Ben Goldacre, "The Lobby" and the Bilderberg Conspiracy
In which Patrick Holford introduces us to Martin Walker


Patrick Holford, whose exploits are chronicled by the marvelous HolfordWatch site, has a page of extracts from Martin Walker's new book. You can download that here for free: I have done so, and hope to review it next month.

In the meantime, I think it's worth looking at the noteworthy claims made by Mr. Walker, with the apparent approval of Mr. Holford. In the piece, Mr. Walker self-identifies as "a competent and experienced journalist."

According to his own biographical allusions [sic], almost ten years ago, while Goldacre was training to be a doctor, he was already a convinced skeptic, a person familiar with the Lobby’s institutions, their motives and designs, and someone who adhered to a set and unquestioning ideology of science. It could be, of course, that Goldacre has been ‘given’ a background retrospectively. Nevertheless, we are expected to believe that he was a convinced skeptic in his mid-twenties.

"Given" a background? Is Dr. Goldacre a spy? Who might have given him a "background"?

[Martin] Taylor and Dick Taverne are both Bilderberg attenders.
The Bilderberg group is a world government in waiting, which organises the future global economy at its restricted but increasingly less than secret meetings.

I see.

Goldacre has absolutely no sense of fair play or democratic rights.

Unless Dr. Goldacre has been going round shredding ballot papers or murdering voters Zimbabwe-style, the second half of this remark in completely nonsensical.

Very few of those who are attacked by him is [sic] allowed access to the pages of the Guardian to refute the attacks, or Goldacre’s transient grasp of science…On his website, he publishes only sycophantic crap from apparently illiterate followers.

I'm not sure that someone with Mr. Walker grasp of grammar is in a position to critique other people's literacy, or indeed to accuse anyone of a "transient grasp of science" given Mr. Walker's rather idiosyncratic views on Cold Fusion [as expressed on page 170 of his book]. Further, a quick perusal of the comments at BadScience [especially the MMR treads] reveal plenty of comments critical of Dr. Goldacre, the MMR vaccine, and the Big Farmer. Some of these comments are literate.

The entire piece is studded with gems like this.
Footnote 7, regarding "Roger Hole Essay Prize in Medical Scepticism’" notes that "R.C. Hole's full name, when pronounced with two of his first names in initials, sounds like ‘arsehole.’". This information was sourced from a "Grand Theft Auto" site - I am unsure as to what end.
A particular highlight is footnote 2, which devotes over 200 words to the definitions of the word "geek", before leaving it to the reader "to decide what Ben means by being a Geek". This attite of it's-not-for-me-to-decide-it's-up-to-the-reader is a varient of the I'm-not-saying-you're-a-Nazi-I'm-just- asking-questions gambit, and pervades the extract. A final example of this is this paragraph:

"Goldacre won a British Science Writers (BSW) award, in 2003, the very year that he began working for the Guardian. At this time, the BSW was funded by MMR manufacturers Glaxo Wellcome and called the Glaxo Wellcome BSW Award – perhaps there is something in this for these corporations, or am I just a conspiracy theorist?"

Well, I leave that to the reader to decide, but I recall Mr. Walker's statement earlier:

"Anyway, I have always had a relatively common-sense approach to these matters: if it cocks its leg against a tree to piss, barks and sniffs round bitches, it’s probably a dog."

The "dark matter" flowchart

Whilst doing research for a dark matter blog post, I came across this Divine thing of manifest beauty.

It made me (a) laugh and (b) feel less bad about the ambiguities in aspects of my field of condensed matter.

Soixante-neuf: "only in exceptional circumstances"

No, I haven't taken up sex blogging, this is more on the 42 days detention without trial.

Via Rachel and thence Kate, I found the poll that everyone is taking about and no-one is providing a reference to.

Currently, the police may hold suspected terrorists for up to 28 days before having to charge or release them. The Government wishes to extend this time limit in exceptional circumstances to 42 days.Do you support or oppose extending the time limit to 42 days?
Agree 69%; oppose 24%; dunno 7%

How "exceptional" are those circumstances?
Did all 69% of respondents agree how "exceptional" they are?

But Kate has tracked down another survey by Yougov: the results are rather different.

HOWTO: Overthrow the government - armed only with a ZX Spectrum and radio-astronomers

In the late 80's, I used my Spectrum to sum series and make silly animations.

In the early 80's, these guys used one for something more important:

On September 14, 1985, residents of the Polish city of Toruń watching the popular James Bond ripoff 07, Call In (in which a blond and ideologically correct Citizen's Militia officer fights crime from within a series of tight sweaters) were surprised to see the show briefly overlaid with block white letters reading "Solidarity Toruń: Boycotting the election is our duty," and "Solidarity Toruń: Enough price hikes, lies, repression". Twelve days later, the same slogans appeared superimposed on the hated evening news. The dissident radio astronomers had struck again.

Read about how they did it

Classy

I've never really objected much to Steve Bell. I don't understand the appeal, but as a right-wing nutter I'm not exactly the target audience for a Guardian political cartoonist. Although I can see how "Let's draw George Dubya Bush as a chimp who says "YURP" a lot, because that'll be Droll " might be funny for the twelfth or even fifteenth time, I don't think it really works as a running joke over 8 years.

He has diversified his routine today, by drawing David Davis as a suicide bomber.

How delightful.

From the silly, to the ridiculous

This is quite, quite bizarre. There are more interesting things to blog about that the MMR vaccine, but I feel this little gem deserves a wider audience (scroll down to comment 68):

Dr John Briffa writes:

Time is a factor, but the other thing that will hold this up is the belief I have that the arguments put forward by people who assert MMR is vindicated with regard to autism need further unpicking. It’s partly the unscientific intransigence of individuals just like you that makes this necessary, I think.

I suppose I should thank you for your persistence: it has certainly helped highlight for me just how spurious the ‘MMR is safe with respect to autism’ arguments are.

So, with regard to the question of the sort of evidence that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that MMR does not cause autism, I say all in good time. There’s plenty more that needs to come out before I move on to this.

June 12, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

"There’s plenty more that needs to come out before I move on to this". I can practically hear the sinister music inside my head. What is it that needs to "come out"? Is it a secret?

Legal Lacunae...
...or why it is Best not to use words you don't understand, lest you look Very Silly

Dr. John Briffa has opened a can of worms over the MMR debate. You can find some comments on his novel use of statistics here. But this is not the subject of this post, which was prompted by some rather bizarre comments posted by Dr. Briffa at JDC's place . They relate to an allegation by a previous commenter relating to Dr. Briffa's comments policy. Dr. B writes:

May I also suggest that the comments you’ve made might be viewed as defamatory in a court of law. And that there has been an instance of a judge in the UK forcing a site to reveal the identity of ‘libellous’ posters. So, while you post anonymously, this may not be as much of a protection as you might imagine. - posted at 10:18am

Oooooooooooooooooooh, that "might be viewed" as a threat. In "view" of this, it's time to look at Dr. Briffa's understanding of the law in general.
He posts about MMR here. I invite you to read the whole thing.

