It could come true. What I hope is that they choose my nursing home with care. The chances are that I could end up somewhere fine.

For an independent watchdog has found that the vast majority of the 571 nursing homes in Northern Ireland go about their business of caring for the elderly in a satisfactory manner.

However, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which was set up in April 2005 to monitor standards of quality in health and social services in the province, said 94 notices of shoddy standards were issued against 21 establishments.

Of concern were issues such as care practices, storage and administration of medicines, staffing and training, health and safety and fire safety.

Seventeen of the 21 homes acted to remedy the deficiencies and one institution voluntarily closed down.

The RQIA has the power to fine erring nursing homes or indeed force them to close, but has not found it necessary to take such action to date.

The report is comforting to an extent. The number of homes found to be at fault is relatively small - though that is of little comfort to those unfortunate enough to be resident in those homes.

They, surely, would have expected, and should have been entitled to, better standards in return for the hefty fees that the homes rake in for each resident - up to £500 a week.

That has always been a concern about the operation of private nursing homes - that the profit motive would rank too highly. I am not suggesting that the failings in any of the homes named in the RQIA report were due to penny pinching by the owners, but that temptation always exists.

Some time ago I had a long discussion with a couple of health care professionals who had personal knowledge of the residential and nursing home sectors. They were in no doubt that some unscrupulous operators were maximising profits in any way they could.

One method was in their use of overseas, mainly Philippino, nurses. Instead of being employed as nurses in the homes - positions for which they were more than adequately trained - they were taken on as care assistants, a role which paid less.

Those nurses who objected were told that they had to serve a probationary period as care assistants to gauge their suitability for the job and to ensure their skills were up to scratch.

On top of being short-changed for their invaluable work, some of the nurses were also offered accommodation in properties owned by the nursing home operators, meaning that what they paid out in wages with one hand, they grabbed back in rent with the other.

There was nothing illegal in what they were doing, but it was sharp practice and made one question the standard of care being offered to residents. It was also a very poor introduction to life in Northern Ireland for those overseas care workers.

It was a practice which was apparently well known to the health authorities, but they did not intervene in what was blatant exploitation of skilled workers.

Business will always be business, even when it is the business of caring. Relatives of those in nursing homes should take a keen interest in the care being provided to them. The chances are that the care will be of a good quality.

But, as the RQIA discovered, standards can slip, even in the most professionally run operations. And I desperately don't want to end up in a home where I will be given the wrong medication or none at all and where my care will be delivered by someone not adequately trained for the job.

Why Jamie's a pain in the neck

Irksome TV chef Jamie Oliver is apparently to be seen next week electrocuting a chicken and then draining the blood from its neck. The sequence is part of his crusade to highlight what he calls the cruelty of battery farming - a practice the government is pledging to stamp out by 2012. Battery farming may not be ideal but it produces cheap eggs and cheap chickens and that is what the consumer wants. It is alright for Mr Oliver on his £1m advertising deal from Sainsbury's to campaign against battery farming, but then he can afford to buy any food he wants. Not everybody is so lucky and when the birds shoot up in price there will be a few people willing to stick an electrode or two on his chicken nuggets.

Bank charges vexing for their clients

Next week the Office of Fair Trading and eight of the UK's largest banks will lock horns in the courts over the vexed question of bank charges. It is a test case to determine if the banks were guilty of over-charging customers for their services.

But, true to form, the banks are still doing their best to ensure that they get the arm into customers in the meantime. New evidence has emerged that some banks are cutting the interest they pay to customers by more than the most recent Bank of England rate drop and, at the same time, refusing to cut their mortgage rates in line with the Bank of England.

Figures from financial advisers Chase de Vere reveal that 18 banks and building societies - including some well known high street names - have cut the rate on one or more of their savings accounts by more than December's 0.25% cut in the Bank of England base rate.

At the same time, according to Moneyfacts, 14 lenders failed to reduce their standard variable mortgage rates by the full 0.25%.

If that is not enough, most of the big banks have also restructured their overdraft charges in the past few months to ensure that erring customers get stung with hefty fees.

The bank's naked greed would not be so galling if they provided a gold standard service.

Have you ever queued up in a bank recently to conduct business with an ever diminishing quota of staff?

How come the banks still take several days to clear a lodgement to your account but can make a deduction instantly? Bank robbery has a new meaning to many customers today.

Amnesty for terrorists the real betrayal

Last week I wondered if the Consultative Group set up to find a way of dealing with the legacy of 30 years of conflict here was a good idea, suggesting that perhaps it would only cause further friction, rather than healing.

Sadly that seems to be the case, even before the twin chairmen of the group, Denis Bradley and Lord Eames, have reached any decision on potential ways forward.

Their mere suggestion that the Northern Ireland conflict should officially be declared a 'war' brought howls of protests, mainly from unionist politicians, who this time last year were urging Sinn Fein to declare that the IRA's war was over.

Does it really matter what the conflict, which cost more than 3,000 lives and lasted nigh on 30 years, is called? Gangs of terrorists, republican and loyalist, fought the security forces and each other and killed hundreds of uninvolved civilians. The terrorists shot and bombed in every corner of the province. Thousands of troops and police were required to prevent total anarchy.

Seems very like a war to me, but if people want to call it The Troubles or a terrorist campaign or whatever, so what. Semantics will not bring back the dead or lessen the pain of the bereaved or injured. Nor will the choice of words lessen the horror of what people here had to endure to end up with a political solution that was on offer after only five years of the conflict, but which we had to wait another 33 years for.

A more contentious idea floated by Bradley/Eames is of an amnesty for terrorist killers. The return would be, they hope, would be the terrorists taking part in a truth forum. It is really a poor return.

It has to be recognised that few, if any, terrorist killers will be arrested or prosecuted in the coming years. Even if they were, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, they would not serve a day in prison. Still, to officially absolve them of their crimes through an amnesty would be a betrayal of the bereaved.

We should be looking at ways of honouring the dead of the Troubles, not dishonouring them.