RECENTLY, I happened to see the television programme Points of View for the first time in years. I was astonished to discover that most of the comments were anonymous.This was an example of middle-aged media – if I may so call television – aping contemporary media – the cyber world of Twitter, Facebook and the rest.

Old media – the printed word – has never had much truck with anonymity. Newspapers print anonymous letters only when the writers provide strong reason. Whistle-blowing counts highly, and even higher when a writer raises a sensitive personal issue in which it would be unkind to reveal his or her identity, or that of some other person who might be involved.

Otherwise, names to opinions is pretty much the golden rule. Beyond the exceptions outlined above, I personally take no notice whatsoever of any anonymous opinion in any context.

Apart from showing weak BBC leadership, the anonymity now standard on Points of View doesn’t matter a damn. But the anonymity that is now allowing internet users to abuse other people facelessly is something else.

Adverse comments posted on Twitter against an actress in Phantom of the Opera have led to the revelation that this particular tweeter regularly posts theatre reviews anonymously – under the handle @SHkiyolove.

Anonymous criticism of public performers is particularly pathetic – and worthless.

But there’s worse. At least two teenage suicides are believed to be linked to anonymous online bullying. A Brighton woman, Nicola Brookes has received death threats – anonymous of course – merely for posting on Facebook the simple message “Keep your chin up Frankie, they’ll move on to someone else soon”, to support a losing X Factor contestant.

Ms Brookes has gone to court to force Facebook to reveal her tormentors. But overall action is needed. If internet services do not voluntarily adopt newspaper practice and virtually outlaw anonymity they must be compelled by law to do so. Cyber bullying needs curbing – fast.

COMPLETE with cricket match and grazing sheep, but minus the litter, Britain’s supposedly green and pleasant land is set to appear in microcosm as the opening tableau at the Olympics. Judging by the preview model, the cricket match is derived from the one depicted on boxes of Yorkshire Tea.

The key giveaway is the number of fielders – only nine, the same as in the Yorkshire Tea scene. That’s about right for a village game today. But usually there would be a wicket keeper, absent from both the Yorkshire Tea and Olympics versions. But at least Yorkshire Tea shows a pair of batsmen and umpires, none of which are present in the Olympics tableau.

MORE serious sport. Boos greeted the abandonment of the final of the Queen’s Club tennis tournament when one of the players, Argentinian David Nalbandian, was disqualified for violently kicking an advertising board, which slammed into a line judge, gashing his leg. Since spectators had paid up to £100 per ticket, their displeasure was understandable. But not the boos. What matters most in sport is the spirit in which it is played. And when an official – in this case the tennis umpire – upholds standards, he deserves cheers, not boos.