Thinking about this yesterday reminded me of how the whole MMR/autism debacle got underway. And anyone who knows anything about this subject at all will be familiar with the name Dr Andrew Wakefield. For he is the doctor often ‘blamed’ for any mistrust in MMR as a result of his study, published a decade ago, which suggested that their might be link between vaccination (the measles component of the MMR vaccine) and bowel disease/autism. Some of you may know that on and off now for about the last year Andrew Wakefield has been answering charges put to him by the General Medical Council in the UK (this is the body that regulates medical practice in the UK, and it has the power to strike individuals off the medical register). Dr Wakefield stands accused of a variety of charges including conflict of interest (it is alleged he received money from legal sources that he did not declare when he published his paper). He also is accused of subjecting children in his research to unnecessary tests, and not having ethical approval for the research in the first place. Now, most of us will be aware of the big brouhaha regarding Wakefield’s research, but the reporting on his case with the GMC has been scant to say the least. There are no restrictions on the reporting of this case, so why the near ‘radio silence’? In a quiet and undisturbed couple of hours yesterday I thought I’d find out what I could about the Wakefield case, and report it here.

Sadly, the "couple of hours" research didn't extend to the GMC website, where he could have found the dates of the Fitness To Practice panel here: The matter of Wakefield,Walker-Smith and Murch was adjourned on 15th May until the 14th July 2008. The fact the panel is not sitting may explain why the media is not reporting.
Dr. Briffa has a more sinister explaination:

Since then, from what I can make out, we’ve had no stories in the mainstream press regarding how the case is going. I did find this radio broadcast/podcast though on a site dedicated to autism issues (http://www.autismone.org). It features the accounts of the Dr Wakefield/GMC trial from Dr Carol Stott (a psychologist and friend of Andrew Wakefield) and Jim Moody (a lawyer with a special interest in the area). This piece is hosted by someone called Polly Tommey. The first quarter or so of the piece focuses on the alleged misdemeanours of the journalist Brian Deer, who had investigated Dr Wakefield for the Sunday Times and Channel 4 in the UK, and who some believe instigated the GMC case against Dr Wakefield. This section of the recording is all a bit melodramatic and cloak and dagger for my liking, and its true relevance to the case is somewhat tenuous, I believe. However, I reckon it’s worth sitting through, though, if only to get to the interviews with Dr Carol Stott and Jim Moody.

Trial? When did a "Fitness to Practice" hearing become a "trial"? It is no doubt terribly exciting to imagine a government/GMC conspiracy to silence the Trooth by putting its advocates on "trial", but the reality is rather more prosaic: it is a "Fitness to Practice" hearing, about which the GMC states in the very first sentence of the case summary "The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research."

You may recall Dr Carol Stott from such emails as "Try me shithead", "so go fuck yourself" and "twathead": you can find her uncensored correspondence with Brian Deer here, together with the British Psychological Society ruling against her that followed. Brian Deer, for those who haven't come across his work, is probably the finest medical investigative journalist in the UK. He discovered that she received £100,000 to testify in an MMR lawsuit that burnt through nearly £15 million in legal aid expenses, before it collapsed.

It appears from their accounts that Dr Andrew Wakefield has put up a very robust defense with regard to all the allegations he faces. From what I could glean here, there really is no case to answer. If you listen to Jim Moody’s interview, he suggests that the prosecution team have made deliberately false allegations concerning Dr Wakefield, or at the very least did not do their due diligence with regard to the case or were just extremely careless.

Well, this is remarkable: are we going to be told anything about this "evidence"? It seems far too important not to share it with us. Yet this "evidence" never appears.

Other revelations even more significant revelations followed. Dr Wakefield’s research was published in the Lancet medical journal, edited by Dr Richard Horton. Ever since the MMR/autism storm started Dr Horton has been trying doing his level best to distance himself from Wakefield’s research (although, it should be pointed out that the Lancet organised a press conference to trumpet Wakefield’s findings).

Yes, that's how I try my best to distance myself from things - by organizing a press conference to "trumpet" them.

Perhaps as part of this effort, Dr Horton has said that if he knew about Dr Wakefield’s alleged financial conflict of interest prior to publication, he would not have sanctioned its publication. Dr Horton testified to this effect in front of the GMC last year. However, listening to the autismone podcast I discovered that evidence has come to light which appears to prove that Dr Horton was aware of the alleged conflict of interest well before the study was published. In other words, it appears Richard Horton is lying (or has a very bad memory indeed). Jim Moody suggests there’s a case for Richard Horton himself to be up in front of the GMC, on a charge of giving false testimony.

Wow- that must be incredible evidence. Can we know what it is?

To me, this really is news, and of an order of magnitude far, far greater than the fact the Andrew Wakefield has no specific expertise in paediatric ethics. Hands up now, how many of you out there knew about the fact that the editor of the Lancet medical journal (one of the most ‘respected’ medical journals in the World) appears to have committed perjury? I’d be surprised if many of you do, because I can’t find a single reference about this in the mainstream press. Remember, there are no restrictions on the reporting of this trial.

Well, it still is not a "trial", so of course there are no "reporting restrictions" [the matter, after all, is not sub judice]. However, in the absence of the evidence - that Dr. Briffa does not provide or describe - it strikes me as a remarkably brave claim to state that the editor in question "appears to have committed perjury", even concealed behind an axillary verb.
I also happen to think that unethical conduct is big news.

So, while this week I had no intention to write about MMR, I now feel compelled to do so as a result of what I found when I looked: It seems to me that some distinctly shoddy science and no small amount of bullying has been used in an attempt to ‘silence’ those who dare suggest there is a link between MMR vaccination and autism, including countless parents who believe they witnessed the regression into autism of their children after MMR vaccination before their very eyes. And of course someone’s head had to roll, and Dr Wakefield’s was the obvious one to lop off. Yet, it seems that there really was never any case to answer. And now we find it looks as though the editor of the medical journal who published Dr Wakefield’s research is prepared to lie through his teeth to save his skin and ensure that any fingers of accusation point elsewhere. And the press, for some reason, is keen to have Dr Wakefield the pariah, and is not interested in reporting honestly and openly about the case brought against him by the GMC. [emphasis mine]

Crikey! And he's accusing other people of defamation?


[For the avoidance of doubt: this constitutes fair comment on a matter of public interest. Legal threats may be sent to a.political.scientist - at -gmail dot com. I can always do with a laugh.]

