First off, I notice that Paul McCartney has devised a new cartoon character, described as a 'cheeky Scouse nut-muncher'. I'm not really sure what else to say, but I thought it needed highlighting.

Secondly, and completely unrelated, there's been a bit of grumbling and indignation as the Home Office continues its thankless task of overhauling charity law. For years private schools and hospitals have enjoyed tax benefits and other perks that charitable status confers, with an article in today's Guardian suggesting that private schools pull in about £100m a year from subsidies as a result of their charitable status. The idea that these places receive such perks is an emotive subject, because no-one likes private hospitals and no-one likes fee-paying schools - at least no-one in the vast swathe of the public that has never and will never enjoy the benefit of instant health treatment on presentation of a fat cheque or of languishing by the boundary with a glass of Pimm's in the company of Bumfluff, Badger, Titch and Strangely-Brown.

And this is what it all comes down to - public benefit. To qualify as a charity the organisation in question has to carry out one of a list of legally defined charitable purposes. Currently, the advancement of education and learning generally is an established charitable purpose, even in the absence of any element of poverty in the class of beneficiaries. But this isn't quite enough - within the advancement of education there must also be a public benefit. Although some might wonder how learning to sing in Latin and throwing up all over small Cornish villages benefits the public, in relation to private schools such a benefit has always been assumed without question. Despite hopes that the reforms would force the institutions to specifically set out the public benefit they served in order to maintain their status, or start benefiting the public in some way, the Home Office's draft bill has instead shied away from the issue. It doesn't even include a definition of 'public benefit', leaving the status of the schools (and hospitals) unchecked. If the bill was passed into law in its current form, the courts would end up having to define public benefit. And somehow, given the make-up of the judiciary (despite its gradual reform) I don't think such a definition would give Eton, Harrow or Hogwarts much to worry about.

Of course private schools (and in that term I include public schools) should account for their charitable status - by failing to address the issue the Government has shown again the lack of courage that has come to define it over the past couple of years.

When the fee-paying school I went to started up, its foundation documents stated that the place was to provide a school for 'forty poor scholars' and a hospital for 'eighty poor men'. The reality behind this was debatable then, and is certainly a load of old bollocks now. So, in the interests of giving something back to the institution that contributed to five long years of my life, in case it should need any help when (with any luck) the bill gets amended and the school has to justify its status, here are a few of the public benefits that private schools provide:

1. Endless tabloid fodder. Over the last few years my venerable seat of learning has provided the red tops with a whore-mongering headmaster, a Mr Gay UK contestant/ French teacher, a transsexual maths teacher and an English teacher who forged his GSCE students' coursework marks. And yes, he taught me English GCSE.

2. Hollywood villains. While it is often remarked upon that Hollywood villains are frequently English, it should be also be noted that they invariably speak with a distinctive English public school accent - for example, Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood, Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye and the Emperor in the Star Wars films. This is also true for the most evil villains in Hollyoaks.

3. The release into the world of a whole class of young men adept at taking a hot crumpet from behind.

4. Honking.

5. The provision of material for uninspired writers of blogs.

Inappropriate as it may be that these institutions can enjoy charitable status without justifying themselves, I can't help feeling that picking on them is a populist move, which helps protect other questionable charities. As I've mentioned, the majority of the public don't really like private schools and hospitals - but ultimately they do very little harm as opposed to religion. Yet, another charitable purpose is the advancement of religion. While recognising the good work done by the admirable and non-discriminatory actions of some religious groups, I can't help but wonder, when I look at the law, why the advancement of religion should be rewarded in such a way, especially when looking at the wording used. The common law reads as follows:

...to advance religion means to promote it, spread its message ever wider among mankind, to take some positive steps to sustain and increase religious belief.

And in the most sinister wording, advancement of religion should involve a 'programme for the persuasion of unbelievers'. The unrelenting divisiveness of religion and the disproportionately influential role it continues to play in this country suggest to me that this area should also be the subject of scrutiny when reviewing charity law. But if the Government can't even bring themselves to adequately address private schools and hospitals there's not a chance of it addressing the even more anachronistic beneficiaries of charitable status.