Amid all the coverage of the “Colston Four” trial, one small detail leapt out. A barrister representing Sage Willoughby – a member of the group who brought down the statue – argued that a verdict of not guilty would ensure the jury was on “the right side of history”.

It was intriguing to learn that this fashionable phrase has reached our courtrooms. Normally it’s used by Left-wing activists during online debate. If you agree with them on a given issue – for example, trans rights – they declare you to be on the right side of history. And if you disagree with them, they declare you to be on the wrong side of history.

As a rhetorical device, the phrase has undeniable force. It’s stirring, impassioned, compelling. In fact, it has only one downside.

It’s total nonsense.

Without access to a time machine, we have absolutely no way of knowing what future generations will think, if anything, of the views we express today. Users of the phrase appear convinced that future generations will be more progressive than we are. Perhaps they will. But perhaps they won’t. Perhaps they will be more conservative. Indeed, perhaps their conservatism will start as a rebellion against today’s progressivism.

Equally, a future generation of conservatives may be succeeded by a generation of progressives, who in turn are succeeded by a generation of conservatives – and so on, and so on, the two alternating until the end of time. Which of these future generations should we be most anxious to please? The progressive ones, or the conservative ones?

But even if all future generations do turn out to be every bit as progressive as today’s progressives expect – so what? Why should the opinions of future generations matter more than our own? Should we really go through life desperately attempting to second-guess the views of people as yet unborn, and whom we may never live to meet?

In truth, “the right side of history” is a cynical and manipulative verbal trick, designed to guilt-trip the listener into submission. Sadly, its use seems to be spreading. We can only hope that future generations see sense and do away with it.

But whether or not they will, of course, we cannot possibly know.

Want to save the planet? Get a chihuahua

You’ve sorted your recycling. You’ve cut down on plastics. You’ve considered buying an electric car. All well and good. But, if mankind is to have any hope of tackling climate change, there’s one more vital step you need to take.

Downsize your dog.

That is the urgent message to the nation from Mark Howell, a councillor from Poole in Dorset. At a council meeting last week, Mr Howell argued that, in the struggle to save our planet, the size of our household pets “is a big issue”. Pets, he explained, have a surprisingly large carbon footprint. And the larger the pet, the larger its carbon footprint is likely to be.

Mr Howell was not, he later clarified, telling us to kill our pets. He was merely telling us that, once our current pet dies, we should get a smaller one.

“People,” he said, “need to think carefully when their animals pass away whether they need to replace them” – and, if so, “whether they need to scale down the size of their pets.”

It’s certainly an interesting suggestion. And, if the Government gets behind it, it may well take off. In years to come, the owners of Great Danes may find themselves held in the same eye-rolling contempt as the drivers of Chelsea tractors. Guard dogs may be replaced with chihuahuas. Guide dogs may be replaced with shih tzus. Guinea pigs may be spotted soldiering heroically up the Alps to rescue stranded mountaineers, a thimble of brandy attached to their collars. Farmers may attempt to round up their sheep with the help of a hamster.

Every little helps. And if the policy proves a success, the Government may decide to extend it. Men, after all, tend to have pretty large carbon footprints, too. So perhaps, in the interests of the environment, women should be urged to get smaller husbands. Bad news for Richard Osman, but Noel Edmonds will be in tremendous demand.

Even more importantly, though, we need to abolish Veganuary. A study last year found that vegan men break wind an astonishing seven times more often than men who eat meat. Vegans believe that their diet is good for the planet. But, in light of the terrifying volume of toxic gases it causes them to produce, it may eventually make our world uninhabitable.

For the sake of our grandchildren, I suggest that we start eating vegans.

‘Way of the World’ is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 7am every Tuesday and Saturday