AC Grayling supports extraordinary rendition...

as long as it's for the right people.

No!

So, you're launching a brand spanking new military satellite network, and what do you call it?

The answer is to be found here.

Will no-one learn from history?

Yes, indeed, if by "widespread" you mean "rather narrow"

Via the excellent blogs of Dr. Goldacre and The Heresiarch , I read about a new poll by the Rowntree foundation of blessed memory : apparently, religion has become the "new social evil [sic]". How very exciting.

The Times reported the matter (article here) which makes the claims that there was a "widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution."

and that

"The researchers found that the "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil"."

Actually, the poll shows nothing of the sort. You can read the study website here, the executive summary here, the complete results here and the "Voices of unheard groups" section here. [The latter is an attempt to compensate for the vast over-representation of white, middle class respondents to the Internet survey, by creating focus groups (with people with LDs, ex-offenders and others). This is discussed in the methodology section.]

The main survey first: there were ~3,500 respondents, with views falling into twelve broad categories, the first 6 described as "dominant", the remainder described as "not dominant but important" . "Religion" comes in at 9, less important than gender equality but more important than immigration (!). However, as is clear from both the summary and the discussion on the main report (pages 30-31), this actually covers both "religion" and "the decline of religion".

Although the "decline of religion" is the smaller category, the "religion" category covers four areas: "erosion of secularism", "the most divisive agent in our society", "undermining rationalism", and "religious extremism". As the quoted responses show, only the middle two categories exemplify the "religion poisons everything" attitude which the Times article implies is so prevalent. I simply don't think the data justify the statements that "widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.", "Britain has had it with religion", or even that ' "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil".' I also think the Times article would be of more practical value if the word "many" were quantified. Anywhere. The "unheard groups" section told a rather different story*: criticisms of religion were not directed at religious faith, but at "the ways in which religion was organised and practices were felt to be problematic". Unfortunately, this fascinating statement was not quantified nor supported with quotes, so we cannot know which aspects of organisation and practice were so problematic. "Religious extremism" [page 19] predictably comes in for criticism **, but more surprisingly so does "an absence of religious guidance in relation to the challenges of contemporary society". Further, "it was felt that religious leaders across faiths should provide some moral leadership, but that this wasn't happening". In both the studies, it's worth noting that government, the media, and big business come in for criticism as well as religion, but the Times chooses not to mention them. Britons are rather less sceptical about the Great Sky Fairy who Intelligently Designed the World than they are about the Great Socialist Fairy who Intelligently Designed the Economy.

And finally, what article about religion would be complete without a quote from Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society, who was:

"...extremely pleased.Britain has had it with religion"

I don't understand why someone in favour of a secular society would try alienate people like me, who are religious and support a secular society - but then again, we theists are notoriously stupid.

-------------------------------------

* It is also desperately sad: I defy anyone to read the whole "Voices of unheard groups" report and not be moved. ** Voices Of Unheard Groups, page 19. Hands up anyone who is in favour of "religious extremism"?

Guess who's finished the first draft of his thesis?

And what better way to celebrate that, than with "The Star Wars Holiday Special"?



It is every bit as awful as it is supposed to be. And I'm glad.

I shall submit at the beginning of next month.

Physicist humour

I can only describe this as a work of sheer genius.
I am the first to accept that this may say more about me than the picture.

via Mr Eugenidies and Mr Worstall

"In the future, everything will be child abuse for 15 minutes" - UPDATED 


[With a respectful nod to the wonderful Beautiful Atrocities: "In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes", which is alas now defunct]

Cross country running "Cross-country running at school could be a form of physical abuse" - [source] 

Cycling "Is cycling with children a form of child abuse?" - [source]

Education (Religious) "Inculcating...falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse" - [source]

Education (Secular) "This deprivation of the spiritual is a form of child abuse." - [source]

Education (Home schooling) Home schooling parents, he said, “participate in what can be perceived as a form of child abuse.” - [source]

Education (American Public Schools) "Is American public education a form of child abuse?" - [source]

Education (British Boarding Schools) "Sending young children to boarding school may be considered a particularly British form of child abuse" - [source]

Education (Pretty much all of it, really) "Education today is a form of child abuse " - [source]

Exams "A Halifax teacher, Rosemary Wright, proposed that the conference view exams as 'another form of child abuse'." - [source]

Feeding children (too much) "OVERFEEDING youngsters should be seen as a form of child abuse" - [source]

Feeding children (not enough) "Should the involvement of children in a hunger strike be regarded as a legitimate form of political protest or does it constitute a form of child abuse?...Definitely not legitimate protest, but probably not child abuse either" - [source]

Feeding children (Fish) "Feeding fish, whale and seal to children is a form of child abuse" - [source]

Feeding children (vegetables) "Vegetarianism – a form of child abuse" - [source]

Feeding children (junk food) "I believe that it is a form of child abuse to feed children junk food, where the adult offering it knows it to be so." - [source]

Feeding children (the Tam Fry edition) "Tam Fry, a member of the National Obesity Forum's board, will tell a conference that youngsters who are over-fed by their parents should be treated as victims of abuse, as happens with malnourished children." - [source]

Ignoring the Bishop of Stafford "People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said." - [source] [via Oliver Kamm]

Immigration Law "deportations are a form of child abuse" - [source]

Raising children in suburbia "Is raising children in suburbia a form of child abuse?" - [source]

Reality TV "constitutes nothing less than child abuse" - [source]

SATs (UK) - The union's outgoing president, Bill Greenshields, said he was confident a boycott would be successful."We will end this child abuse," he said. - [source]

Smoking "Cigarette smoking is a form of child abuse" - [source]

The policies of John McCain "a colossal from [sic] of child abuse." - [source]

Vaccination (Not using) - People who do not have their children vaccinated should be prosecuted for domestic terrorism and child abuse. - [source]

Yelling "Oh, yes, I think that yelling is a form of child abuse." - [source]

Zoos (taking children to Chinese zoos) "It's almost a form of child abuse" - [source]


It's a substantial list, for which additional contributions are solicited, either by the comments section or by email to a.political.scientist - at - gmail dot com.

However, it seems that child abuse will NOT be a "form of child abuse": it appears that watching children being abused on the internet will be "nothing to be ashamed of" and "courageous".

A defeat for common sense

and a victory for everyone who's ever been Oppressed by not checking swimming pool opening times! Well done, team!

Reminiscent of this:

Are single sex changing rooms "Gender Apartheid"?

As a member of the Indecent Right, I have a surprising amount of time for the Decent Left.

