Let me begin by hoping that all men out there are sitting comfortably. I have to say that because I never realised until last week that so many of you have such major difficulties doing something as simple as sitting. Or so it would seem from some of the responses to the Tumblr item on Men Taking Up Too Much Space On The Train, which featured photos, taken secretly, of men, some lolling across seats, or placing their bags on them, but mainly sitting in the classic legs splayed, crotch displayed alpha-position, forcing neighbours, male or female, into a smaller space on their own seat.

One of those photographed was former Games of Thrones actor, Richard Madden, leading Jacqui Smith to comment on his posture on Sky News. Madden was sitting with his legs apart, with an umbrella between them, "like a phallus" someone declared. I'm not sure about that, nor about another poster's suggestion to "castrate him" (a tad extreme perhaps). It seems unfair to cast Madden as the pin-up for inordinate leg-splaying. This isn't really about Madden or lousy etiquette on public transport that could apply to both sexes. This is about what could be termed the zoning of entitlement – male space, female space, shared public space. Isn't it high time that some people learned to tell the difference between public and private?

First, this idea that these men have "no choice" but to sit with their legs splayed, dominating-alpha-style. The justifications I've seen range from the differences of the male pelvis, and the threat of overheated sperm, to having their "stuff outside" and not wanting to put their "junk in a vice". Then there is size, nature having been so over-generous in its provision that the men are unable to sit normally on public transport. Judging by the number of men who manage to sit perfectly normally, there seems to be a modicum of delusional bragging going on here.

This isn't about bodies. You don't see women with large breasts flopping them over seats or people's shoulders, saying: "Sorry, this junk's outside – I'm going to need some of your space!" Nor do women sit with their legs splayed, crying: "Ever heard of thrush and cystitis? I've got to cool this baby down!" If women don't ask for special consideration for their physique on public transport, why should men? It doesn't make sense. Then again, when it comes to zoning, maybe it does.

This is where irritation, even anger, with leg-splaying comes from – it's essentially anger at the space these men feel entitled to take up. Not only their space, but all space – especially when, as on public transport, it's at a premium. Men don't tend to sit in restaurants in this style, so why does it happen so frequently on trains? And while men can also have their space hijacked, I would wager it is usually by other men; as a rule, women shrink into their seats, rather than spread out.

It matters because it doesn't always end there. While leg-splaying can be entirely passive and unintentional, this distorted sense of male entitlement to space can sometimes lead to far more worrying behaviour. Men making unwanted overtures to women, commenting on their appearance, getting annoyed when they are not responded to, even, in extreme cases, following them, or becoming aggressive, all of which can be very intimidating, especially if a woman is young and/or alone.

Sure, most men would change the way they sat if asked or challenged, but this places far too much angst and responsibility on the people affected, people who are just trying to make a journey, not risk confrontation. Perhaps this is what some people need to realise – female personal space, on public transport, or anywhere else, is not an elastic concept, it is not semi-permeable, debatable, up for grabs. Put simply, the space women occupy is just like that occupied by men – completely their own.

The last thing Clinton wants is Flowers in his hair

Gennifer Flowers has been talking about her "great lurrve" for Bill Clinton. She says that they would have ended up together had it not been for Chelsea being conceived, and Bill told her that Hillary was bisexual. Flowers also says that she regrets not agreeing to meet up with Clinton when he contacted her in 2005 "to talk".

Flowers appears to be ignoring the fact that Chelsea coming along meant that the Clintons were clearly getting it on, quite possibly more than once. Even if Clinton had made the remarks about Hillary's "bisexuality", this still sounds like a lecher's spin on "my wife doesn't understand me". As for turning down a chance to meet Clinton – a tad unlikely as all Flowers ever does is gas on about him.

Recently, Marla Maples announced that she still pined for her "great lurrve", Donald Trump, although they divorced 14 years ago. Haven't these women had any other relationships? Funny how they never get all misty-eyed and nostalgic for the low-profile, skint men they've known. A case of hell hath no fury like the former partner who isn't getting enough attention these days?

Ban prisoners smoking? It's a crime

There is a move to ban smoking in prisons in England and Wales, including exercise yards, with a pilot scheme planned for next year. Excuse me, has someone got a light… so that I can torch this appalling idea?

I no longer smoke – I had to stop when my lungs started heaving like two busted accordions. However, I haven't forgotten gasping for a cigarette and being unable to have one – that vicious clawing from my chest to my throat, the jangling of nerves and shortening of temper. Hideous, unbearable and I wasn't even incarcerated.

Much has been made of the dangers of passive smoke for non-smokers, but what about the mental health of smokers who will be forced to go ciggie cold turkey, with all the stress and insomnia that involves? It's no coincidence that there's a huge global industry dedicated to giving up smoking – it's one of the hardest things anyone could ever do. As for giving prisoners "support", I wouldn't like to be the warder offering a stick of nicotine gum to a con he's just divested of 20 full-strength Marlboros.

Aren't there greater concerns, if all the stories about the easy availability of hard drugs in prisons are to be believed? While it makes sense to look into banning smoking inside prisons (especially if most of it is done in locked cells), why couldn't there be outside smoking zones for prisoners, just as there are in ordinary life? What harm would that do to non-smokers?

As it is, prisoners are different to regular nicotine addicts – their opportunities for indulgence are minimal; their cigarettes mean more to them. What kind of institutionalised sadism is there in the decision to make a barely tolerable existence even worse?