planned reform to UK prostitution laws

The review of UK prostitution laws may result in the prosecution of those who buy sex. Based on the Swedish model - which has apparently cut sex trafficking into the country dramatically - the law would criminalise those who buy sex, rather than merely those who sell it.

The catch, though, is common to that faced by recent Scottish attempts to reform the sex industry:

"We would not have expected to be in the House of Commons in 2007 talking about modern day slavery," Coaker told the bill committee.

He said ministers had concerns about whether the Swedish system might make prostitutes more vulnerable, but there was considerable support to tackle the demand for prostitution and trafficking. [...]

Nikki Adams, of the English Collective of Prostitutes, said that sex workers in Sweden said it had increased violence. "We would like to see an end to criminalisation and an end to the poverty and financial deprivation that forces women into prostitution in the first place."

I think we have to be careful how we understand the possibility of increased risk to sex-workers - there is a danger that we refuse to take meaningful action on those grounds because we have internalised, or accepted, a certain level of violence towards women which must simply be tolerated.

In other words, an implicit acceptance that some prostitutes are going to be attacked and there's not much we can do about it - and that by keeping prostitution in the "mainstream" where it is visible, we limit that violence.

There's also the recognition that any decision to change the law may be unpleasantly pragmatic: that while risk might be increased for a number of women involved in prostitution, it would be outweighed - or made acceptable - by the impact on the wider human suffering caused by sex trafficking.

The question, then, is how this review addresses that balance: how measures to attack sex trafficking through criminalisation combine with measures to lift women (and a minority of men) out of the circumstances which force them into prostitution - and finally, how those steps effect the small minority who actively choose to be sex-workers.

It's not that hard to see how the Women's Institute's campaign for licensed brothels might fit into that scheme.

don't take that (with advance apologies for awful pun)

The little detail that's worth repeating from the news of a growth in anabolic steroid use amongst teenage boys because "they want to be in boy bands and get girls":

Those who used anabolic steroids were often oblivious of the risks, which included acne, breast enlargement, sterility, liver tumours and hepatitis, the council chairman, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, said. He added: "It can also make the testicles wither - which is probably not what the users want."

Spotty, jaundiced, tumorous and infertile: indeed, probably not the male equivalent of the Spice Girls.

further difficulties with reading comprehension

And now the circus enters the second act:

Morrissey, 48, who has spent most of the last decade living in LA and Rome, told music magazine NME that countries like Germany still had their own identity and complained of not hearing "British accents" on the streets of Britain.

No, he didn't. He complained about accents on the streets of Knightsbridge - which, as home to various overseas embassies and phenomenally expensive housing - is far from typical.

The fact that Morrisey might think Knightsbridge is representative of the country as a whole after years of living abroad is a different issue - but when people are threatening legal action, it's probably better to actually report on what someone said rather than what you assumed they meant, no?

you don't mess with dick

It's entirely curious that the call to make viagra more easily available hasn't been immediately condemned by "family" interest groups as encouraging promiscuity - given that the same logic has applied to everything else related to sex. I'm thinking that there's either a penis-exemption clause for the usual outrage, or that self-appointed moral campaigners don't dare confront adults with their inanity.

it's still education, stupid

With a flash of the blindingly obvious: maybe the reason that some young people are ignorant about safe sex is that there's no obligation to talk about safe sex during sex education in schools in the UK. Health campaigns for adults can be effective - but there's nothing quite as influential as creating formative habits and attitudes from an early age through comprehensive education.

I am now counting down the seconds to the claim that this proves that sex education doesn't work - an argument based, you'll note, on the impact of an absence of actual sex education from our schools.

pride of fleet street (updated)

While the Guardian is entirely coy about the newspapers who pushed the hounding of Colin Stagg ("a lynch-mob mentality, encouraged enthusiastically by sections of the press") there's no confusion about who led the charge. The decade-long pursuit of Stagg by the Daily Mail (aided by the Mail on Sunday and The People) has proven why the title of the gutter press is well-deserved.