Harry's Place in particular is always worth reading, but I found these articles a bit strange:

This morning, my wife, five year old son and I thought it might be nice to go swimming in the newly re-opened local swimming pool, Clissold Leisure Centre. We got to the pool at 10.30, to be told that:

- the main pool was too deep to be safe for a five year old;
- the "training" pool was women only between 10.45 and 12.30 every Sunday;

I got angry. I nearly swore. I rarely get angry at people who are doing no more than implementing a policy, because it isn't fair on them. I apologised.

Not to worry, we thought. I'll go in the main pool. My wife and son will go to the training pool. However, that was not permitted. My son, being of the male gender, was not allowed in a women-only swimming session.

...

Fine, I said. And what would the policy be if a group of racists decided that "sensitivity" to their cultural preferences resulted in a whites only swimming session? Why should a public institution subsidise the expression, in a public place, of the gender apartheid practice mandated by a small religious minority at all?

Some of the comments underneath the posts are, to put in mildly, a trifle hyperbolic.
The logical conclusion of this, of course, is that single sex changing rooms are a "form of gender apartheid".

Don't get me wrong: I am a great fan of secularism, I have recently been pursuaded of the merits of disestablishment, and I seriously don't want to live in any sort of theocracy.

However, I honestly don't think having a couple of women-only swimming sessions in a week is going to usher in theocracy. No, really, it isn't.

It reminds me of the eccentric enthusiasm for opposing Nativity scenes on public land in the United States: tilting at windmills, whilst there are ogres on the horizon.

[Disclaimer 1: When I was an undergrad, the College gym had a couple of sessions a week that were women only. The sky failed to fall in.
Disclaimer 2: When I first moved to London, I lived in Dalston. I wouldn't trust Hackney Council to run a bath, let alone a swimming pool.]

Economist survey - An important caveat

We'll revisit the the Economist survey over the weekend: this time it's the turn of the "religion" questions. However in the mean time...

PJ, guru in all matters statistical, adds an important caveat:

"The errors on that survey must be pretty large - and splitting by political affiliation will end up nigh on meaningless. Not to mention the myriad other limitations of survey data. But at least they do the very minimum necessary to take a survey seriously - i.e. provide full questions and answers, and details of the sample. Didn't see a response rate though - but that is widely seen as the Achilles heel of survey data (making, for instance, the published confidence intervals meaningless)."

[Incidentally, if you haven't read PJ's brilliant series of blogs about the controversial Kirsch et al. meta-analysis on antidepressants, why on earth are you wasting time reading my blog? - go on, it's much more interesting, and much more important, than anything you'll find here.]

Feline Mystery - Solved!

Nick and Nora Charles - the intrepid solvers of mysteries - have solved my feline mystery. To summarise, my cat Nimrod went through a phase of presenting me with headless mice, and later presenting me with the mice heads marinaded in a vomit sauce. This was less endearing than might be supposed, and contrasted sharply with her utter refusal to eat Mr. Whiskers Finest Rabbit and Beef chunks. The Charles' hypothesis is that:

"Puss is probably not eating the mouseheads for herself but as part of preparing a delicacy to deliver to you in return for your provision of food she likes. Chewing off the head is simply getting rid of the only bit of a (living) mouse that can do any harm - to her at least."

which I must say sounds very plausible. Further evidence to support it lies in her new habit of biting the heads off without eating them. This is a much preferable state of affairs, although now trails of blood festoon the living room carpet, so swings and roundabouts...

Cats rule.

"SHOCK" - Polar bear behaves "like a wild animal"

I hesitate to accuse people of being beyond parody for fear of encouraging them to move even further beyond parody, but...

From the BBC environmental pages:

Germany's celebrity polar bear Knut has triggered a new controversy by fishing out 10 live carp from his moat and killing them in front of visitors.

Critics say Berlin Zoo should not have put live fish inside Knut's enclosure. But German media report that the carp were put there to eat up algae.

There is speculation that hand-reared Knut killed the carp just for fun.

There has been heated debate about whether cubs rejected by their mothers should be saved or whether nature should be allowed to run its course.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine news website reports that Knut "senselessly murdered [sic] the carp", fishing them out, playing with them and then leaving the remains.

Maintaining that a bear "murdered" the carp "just for fun", while suggesting "nature should... run its course" for the bear and algae, although not for the carp - what odd and mutually contradictory ideas people have about animals.


Via Tim Blair

The Economist Retracts

A correction in The Economist:

In our article on Anglo-Saxon attitudes (”Anglo-Saxon attitudes”, March 29th) we said that Americans and Britons felt much the same about the death penalty: they were broadly against it. They do feel strikingly similarly, but not as we said. Between a quarter and a fifth are opposed, the same proportion are in favour, and around half would support the death penalty in some circumstances. Apologies. The online version of the article has been corrected.

Thanks to Jim Manzi, who spotted it too, for passing this on.

Economist Survey - The Death Penalty UPDATED

This week I'll be blogging about The Economist's "Anglo-Saxon" attitudes survey. You can find the survey itself here. I was particularly struck by the throw-away comment:

[Americans and Britons] feel much the same about the death penalty: they are broadly against it. - [Source]

I thought this was surprising, as the survey appears to show nothing of the sort. From the survey itself (Question 4, page 9 of the pdf file):
Do you favour the death penalty for murder? (Yes, always; Yes, sometimes, depending on the circumstances; No, the death penalty is wrong; Don't know)

	Britain	USA
Yes, always	21	26
Yes, sometimes	53	50
No	24	20
Don't knows	2	5*

Now, it's clear that the respondents do feel broadly the same way about the death penalty: but they are in favour of it. 74% (UK) and 76% (US) favour it in some circumstances. Now, the survey only had just over 1000 respondents, and although there was a breakdown by political affiliation, income, and age, there was no breakdown by location etc, so one can argue about the significance and relevance of the survey: what one cannot argue is that this survey offers any evidence that American or Britons "are broadly against" the death penalty.


* NB: yes, the American data does add up to 101%: suspect either a rounding error or typo.

UPDATE: The Economist retracts; see next post.

Anglo-Saxon attitudes

Kudos to the Economist for actually publishing the raw data of their "Anglo-Saxon attitudes:
a survey of British and American views of the world" survey on the Internet, rather than just cherry-picking random stats and hanging a story from them, as the rest of the British media does. You can read it here, and the article based on it here.

I'm going to blog about it this week, particularly regarding the questions on "crime and punishment" and "religion". I'm a bit puzzled by a couple of sentences in the article, that don't seem to be borne out by the data.

Newspapers and magazines definitely should do this more often.

Evidence based medicine?

From the BBC:

"Women should not drink any alcohol during pregnancy, NHS adviser the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has said.

It says if they must drink, they should not do so in the first three months and should limit consumption to one or two units once or twice a week afterwards.

