figures.

The government promised EDF a subsidy that would give them twice the current market price for every unit of power generated. Not everyone believes that would be money well spent. And the doubters are not all green activists or Germans.

Legal & General, one of the top FTSE 100 companies, is among the biggest investors in British infrastructure. Its chief executive, Nigel Wilson, considers nuclear power a dead duck.

If Hinkley runs into the sand, the Japanese firm Hitachi admits its plans for a nuclear plant in Wales are likely to follow. Sizewell C would become unthinkable.

“These things are massively delayed because they shouldn’t happen in the first place,” Wilson told BBC Radio 5 Live. “The world’s moving towards clean, green and cheap energy. Solar and wind play a much, much more important role going forward. The cost of that’s coming down all the time.

“There’s a lot of research and development going on. We should be giving people tax credits for spending more money on research and development into sustainable energy.

“Hinkley’s the most expensive energy we can think of right across Europe. The nuclear decommissioning costs in Britain are £80bn. All we’re going to do [if we go on building nuclear power stations] is add more cost for future generations to pay.”

Those words of one of the City’s top economists would get an approving nod in Berlin.

Explaining his wind-and-sun agenda, minister Baake added: “We want this to be economically efficient – not just an ecological success story, also an economic success story. If it is not an economic success story, then nobody will follow us and we will lose support in Germany.”

The consensus is strong at present. Opinion polls say 87 per cent of Germans back solar power, 78pc support wind and just 8pc favour nuclear. My old mate Marco’s in a healthy majority.