Of particular note is the attempt by that corner of the press to absolve themselves of any role in the relentless smear of Stagg, while still seeking to perpetuate it. Writing a 4000 word feature in 1994 for the Mail on Sunday not longer after the collapse of the case, Brian Masters spelt out the police's logic - never once admitting that the same logic had been accepted uncritically and pushed repeatedly by that very same paper.

Instead, there was an attempt to absolve the "naive" police for their actions:

But it was not the fault of the court that there was no evidence to connect Colin Stagg to the crime. It was the fault of naive and increasingly desperate police methods born of understandable frustration.

before shifting blame onto the Crown Prosecution service for listening to them:

What case did the Crown hope to present against Colin Stagg? There was no murder weapon, no motive, no evidence of previous personality disorder apart from one instance of indecent exposure, no forensic evidence to link him to the brutal murder of Rachel Nickell. The prosecution had three planks.

First, Stagg had been on Wimbledon Common at the time of the offence (along with 500 other people). Second, that he had described the position of Rachel's body (not accurately, as it turned out). Third, that his fantasies matched those to be expected according to the predictions of Paul Britton.

When this last plank was disallowed, the first two diminished to invisibility, and the Crown had to concede they had no evidence at all. Hence the formal verdict of not guilty.

..while still leaving open the possiblity of Stagg's guilt.

The People opted for a far less subtle strategy: upon the collapse of the case against Stagg, the paper opted to print the graphically sexual letters he had been inticed to write to an undercover policewoman - evidence barred from use in court:

Today The People prints exclusive extracts of the letters that damned Colin Stagg. Some letters have not been published because they are too offensive. Others have been censored. But we must warn: You may find some of the language offensive.

This is the evidence that never came before a jury.

Our world exclusive brings you the most detailed and fascinating insight yet into the complex psychological game played out between the police and Stagg as they attempted to force him into a confession. The letters, never previously published, give the only available in-depth insight into the mind of Colin Stagg. And they graphically reveal the emotional and psychological triggers behind the murder squad's belief that Stagg was guilty.

Once again, no mention is made of the fact that The People were utterly convinced that the police had their man, choosing to both criticise the poorly constructed case and suggest - with barely concealed delight - that the letters clearly showed Stagg's guilt.

It's also easy to forget the determination of the tabloids to insist that Stagg might still be guilty and that a case against him actually existed for many months afterwards. Lacking any actual evidence, the papers resorted to the favoured strategies of innuendo, speculation and assumption.

Writing a few months later in January 1995, for example, The People gave space for Carol Sarler to resume the smear and ponder " Am I alone in thinking there's something more than a bit ODD about Colin Stagg?" Sarler was, of course, responding to her own paper's version of the man rather than any personal encounter or knowledge - and thus helping to perpetuate the narrative of the dangerous outsider.

Without a trace of irony, the Mail printed a column by John Junor in the same month asking "Will they always stalk Colin Stagg?":

The judge who four months ago chucked out the charges against him of murdering Rachel Nickell spoke scathingly of the methods the police had used in an attempt to trap him into a confession. After the verdict had been given the police issued a statement saying they were no longer proceeding with their inquiries into the murder.

That was a statement which, as I said at the time, indicated the police belief that the not guilty verdict had been a wrong one. But was it?

Mr Stagg does not give the impression of being a particularly pleasant man. I would go a long way to avoid meeting him on Wimbledon Common.

It would be terrible, however, to think that he is going to be hounded for the rest of his life for having been found not guilty of murder when it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that he was indeed innocent.

How generous: not innocent until proven guilty, but potentially innocent until the Mail decides otherwise. Once again, the Mail's own role in hounding an innocent man was ignored.

The sudden appearance of impartiality after the fact is perhaps the most nauseating part of the entire episode - as hacks wrote stories about the "hate figure" that Stagg had become and recounted his lawyer's accurate claim that his client had been "depicted as a weirdo, pervert, Satanist, loner and a sad person" without ever recognising their own role.

Also see: The Hounding of Colin Stagg and The Stagg hunt is over.