It brings NICE in line with government advice and replaces previous guidance saying small daily amounts were fine.However, NICE concedes there is no evidence to support the change." [emphasis mine]

Have NICE employed "Doctor" Nick Fox of Capital Radio:

"Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. It's a scientific fact - there no actual evidence for it - but it is a scientific fact"

He is not here, he is Risen

"And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, he is Risen" Luke 24:5-6

He is Risen indeed. Alleluia.

Whether you are Christian or not, I hope you have a very happy easter.

A couple of bits of pedantry

1. "Frankenstein" is a reference to the Creator, Victor Frankenstein, not to the poor Creature, who - significantly - is unnamed. The Creature is the only really sympathetic character in the book, as Satan is the only really sympathetic character in Paradise Lost. This comparison become explicit is as the Creature[1] identifies with Satan after reading Milton's epic poem.
   
2. "Fundamentalism" is term properly used to describe the sect of Protestants who, under Lyman and Milton Stewart, published the widely unread 12 volume work "The Fundamentals" during the second decade of the 20th century. The major concern of the Fundamentalists (note capitalization) was to preserve biblical inerrancy from the assaults of the higher criticism of the great 19th century German theologians. To call me a Fundamentalist is both Silly and Erroneous, but not prima facie Absurd. To speak of "Catholic Fundamentalists" is equivalent to speaking of a "square circle" and is prima facie Absurd.
   

Is this important, or am I on a pedantry crusade [2]? I would argue it is not merely important, but essential in order to marginalize Fundamentalism. You can't marginalize something if you don't know what it is, and someone who knows what she's talking about won't take you seriously. You'll alienate potential supporters: I'm not sure you can afford to do that.



[1] who taught himself to read, if I remember correctly, from Milton's Paradise Lost, the complete works of Petrarch, and Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther"(!), which he found in an abandoned chest. "Frankenstein" is a fine book, but it cannot be accused of an over-reliance on Naturalism.

[2] To be fair, I am always on a pedantry crusade. But it's important, too.

Is placenta kosher?

Fascinating piece here from a midwife, who is trying to establish if placenta is kosher, and if its consumption is halachic [legal under Jewish law].

Christians aren't bound by the food laws [Acts 10:9-15], so this is something I know very little about. Well worth reading in it's entirety.

Another one bites the dust

To delirious cries of "yay!" and "yippety-skip!", I have polished off another chapter.
Now, if I can finish another before Good Friday (it's almost there!), I shall be a happy man. Edging closer to submission.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid bigot!!!"

is a superficially attractive but seriously flawed line of argument.

Look, I know I'm flogging a dead Archbishop here, but this is quite important: a number of his defenders are going with the line in the hope of deflecting attention from what he actually said. The current version boils down to "What's the problem with Shari'a,the Orthodox Jews do it, so you just hate Muslims, don't you?! Fascist" which demonstrates a unfortunate lack of familiarity with either English or Jewish law. Accordingly, I would like to illustrate that there are no privileges (a word which comes from prive lege, or "private law") that are available for Jews (orthodox or otherwise) that are not available to Muslims.

The various Beth Din courts have no status in English law.

I think there are two areas in which people have become confused (i) divorce and (ii) arbitration.

(i) Religious divorce clearly has nothing to do with civil divorce. However, there is a clause of the Divorce (Religious Marriage) Act 2002 which permits a husband/wife to obtain an order that the decree of divorce not be made absolute until

“[t]he parties to the marriage concerned (a) were married in accordance with (i) the usages of the Jews, or (ii) any other prescribed religious usages; and (b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages.” [1]

However, “(a) may be made only if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so; and (b) may be revoked at any time. “.

As you can see, all though the law mentions “the Jews” specifically, it also extends to “other prescribed religious usages”. In this case it exists largely to protect a partner who gets a civil divorce but whose spouse refuses them a religious divorce [a Get in Jewish law], preventing their remarriage in an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform synagogue [rendering them an “Agunah” in Jewish law] [2]

The three important points to note are (i) English law [3] maintains supremacy (ii) the words “Get” and “Beth Din” do not appear (iii) the act AS IT STANDS contains reference to “other prescribed religious usage”. The issue is that that Shari’a courts haven’t been around as long as the Beth Din[4]. To some extent the problem will resolve itself in time, and could be hurried along much better by someone in a civil case using the Divorce act to stop a partner from getting his/her decree nisi made absolute: This would introduce into case law one recognized Shari’a court, and we could go from there with no need to primary legislation. Alternatively, we could amend the Divorce act to say “the usages of the Jews; the usages of the Muslims; or…” ,although it seems quite unnecessary.

(ii) Arbitration. The “binding” nature of arbitration is achieved through the “Arbitration Agreement” which all parties either sign or assent to [5]. The London Beth Din, for example, requires this, and I presume the other Beth Din do, too [6]. It is this Agreement that makes the result of the Beth Din judgement enforceable in the civil courts [7]. As this is a civil matter, judgements can only be pecuniary [8] in nature (an “Arbitration Award”). Now, this can be challenged in the courts (there is no parallel jurisdiction), and the process itself can be challenged on Natural Justice [9] grounds, but the assent of the parties (evidenced by the Arbitration Agreement) constitutes powerful evidence the parties were familiar with the arbitration procedures and aren’t really in a position to complain. The test, unsurprisingly given we’re talking about English Law, is that the procedure is “reasonable”.

ACAS is slightly different: set up, to provide mediation as well as arbitration, by statutory instrument (the most recent one here [10]). It is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 [except a minor modification to 46(1)(b): see paragraph 5 of the SI].

As I think I’ve shown fairly conclusively, there are no special arrangements in English law that apply to Jews (Orthodox or otherwise), and not to Muslims.

Despite the best efforts of the Archbishop’s defenders, he was not calling for equality between Jews and Muslims (it clearly cannot be, as this is how the law stands at the moment). He is saying something much more dangerous.

From the speech:

I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework.

He is disputing that the state has a monopoly on the law (as the defence is “not imperilled” by “loosening the monopolistic framework”), a bizarre concept: you can't really have parallel legal systems. The Political Umpire has made this point forcefully here. As PJ says in the comments:

...the really annoying thing about this whole debacle is the duplicitous pretence that he didn't say anything objectionable and controversial, and that anyone who says so has some sinister ulterior motive and/or is unable to parse such elegant and sophisticated prose.

I'm very happy to discuss the merits and demerits of having Shari'a civil courts. I'm not happy for people to tell porkies about what the ++Rowan said. God save the Archbishop from his defenders.

[1] Divorce (Religious Marriage) Act 2002

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020027_en_1

Inserted into the “Matrimonial Causes Act 2002” c.18

Implemented via the Family Proceeding (Amendment) Rules 2003

[2] Liberal and Progressive synagogues do have Beth Din, but as – I believe – they permit religious remarriage without religious divorce, the Beth Din do not issue Gets. It's also worth noting this is explicitly feminist law: it assists Agunah ("chained" women) from being screwed over by their husbands and being stopped from re-marrying.

