If we must have a Labour MP campaigning for a ‘summer of sex’ then we must be allowed to snicker amongst ourselves that she is called Samantha Niblett.

And if she partners with a sex‑tech entrepreneur called Cindy Gallop to champion inclusive learning and tackle ‘unrealistic standards’ set by online pornography, we must be allowed to be amused by that, too.

Niblett and Gallop? Niblett then Gallop? They sound like a helpful directive on how to begin foreplay before moving on to achieve full satisfaction in the shortest possible time, no doubt a strategy of which Samantha would approve.

The member (titter) for South Derbyshire wants to celebrate ‘real sex and love in real life’ for every consenting person in the UK. ‘This summer we talk,’ she says, believing that if we let it all hang out and confess our deepest desires – I won’t kink-shame anyone, she promises – we will be healed. Or something like that.

However, in the week that two contestants on Channel 4 reality show Married At First Sight UK claimed they were raped during filming and a sex garden was opened at the Chelsea Flower Show, isn’t there just far too much sex around, rather than too little?

I hate to sound like Mary Whitehouse’s maiden aunt, but the ongoing pandemic of online porn has meant society has become hypersexualised to a degree that is both inescapable and increasingly perturbing.

Miss Niblett and Miss Gallop claim their Yes Sex Please, We’re British! campaign will help eliminate abuse – online and in person – by focusing on healthy relationships rather than using porn as the ‘default sex education’ tool.

Admirable aims, ladies, but what are the chances? Look around you. I fear it’s already too late.

Consider the women at the heart of the Married At First Sight UK scandal – along with a third contestant who alleges she was subjected to a non-consensual sex act. They all signed up for a cheap and nasty show where having sex with a complete stranger was by no means mandatory, but certainly implicit in a story arc which expects couples to live together as man and wife.

The women say the show’s producers did not do enough to protect their emotional and physical welfare, but what were they doing to protect themselves? Everyone knows that this is rather more of a Great British Bonk Off than is strictly comfortable.

Nevertheless, despite taking part in such a tawdry charade, I do believe these ‘wives’ were still entitled to be treated with decency and have their wishes respected, with the sex-pectations of their ‘husbands’ moderated to suit.

Never mind the toxicity of the manosphere, if these sexual assault allegations are true, there is no excuse. None. And in this day and age, no civilised adult male can be unaware of the issues around affirmative sexual consent. No means no, whether you are in a fake bed with your pretend wife on a reality television set or not.

Channel 4 has purged old series of the show from the airwaves, lawyers are involved, everyone is denying everything. However, the fact Married At First Sight even existed as a concept – and then as a popular global franchise – shows how deep the rot goes. All the way to the Aphrodite’s Hothouse garden at the Chelsea Flower Show, in fact. Bear with me on this one.

Sponsored by the sexual wellness brand Lovehoney, the garden celebrates personal pleasure and sexual freedom – and why not? Yet the sponsors also claim that these are ‘somewhat taboo topics that should be considered as natural as houseplants’ in what they term as a ‘deliciously daring celebration of plant sexuality’.

That’s right, blame the orchids.

The garden is only a beautiful bit of fun, of course. However, the real problem is that despite what Lovehoney claims, there is very little that is taboo about sex any more.

By now, at least two generations have grown up with smartphones and unrestricted internet access to porn – and it is not making the world a better or happier place. It is encouraging the likes of porn stars Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips to sleep with thousands of men in a day to create lucrative adult online content.

It results in men openly watching porn on public transport because they feel so relaxed about it; or – I’m being generous here – they are victims themselves, trapped in the grip of compulsive consumption.

And it ends up with women being allegedly abused while taking part in a sad little television reality show. So – yes – we must applaud the likes of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who are campaigning to keep children safe from online harms. We must cheer on Niblett and Gallop, who want young people to understand that sex and desire can be wholesome and loving, not corrosive and degrading.

And we must congratulate dear old Ofcom, who noted the Married At First Sight controversy and said it might tighten its guidance around reality shows if necessary.

If necessary. Well, doesn’t that just say it all?

Rachel: A bad fit for Britain? 