Correction: The People is actually still in print, though given its circulation it wasn't difficult to accidentally assume otherwise. /snark

UPDATE: See the comments for more of the same - from today and yesterday, including the Mail's claim of a new "disturbing admission."

denial is looking pretty sweet right now

I'm not suprised that all of the Republican presidential candidates voiced support for don't ask, don't tell, given that it's a policy that has worked so well for the Republican party in person - that is, right up until the moment where a homo-baiting senator is either caught trolling in an airport toilet, or with hospital themed sex toys and a male prostitute to name just two from the last two months. Yup, denial is looking pretty sweet.

Anyway, who needs translators during a prolonged overseas conflict? Homosayswhat?

domestic abuse support funding: a question of priorities

There's some fairly dubious-sounding logic behind the decision to stop ring-fencing funding for housing for vulnerable people in Scotland:

Under the agreement signed with local authorities as part of the spending review, ring-fencing has been removed for housing support services for vulnerable people. [...]

However, the Scottish Government insists the removal of ring-fencing from a proportion of the local government settlement is designed to enable local authorities "to maximise their spending on frontline services".  A spokesman says: "This of course includes services for vulnerable people who currently receive help as part of the Supporting People programme."

Maximise their spending? Housing for abused women and children isn't front-line spending? It's an almost meaningless phrase in this context - as ring-fencing has never prevented any local authority from spending more, or spending that money wisely. This change allows authorities to rationalise - in other words, to decide that the money is better spent elsewhere, with no guarantee it will go to those most at risk.

The problem here, though, is that the push for flexibility (and the lifting of the ironically government-generated "unnecessary accounting and reporting burdens") has a particularly damaging effect on women's refuges - refuges which are already underfunded, and therefore not only at risk of limited service but of closure.  It will likely further aggravate the situation where provisions of domestic-abuse services is fragemented, and that the chance of receiving support will heavily depend on where in Scotland you live.

The underlying question, though, is what has happened to change the original case for ring-fencing this kind of funding. Presumably it was thought there was a moral argument for exerting this kind of control over local authority spending, and for channelling funding in a particular way - an argument that most likely recognised the past history of domestic abuse in Scotland and the continued poverty of overall support despite the determined work of groups and individuals.

If that moral argument existed when the decison was first made, where is it now? If it was a priority for the government before, why not now?

lame duck to meet with poodle-in-waiting

If you say so:

David Cameron is today due to meet George W Bush in an encounter designed to rehabilitate the Tories after years of isolation in Washington and boost the Conservative leader's credentials as an international statesman-in-waiting.

And he's going to accomplish that by meeting George Bush? It's a novel approach, I admit, and the Telegraph is very kind to the Tories to offer it up - but it's a notion that gives rather more power to a photo opportunity than it deserves, particularly when it's with someone who's as domestically unpopular as Bush.

I'm not really sure in whose estimation Cameron is supposed to improve - or which of the bigger boys will thentake him seriously because he's met with a president whom even Melanie Phillips has abandoned.

Still, a possible caption could be "statesman-in-waiting meets with waiting-to-leave-office."

when in rome, complain about england

Man who objects to immigration emigrates, irony confiscated at border.

There's also a quiet hilarity to anyone who thinks the people and accents that you hear on the streets of Knightsbridge - a short walk from most international embassies and home to a number of private overseas schools, handy for Harrods and Buckingham Palace, average property price £1,780,730 - are any indicator of the state of the nation.

the warm embrace of moderate opinion

Another difficult-to-answer question from the Daily Express' Have Your Say feature, regarding the teacher who named a class toy "Mohammed" after her students suggested the name:

Should teacher be flogged for teddy 'insult'?

We want to know what YOU think. Is it right for this British woman to be whipped? Perhaps you feel she has made a mistake, or maybe your think her 'crime' is not worthy of punishment.

It's actually a a slightly dangerous question to ask when newspaper comment sections have more than their fair share of capital punishment fans: however, on this occasion, the Great People of Britain are confidently opposed to the flogging of a primary school teacher.