[3] I can’t see any material differences between this and the amendments made to section 3A of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 by the Family Law Act 2006, but as I know so little about Scottish law I’ll leave that to people who know more than I.

[4] However, the Beth Din have no recognition in English Law, not under these acts, nor under the Arbitration Act 1996.

[5] It is a requirement that the agreement be in writing, and the consent of the parties be evidenced in writing, but not actually that the parties sign it [Arbitration Act, section 5]

[6] http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/litigation/

In the orgy of coverage that has accompanied the Archbishops speech, there has been an assumption that (i)there is only one Beth Din which (ii) constitutes some sort of monolithic institution for all Jews in the country. As I discussed in my comment above, this is false.

[7] Ibid., although note that the Award can only be enforced through the civil courts “with prior permission of the Beth Din”.

[8] Except, of course, those powers discussed in Arbitration Act 1996 paragraph 48(5) (a)-(c), but as these are in effect contact law, they need to be enforced by civil courts anyway.

[9] And these days, the Human Rights Act 1998, although I’m not familiar with any Human Rights case law on Beth Din.

[10] The Arbitration Act 1996, which you can find online at:

http://opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g5

The ACAS Arbitration Scheme (Great Britain) Order 2004, a statutory instrument which replaced the earlier 2001 Order, which can be found at

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040753.htm

Can we have a new one, please?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back! Yes, the Bearded Wonder has struck again. Fresh from vexing me last month, the Archbishop has branched out and vexed everybody:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

Funnily enough, this is just what he said last month:

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

His solution: to silence argument directly.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Wrong in so many ways:

1. To whom would a Sharia court apply? Could it's decisions be challenged in a higher court? If a Moslem and a Christian have a commercial dispute, to which court would you go? If a Moslem apostasies, would the judgment apply to him/her? Would this be retrospective? Could agreement be revoked? Would the whole arrangement not be subject to challenge in accordance with the Refah Partisi v. Turkey (2003) ,either at the ECHR itself or through a lower court in the UK ( under the Human Rights Act (1998))? The whole matter is legal nonsence, and muddying the waters with idiotic reference to the Beth Din arbitration process shows a serious lack of acquaintance with Jewish law as well as British law.
   
2. It is not "unavoidable". Few things are unavoidable if one is serious about avoiding them. To say something is unavoidable is the argument of a lazy man.
   
3. Speaking of lazy arguments, it is a gift to the "when you've seen one Abrahamic religion, you've seen them all" lobby.
   
4. It is an example of "vicarious offense" [hah- see what I did there?] Once again, someone who is not a Moslem is pleased to share with us what Moslems do or do not want. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves, and do not require ventriloquists, however well-intentioned.
5. It has just made the lot of "moderate" Moslems much harder. Why should they speak up against extremism when no-one else will? Extremists seem to trade as being a more "authentic" version of their faith - why play into their hands?
   

In any case, let's have the next Archbishop democratically chosen by the Laity. That way, when (s)he screws up, and everyone has a moan, we'll have no-one to blame but ourselves. In that regard, I like York and Rochester, with a preference for York: Go Sentamu! I think Lent is going to last a long time this year if this is what we have to put up with.

What I've found interesting is the groundswell of rage that this has generated: the bloke on BBC Radio 4's "PM" program said "it would be impossible to understate the strength of feeling on this issue". Britons are angry.

Archbishop Cranmer thinks it's time for Rowan to consider his position.
Superb post by the political umpire, who ends by calling for disestablishment of the Church. I'm inclined to agree, but want to think about it properly when I'm less cross.

Certainly the Church requires further Reform. That is "unavoidable".

Final, random, thought: "Sharia" would be a lovely name for a girl.

Druid in a dress, or, why hippies should not be appointed to the See of Canterbury

[Disclaimer/rant: I wanted Sentamu. Like almost all the other 77 million Christians who are members of the Anglican communion, my opinion was neither sought nor required: the winnowing was done by the Crown Appointments Committee, the final choice made by Tony Blair, and the whole thing rubber stamped by Her Maj. Given we're bringing democracy to Iraq, would it be too much to bring it to the C of E? The larger churches elect their churchwardens and PCCs as it is - it wouldn't require too much paperwork to elect vicars, bishops and archbishops. While we're at it, we could directly elect the House of Laity to the General Synod.]

Dr Williams, the Bearded Wonder, has been making speeches again. This is his right. But it a right he wants to deny to others:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has called for new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking.

Yes, we should make hurt feelings against the law, that's an appropriate restriction

...[T]he current blasphemy law was “unworkable” and he had no objection to its repeal.But whatever replaces it should “send a signal” about what was acceptable.

Signals should be sent by post, text or email, not legislation.

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

By cutting out the middle man and silencing arguments directly, via legislative fiat.

I summed up my views on the silliness of laws against offense, specifically blasphemy in the comments over at PJ's place.

Legislate at haste, repeal at leisure

The Devil's Kitchen has a robust take on the matter (NB: language a trifle direct)

Fox News in Pinko Harboring Outrage?

Gosh:

democrats are always railing against Fox news and its parent company News Corp. Today I went on to fundrace.org, and put in News Corp, only to find that "$14,600 was given by people who identified their employer as "News Corp".

$0 to Republicans $14,600 to Democrats

Shame!

From Semper Fido

Merry Christmas!

No, I'm not dead, but I've been on holiday. Unfortunately, my thesis did not write itself in my absence. Anyway, readers:

To all Christians, a Merry Christmas, and to all non-Christians, I hope you have a lovely holiday.

all best wishes
Political Scientist

Richard Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

I had to check the link to make sure my eyes did not deceive me. They did not.

Feline Mystery

I have a physicist's distaste for biology ("Yuck! It's all squidgy!"), but sometimes I wish I knew more to give me insight into those biological problems that impinge on my consciousness:

Nimrod, the Mighty Hunter with whom I share my life and my stipend, simply will not eat Whiskers's nice meaty chunks of rabbit or beef: only chicken will suffice. This is a source of tension between us, as Mr. Whiskers prudently sells his meat chunks in packs containing packets of rabbit, beef and chicken. There are no flies on Mr. Whiskers, although there are on the cat dish should I be foolish enough to put out rabbit. Nimrod will have none of it, and she stares at me reproachfully until I feed her chicken chunks instead. This is not the oddity. After gorging herself on chicken, she will track down, torture and kill field mice. This, too, is not the oddity. Having killed the mice, she chews the heads off. What sort of creature turns her nose up at meaty chunks of beef, but eats mice heads? It defies logic and mocks reason. She doesn't even like the mice heads; about once a week they are vomited up under the kitchen table as a lovely present for me. It is very puzzling.