Yes, it was very kind of Lord Alli to provide money and donations for Keir Starmer’s suits.

He then plunged into the fashion fray once more by giving Angela Rayner £3,550 to encourage the MP out of trackies and into some Me+Em outfits.

Could it be third time lucky? I am begging him to do something for Rachel Reeves, for the Chancellor is in desperate need of help with her working wardrobe. Everything she wears looks cheap and ill-fitting – couldn’t the poor girl at least get a seamstress to alter her jackets?

This week she turned up at a G7 meeting wearing a sugar pink Libby London trouser suit, oh dearie me.

Pink is the colour of Barbie and Mr Blobby and Calpol. An odd choice for a woman who wants to be taken seriously, particularly as she looked as crumpled as an old tissue. Never has power-dressing been so depressing.

Why do we work so shirkers can sit around eating crisps?

Benefit cheats cost the country £5billion last year. Among their number are those who have signed off work claiming the usual vague nonsense; anxiety, random ADHD issues and that chronic modern British malady Can’t Be Bovvered-itis.

They know that there isn’t a GP in the land who isn’t going to give them a sick note if they claim some mental illness ailment. So they can sit around eating crisps and doing nothing while millions go out to work a hard shift every day – and take home less money than they do. It is so unfair.

To rub salt into the wound, the strivers must also pay taxes which fund the lifestyles of these indolent cheaters.

But there seems to be no will nor appetite from the government to stop this gush of ill-gotten cash.

Occasionally, a cheat does get caught. This week a former nurse was sentenced to seven months in prison for fraudulently claiming £25,244 in disability benefits and I felt like cheering. But how many more like her are out there?

Meanwhile, only a fraction of those borrowers who sought government loans to pay their mortgages have cleared their debts. Should we be surprised?

The Support for Mortgage Interest scheme was designed to prevent households where at least one person is on benefits – key phrases here include at least and on benefits – from falling into arrears on their home loans.

It is not more money for nothing, meeped the government; the loans have to be repaid when the borrower sells or transfers ownership of their home.

And that is going to happen on precisely the 12th of Never.

It seems so inequitable that eligible claimants include those on income support, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, universal credit and pension credit – but working people can expect no such support.

One can see that the scheme would be useful and humane for those struggling through the occasional hard time – but it is another one of those schemes that is wide open to abuse by the unscrupulous. And this gullible government won’t admit, and don’t seem to recognise, that there are many thousands out there only too willing to take advantage of their largesse.

Of the 34,757 loans outstanding at the beginning of 2025, fewer than 900 had been cleared in full by the end of the year – giving a repayment rate of 2.6 per cent.

Any company working under those odds would go out of business in weeks. Instead, I fear it is we taxpayers who will go bust in the end.

Children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce urges the Government to prioritise pleasure over learning in children’s reading.

Just one in three enjoy reading in their spare time, according to the National Literacy Trust – a 36 per cent drop in the last decade. He said the reasons included screens, austerity, Covid and poverty – including the kind of ‘furniture poverty’ experienced in emergency social housing. ‘No child is going to have a bedtime story if they have not got a bed,’ he said. Holy Oliver Twist! He paints a Dickensian picture of modern Britain, even though only 2 per cent of children are in temporary housing.

Isn’t the downturn in reading more to do with wealth than poverty, including the wealth of alternative entertainment? We grew up with only Enid Blyton and one episode of Batman a week. Children today enjoy an array of entertainment, including iPads, smartphones, Netflix, Disney+ and myriad online choices.

They are not reading because they are sleeping on the floor. They are not reading because they are scrolling instead.

Hats and fascinators off to Venezuela Fury’s bridesmaid Libby Peat.

The enterprising young lady put her billowing bridesmaid’s dress on sale for £500 only a few hours after the wedding. Indeed, the bride and groom were still on honeymoon when it popped up on Vinted. She ‘could use the money’, she explained.

Who says romance and sentiment are dead?

Libby was one of Venezuela’s 18 bridesmaids who all wore crystal- embroidered, totally OTT blue dresses on the big day. Perhaps Rachel Reeves should buy it.