Well, almost:

Generally I'd be in favour of flogging teachers since they tend to be Bolshevik revolutionaries who corrupt our children with their commie ideas.

On this occasion I'd just give her a warning and tell her to stop playing with teddy bears and start teaching the three 'r's.

Such generosity, and for dangerous socialists, too. The tendency of people in education to be Bolshevik revolutionaries committed to overthrowing the Tsar is, of course, entirely well documented and not a foaming, crazy delusion.

Indeed, it's hard to find a school anywhere in the UK where the words to the Red Flag aren't up on the staff-room noticeboard. "Comrades," I complain. "Why bother? We already know all the words."

Prior puzzlers posed by the Express have included "Are you fed-up of Labour wasting your taxes?" (no, I love a good bit of tax-wasting, me) and "Appalling abuse of Donkeys, should it stop now?" (frankly, I'm not sure there's enough donkey abuse). As ever, so nice to have a little help when forming opinions.

it's sex education, stupid

Yet another round of baseless claims that making information about safe sex available is the equivalent of encouraging promiscuity:

Schoolchildren are texting agony aunts who give them advice on sex and how to access free condoms, it emerged. Counsellors have advised hundreds of youngsters on contraception and pregnancy despite having no way of knowing their real ages.

The service sparked anger from campaigners last night who warned it could backfire by encouraging promiscuity.

There's only one campaign group who repeatedly make this claim, without any basis in fact - Norman Well's Family Education Trust. There's also only one newspaper who believes that not telling people about seat-belts will save them from car-crashes: the Daily Mail.

The texting service is strictly confidential, allowing youngsters to seek advice on potentially life-changing issues without their parents' knowledge.

Meanwhile the operators of the scheme admitted they had no way of knowing the ages of the children texting. They also admitted "there is a difference between the response you may give a 13-year-old in relation to a 17-year-old".

The suggestion that young people are being given inappropriately explicit information is particulary dishonest, given that the report goes on to admit:

A spokesman for Lincolnshire said: "As the adviser is obviously unaware of the age of the client, they are very careful about the information they text back, in that there is a difference between the response you may give a 13 year old in relation to a 17 year old.

"If the operater is concerned about the maturity of a client they will encourage them to ring Sexwise or talk to a parent/school nurse etc."

In other words, specific care is taken to make sure that information is being given in a way that's appropriate for a range of ages. Even then, you could argue that having the maturity to ask explicit questions probably means the person needs the information.

While Norman Wells repeatedly tries to scare education trusts away from the provision of education through tabloid exposure, the kinds of questions being asked of such services - about relationships and contraception - draw further attention to the dire state of sex educaiton in the UK.

In other words, Wells is trying to further limit a system which is failing to provide even the basic information required to make positive decisions about relationships and sexual health - decisions which include deciding to not have sex, Wells' preferred outcome.

As is becoming increasingly clear from a body of research, one of the consequences of comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education is to delay the onset of sexual activity, and reduce the number of sexual partners: the irony being that Well's disgust for sex education is actually standing in the way of what he claims to be his ambition - less pre-marital teenage sex.

the centre for social cohesion: wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice? (offer excludes atheists)

David Conway's argument at the Centre for Social Cohesions' blog that secularism is a worse threat to social cohesion than - well - just about anything else seems to be missing a few things.

For example, Conway's delcaration that the "general secularist assault on religion, especially that being inflicted by our community schools [is] the true tragedy of our times" would probably sound less convincing, for example, if he'd mentioned the schools in Scotland where the Catholic Church demanded separate entrances for religious and non-religious students - having spent many months screaming and protesting the very idea of mixed communities in school. To mention the deliberate attempt to retain segregation in education would probably undermine the claim to religion as the foundation for community.

The claim of secularism's manifest threat to social cohesion would also be a lot stronger if various religious communities hadn't just spent a large part of the previous year demanding protection from discrimination - while campaigning to deny identical protections to other minorities. It might also help if one religious group - somewhat counter to the spirit of social cohesion - wasn't currently trying to sue for blasphemy under a law which only protects one kind of Christianity.  It would also help to ignore any of the various communities around the country which remain divided on the grounds of who is sufficiently pious - whether it's in the Western Isles of Scotland or in Northern Ireland.