In the meantime, should anyone be interested in a job lot of Whiskers beef, or indeed rabbit, chunks, perhaps they'd get in touch below. Otherwise, eBay beckons...

Our time is now

"Ugly people strike back" - from BBC news

Buenos Aires is a city of beautiful people where appearances are important.
But not everyone in Buenos Aires is beautiful. Gonzalo Otalora, for instance, is downright ugly, and he is not embarrassed to admit it.
It's not fair, he said. The beautiful people get all the breaks. Beauty is a natural advantage and he wants the good-lookers to be taxed to finance compensation for the ugly people.

We will arise, my people.

The French on British Corruption

Le Monde's take on the corruption scandal:

Concessionnaire Mercedes-Benz dans le Berkshire et à Orange County, en Californie, il avait auparavant participé au financement de deux écoles religieuses pilotes à Sheffield, en 2005, vitrines de la réforme de l'éducation du gouvernement Blair.

I suspect this is the principle point of interest: the religious schools. The slash-and-burn anti-clerical reforms at the end of the nineteenth century have left this as something of a curiosity.

A fairly humdrum article, lifted largely from the Mail on Sunday, is enlivened by this rather splendid comment:

Bah, on sait bien que l'Angleterre n'est pas une démocratie mais un pays d' "alternance" politique Droite / Droite, où le libéralisme économique sauvage règne en maître depuis l'époque de l'Empire quand l'Angleterre dominait économiquement le monde. Le Parti travailliste anglais, c'est surtout le parti qui fait travailler...

Worth remembering every time you read a pious piece about the tabloid press "hatred" of the EU.

Why I am not a Leftist

From the "Letters Page" of the Guardian:

It's right that we reflect on the appalling human-rights record of Sudan. But is not the bear which was to go home with the children not also an opportunity to see ourselves as others do? Our encouragement to our children to anthropomorphise wild animals is a baffling feature of our culture. The children's sections of bookshops offer little more than a choice between stories of white children or talking animals. Where does it all lead? Urban pets, Animal Liberation and more spending on pet food than the world's poor have to feed themselves. Many Muslims find our relationships with dogs particularly distasteful, not least in loving them for their companionship. I suppose we must have been doing it since we started breeding them in our post-glacial caves. No wonder we are muddled enough to think calling a stuffed bear Muhammad is OK on the grounds that so many Muslims name their sons after him.
Tom Snow
London

I hope this is a parody. I fear it is not.

And with one bound, she was free.

Finally, some good news:

Teacher Gillian Gibbons is to be released from prison in Sudan after she was jailed for allowing children in her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Some more excellent news

Dr Imad Hassan, 45, is a Sudanese doctor and writer with a PhD in comparative religious studies who has lived in Britain since 1991.
He feels that someone from the Sudanese community must speak out against the ruling, and is planning to organise a protest from fellow scholars.
"I feel insulted as a Muslim by the government of Sudan, not by Mrs Gibbons," he told the BBC. "Describing the lovely children's toy with the name of Muhammad is a compliment, it is not an insult.

What a top chap. I wish the media would tell us more about men like this, and less about Abu bloody Hamza.

Murder your wife - on reality TV

They do things differently in Spain.
Via Le Monde:

Ricardo maltraitait Svetlana, et celle-ci l'avait quitté. Pour tenter de la faire revenir à lui, cet Espagnol de 31 ans s'est adressé à une émission de télévision d'Antena 3, "Le journal de Patricia". Sans dire à la jeune femme qu'il s'agissait de son ancien persécuteur, l'animatrice l'avait convaincue de venir sur le plateau au motif qu'un "proche" voulait lui faire une surpise. La jeune Russe s'était imaginé qu'il s'agissait d'un membre de sa famille demeuré en Russie. Placée face à son agresseur, la surprise a été de taille. Devant les caméras, son ancien compagnon lui a demandé de l'épouser. Elle a répondu "non".

Read the whole thing, and weep.<br>Ricardo beat Svetlana, and she left him. A judge sentenced him to 11 months in the slammer, and forbid him access to Sveltana for 2 years. Undaunted, Ricardo contacted the reality TV show "Patricia's Diary", and asked them to set up Sveltana with him as a "close friend" she wasn't expecting; in his sick way, he wasn't wrong. Brought face to face with his victim, he asked her to marry him; she said no.

What happened next?

Quatre jours plus tard, il l'a égorgée.

Four days later, he cut her throat.

I've often wondered what precautions Reality TV types take against stalkers enlisting them: clearly none. But when a spokesman was asked for a statement:

La société de production de l'émission, Boomerang TV, a expliqué pourquoi, à ses yeux, les organisateurs de ce programme n'ont aucune part de responsabilité dans cet assassinat, dans la mesure où ils ne savaient rien de cette affaire de maltraitance.

Un responsable d'Antena 3, a assuré que "tous les moyens de contrôle permis par la loi avaient été utilisés" avant d'organiser la rencontre surprise entre Ricardo et Svetlana et a jugé "injuste d'établir une relation de cause à effet entre l'émission et cette mort".

Translation: "nothing to do with us, guv".

PS: Perusing Le Monde, I note that word of the Oxford Union's "David Irving and Nick Griffin" show has reached Paris.
I'm a bit confused: they claim "Le Balliol College abritera un débat sur les limites de la liberté d’expression. ". Why has poor bloody Balliol been dragged into it? I thought it was the Oxford Union [Society] that was organising the circus. Perhaps somethings been lost in translation.

Lions, Donkeys and Myths

[As the "Saudi post" is still congealing, I'll tell you something about the first world war, instead]

The first world war is one of those curious subjects where there is an almost complete disconnect between popular knowledge and scholarship.
Although WW1 revisionism has been gaining ground academically since the late 60's, popular opinion owes more to Blackadder than to serious history.I only studied history to GCSE, but the version we were fed at school consisted of sadistic generals throwing brave young men to their deaths, in a battle which neither politicians nor generals understood. As Corrigan[1] says of “Oh, What a lovely war”, this is “about as historically useful as The Wind in the Willows”.

There has been a fascinating and timely series of posts over at the Political Umpire's Cricket and Civilisation, which take on many of the myths, and rebuts them convincingly.

