The Muslim world is in ferment, or even more ferment than usual, as a result of a speech given by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg University. Ben took a swipe at the notion that Islam is an inherently peaceable, easy-going, happy-go-lucky credo with a core philosophy that proclaims hey, why not live and let live, huh? Rather, he let slip: “Everything Muhammad brought was evil and inhuman,” which has an agreeably crusading, unequivocal ring to it, I think you’ll agree. He was quoting — as you will be aware — the 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and in doing so invoked outpourings of loathing from Jakarta to Jeddah.

You can bet your life that by the time you read this, some Catholic priest toiling away in a godforsaken, dusty hellhole — Sudan, perhaps, or Turkey — will have been smacked about a bit, or had his church burnt down or been arrested without charge. The Pope should have been aware that Islam always reacts to western allegations that it is not a peaceful religion by mass outbreaks of vituperation, denunciation and acts of jihadic violence.

That this is a paradox seems not to be even remotely recognised by many Muslims. Commenting on the Pope’s speech, Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani foreign ministry, came out with this little piece of doublethink beauty: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”

The murderous Muslim Brotherhood was the first out of the blocks, demanding that all Islamic countries cut their ties with the Vatican. The “liberal and moderate” Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (pro death penalty for homosexuals, female circumcision, suicide bombings against Jews and other similarly tolerant stuff) has insisted the Pope must apologise. Soon the placards will be out, the effigies, the foam-flecked demonstrators and attacks by adolescent suicidal nutters.

Pope Benedict is due to visit Turkey quite soon, but this trip has been placed in jeopardy by his gentle reminder that Islam has had a tendency to gain converts through violence. There have been demands from Ankara that he should apologise if he wishes to set foot on Turkish soil.

A subtle and astute politician, perhaps Benedict should apologise for having caused offence — and then demand by way of reciprocation that Turkey — Islam’s democratic representative in the West — return to Christian denominations the land it has confiscated from them, allow the Christian churches to open seminaries (which they are barred from doing), make it easier to build new churches, and lock up Turks who terrorise priests. And maybe allow Turks to convert from Islam to Christianity without fear of official or unofficial reprisal. A fair exchange?

• The new Tory party logo is, apparently, a “tree” drawn by an idiot. A spindly, insubstantial blue trunk supports a scribbled approximation of leaves and branches. The design is, in its ambivalence, beguiling: is it a London plane, a lime or an oak? Perhaps it is all of these things and more besides, less a tree than a positive expression of inclusive treeness, agreeable to all voters who may have very real and understandable preferences for, say, a hornbeam over a beech, or are radical supporters of Britain’s conifer community.

  I suppose it is more in tune with the times than a logo that baldly and unequivocally signifies traditional Conservative values — a chap in a bowler hat smiting a beggar with a stick, say, or kicking an immigrant in the head. Or more up to date still — a grinning party official running over an Indian peasant in a 4x4.

  A strange thing is happening, though; almost every photocall, new policy initiative or exercise in rebranding undertaken by David Cameron is met with some kind of catastrophe and consequent outright hilarity — and yet the man’s opinion poll rating continues to climb and climb. Perhaps we have passed the tipping point of public support for new Labour and Cameron has a sort of insuperable force with him. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter what logo he chooses for his party — it could even be a beaming, youthful, Old Etonian standing astride a dog sled, under which is printed in block capitals: Mush.

  Decline of the maverick MP

  One by one, that tiny handful of MPs possessed of an independent turn of mind is denuded — by old age, infirmity, hubris, boundary changes or plain exasperation. Soon the Commons will be rank after serried rank of blank-faced wonks and lawyers bleating “Four legs good, two legs bad” in horrible unison. We have long since lost those toff misfits Tam Dalyell and Alan Clark — and Bob Marshall-Andrews has seen his Medway fiefdom expunged.

  Last week we lost Clare Short who, whatever else you might think of her, is at least not unfamiliar with the notion of principle and is hugely stubborn, to boot. When I was at the Today programme she declined, by letter, an invitation to appear on the show not by that weaselly excuse of “other commitments, too busy” etc, but by saying she hated the programme. It was bettered only by a similar refusal from Lord Tebbit, which concluded with the words: “If there really is a hell, I sincerely hope that you end up in it.”

  There’s no room in new Labour for Short, and not much room in David Cameron’s Conservatives for the likes of Tebbit. The best we are left with now is that excellent Labour maverick, Dr Ian Gibson, who recently opined on good scientific authority that his Norwich constituents were inbred mutants. Slap a preservation order on that man right away!

  Make love, not arrests, sarge

  A police officer has been kicked off the force for having allegedly indulged in the popular British recreation of “dogging”. This involves driving to a car park and waiting for a stranger to tap on your window, whereupon you invite him or her into your Mondeo and have sex.

  A couple were sitting in a popular “dogging” spot in Somerset when the tap on the window heralded the arrival of PC Darren Lumber. Rather than arrest the pair, Lumber politely asked if he might join in and, allegedly, was answered in the affirmative. After an act of love had been effected, Lumber unwisely gave them his mobile number.

  At first I thought this was a new police initiative to break down barriers between its officers and those citizens who choose to live outside the law, to show that criminal behaviour was accepted as a valid lifestyle choice, not to be treated pejoratively. Perhaps soon we would see officers holding the ladder while burglars made their escape. The sacking of Lumber has sadly scotched this suspicion.

• It is astonishing, the excuses that work with women. Belinda Oaten told the BBC that the reason her husband Mark went off with a rent boy for a bit was because of the stress caused by “propping up a leader who was severely alcoholic”.

  Hell, if this guff works with Belinda it might work with any woman. If in future I’m ever caught with my trousers down I might offer by way of mitigation that I’ve been worried by Ming’s performance during prime minister’s questions.

  Mark’s previous attempts at rationalising his behaviour have included “midlife crisis” and “I was going bald”, neither of which quite clinches it, for me. There is one more honest reason for why Mark did what he did. And all of us, except Belinda temporarily, know what it is.

Times Recommends

• Fragility always gets my sympathy vote
• Double it and you get the real jobless total
• Has al-Megrahi paid his council tax?