The only thing I'd disagree with is an aspect on Haig, where the author states that "The British Legion...was founded by Field Marshall Haig". A lot of work has been done on this by Barr and Sheffield [2], some of which I summarise below.
Although Haig was an important figure in the organisation of the series of Unity Conferences (lasting a year!) that led to the 1921 unification of the four main ex-servicemen organisation into the British Legion [3], he played no role in the conferences themselves.
Indeed, Haig paid fulsome tribute to those who spend so long stating that in the future “full credit will be given to the leaders of those earlier organisations who had the wisdom, foresight and true patriotism to sink all personal aims and differences that the Legion might be established”[4]. Further, Wootton says “The Legion has no founder, only founders. It is a monument to a number of men, not one”[5]. The longstanding dispute between the two views, that the foundation of the Legion demonstrated Haig’s humanity[6] or Haig founded the British legion to rehabilitate his image [7], are both rendered moot as “Haig was not the founder of the British legion” [8].

Two superb books on the new histories of WW1 are "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" [1] and "The Smoke and the Fire" [9]. The latter is by John Terraine, who kicked off a lot of the WW1 revisionism in 1960 with his reappraisal of the battle of Mons.
"Haig" [2] is necessarily more specialist, but combines scholarship with beautifully readable prose.



References:
[1]Gordon Corrigan, “Mud, Blood, and Poppycock”2003 p14

[2]Niall Barr and Gary Sheffield “Douglas Haig, the Common Soldier and the British Legion” in “Haig: a reappraisal 70 years on”, ed. Brian Bond and Nigel Cave: p228-230

[3] John Terraine, “Douglas Haig: The Educated Soldier” 1963, p484

[4]The Haig Papers are to be found at the National Library of Scotland. The speech, Galashiels 1927, is reference no. 235c but is cited in [2]

[5] Graham Wootton “The Official History of the British Legion” 1956 p107

[6] John Terraine, “Douglas Haig: The Educated Soldier” 1963, p484

[7] Norman Dixon, “On the psychology of Military Incompetence” 1976 p387

[8] Niall Barr and Gary Sheffield “Douglas Haig, the Common Soldier and the British Legion” in “Haig: a reappraisal 70 years on”, ed. Brian Bond and Nigel Cave: p229

[9] John Terraine, “The Smoke and the Fire” 1980

Snow White and the seventy-two dwarves

“Everybody knows” that male suicide bombers ascend to heaven to enjoy the charms of 72 virgins. This raises a number of theological questions – are these virgins real, albeit deceased, women? Is this reward for a life of virtue, or punishment for a life of vice? What do their mothers think? What do their suicide bombers’ mothers think? What other religion conceives heaven as a bawdy house? - but none so pressing as: What do women suicide bombers get out of the deal?

As Archbishop Cranmer puts it: “But what do female suicide bombers hope for?...[is it] an eternity of lesbian bonding”? Indeed not: there is no eternity of Sapphic abandon in the Heavenly Fleshpots. Not for these girls. Instead, women suicide bombers get…

“…served by dwarves”

Speaking to an Arab affairs expert on the reports that Islamic Jihad is threatening to send scores of women suicide bombers to blow themselves up near IDF troops if Israel starts an operation on the ground in Gaza, she enquired what awaited such women in heaven, the equivalent of the notorious 72 virgins ready to serve the male shahids. The answer: dwarves who will serve them. Even in jihadi heaven the women are discriminated against, it seems.

Oh dear, I now have even more questions. Are these real dwarves? What do their mothers think?What does “served” mean? Is it a euphemism, or is it light house work? Orgies of depraved carnality, or a cup of hot cocoa and bedtime stories? Bedtime stories, or “bedtime stories”? Is it wrong that the words “served by dwarves” keeping repeating in my head in the voice of Mr. Humphries?

[Story from an interview on IDF radio, quoted in the JPost]

The UK approach to rape

Via the comments, PJ from the invaluble pajamasinbananas blog rightly reminds me that everything isn't sweetness and light in the west, either:

Saudi Arabia is an absolute discrace, but this sort of treatment of women can even be seen to a lesser extent in the West: 'PHILADELPHIA — In a rare rebuke, a bar association has criticized a judge for refusing to uphold sexual assault charges against a man who allegedly let friends rape a prostitute he had hired. The judge said she considered the case "theft of services."

It’s terrifying – we’ve got our own Teresa Carr Deni in the form of Judge James Pickles. Whether telling rape survivors that they should have “closed their legs”, or that wearing a miniskirt was “asking for it”, he made his contribution to keeping the rape conviction rate down.
To my relief, he has forsaken judging rape survivors, and taken up tabloid journalism – a profession to which his temperament, intellect and opinions are better suited.

However, we still have Starforth Hill – “Judge Ian Starforth Hill came under fire after saying that an eight-year-old girl rape victim was “not entirely an angel” in 1993. He was banned from hearing rape cases”.

Yet the [deleted] is still allowed to hear other sorts of case - what do judges need to do to be sacked?

I’ve now had two goes at right a cool, dispassionate and dark blog post on our chums, the Saudi’s. On both occasions, I had to stop before I got too angry. Hopefully it’ll be ready by next week.

The approach to rape in Saudi Arabia

From the BBC news:

...a gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to 200 lashes and six-months in jail

"When she appealed, judges doubled her sentence, saying she had been trying to use the media to influence them."
"The rapists' sentences were also doubled by the court."

That's something...

"[They were] sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

...or not.

Word fail me tonight.

All I want for Christmas...




...is a trebuchet that can fling flaming pianos for half a mile!

And, of cource, a copious supply of pianos to set aflame and fling half a mile.

[via John Derbyshire at The Corner]

The Curious Case of Dr. Watson and the Coincidental Controversies

I appreciate that I'm a little late to the lynching, but I thought I'd share some intriguing coincidences regarding the publication of Professor Watson's' books and his making controversial remarks:

2003: James Watson causes outrage with remarks about "curing" stupid people and making "all girls pretty"
2003: James Watson publishes DNA: The Secret of Life with Andrew Berry


2007: James Watson causes outrage with remarks about race and intelligence
2007: James Watson publishes Avoid Boring People

Correlation does not imply causality, but it's almost as if there were something about having a new book out that led to an author making wild, outrageous statements generating page and page of free publicity. How curious.

Some extremely good sense from Julian Baggini at the Guardian. He distinguishes between what may be a legitimate scientific hypothesis, and what is just racist wibble.

[These examples are drawn from the wikipedia article on James Watson.]

The Silence of the Clams

via the BBC News:

A clam dredged up off the coast of Iceland is thought to have been the longest-lived animal discovered. Scientists said the mollusk, an ocean quahog clam, was aged between 405 and 410 years and could offer insights into the secrets of longevity...The clam, nicknamed Ming after the Chinese dynasty in power when it was born, was in its infancy when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne and Shakespeare was writing plays such as Othello and Hamlet.

Bangor's press release here, BBC report here

Perhaps it will be asked to lead the Liberal Democrats. It can scarcely be worse than Lembit Opik.
Or is that a bit Cheeky?