Similarly, the argument that we'd all get along nicely if only we were all Christian is probably more convincing when you ignore the continued rivalry between Protestantism and Catholicism, or the continuous tension between evangelical Christianitys and the liberal body of the Church of England, or.. just about any split between one set of true believers and their not-quite-pure enough brethren.

The attempt to describe secularism as a rampant and dangerous form of Islamophobia confuses hatred of religion with a profound disinterest in religious belief, and an unwillingness to privilege religious activity. Conway's picture of an attack - of de-Christianisation - attempts to ascribe malevolence to confusion and concern as to why one form of human choice should be given such incredible power, influence and reverence in our culture. What Conway sees as an attack is the end of deference to religious belief.

Secularists wouldn't be sad to see the end of Christianity, but they don't stay awake at night plotting its downfall: they'd much rather just live in a culture where irrational beliefs - which have so often given the excuse for division in our culture - are not given prominence and power over their own lives.

bill donohoe: professional buffoon

If I were Phillip Pullman, I'd be feeling pretty happy about the threat of boycott from the Catholic League:

Roman Catholic groups in North America are calling for a boycott of a forthcoming film adaptation of the first in Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy, arguing that it is bait to ensnare children in his "atheist agenda". Bill Donohoe, the president of the Catholic League in the United States, has said that the British author's His Dark Materials books are deeply anti-Christian and promote "atheism for kids". [...]

The Catholic League also called for a boycott of the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code but it went on to become one of the highest-grossing movies of 2006.

I think the phrase we are looking for is "unsuccessful reactionary":

The Catholic school board in Ontario has ordered Northern Lights, the book on which the film is based, removed from library shelves. A spokesman for the board conceded that the book, which has been stocked in school libraries since it was published in 1995, had not generated any real controversy until the imminent release of the film, which opens in the US on Dec 7.

In other words, there was no sign of anyone being ensnared into anything other than literacy until Donohoe jumped on the Fox network and started shouting about a war on Catholicism.

ID cards still going ahead

A slightly misleading lede from the Times over ID cards - the supposed rethink over plans won't consider whether to go ahead with the scheme or not, but instead work out how to tighten data protection.

Michael Wills, the data protection minister, said that the loss of CDs containing the details of 25 million people would have implications for the register. "We are going to have to learn the lessons," he told the joint Lords and Commons human rights committee. "Everything will have to be scrutinised and then we will assess it again."

While you could read this as the government lining up a rationale for abandoning the scheme - without having to recognise any of legitimate arguments against it that predated the data loss - it's far more likely that talk of "lessons learned" is to do with protecting the success of ID cards rather than challenging their very idea.

Why more likely? Because it allows the government to look responsive without abandoning - at great financial and poltical cost - something they've repeatedly nailed their colours to - and political convenience and cowardice trumps rationality every time.

still absolutely no evidence for homeopathy (science: it works)

Jeanette Winterson is unfortunately talking bollocks about homeopathy:

Homeopathy asks that we look at the whole picture - the person, and not just his illness. Specifically, homeopathy follows the "like by like" premise - that tiny dilutions of the "problem" can prompt the body to effect its own cure.

Unfortunately, the premise of "like by like" is just that, a premise with no actual evidence to support it, or basis in physical reality. It's a rationale, but it's not actually - you know - rational.

Homeopathy seeks to understand everything as a web of relatedness. The reason I have a recurring sore throat will not be the reason why you have one, and what helps me may not help you. This seems to be partly why tests used for conventional medicines fail when used to test homeopathy.

No, it really doesn't. The laws of physics do not care that you are a precious, unique snowflake with a uniquely sore throat. Biology and physics do not take a quiet nap when homeopathy is in the room - and the notion that different treatments suit different people can still be tested within a double-blind trial.

The reason that homeopathy fails to produce any significant benefit under the stringent requirements of such tests is very simple: there's nothing going on.

The placebo effect that is often cited as homeopathy's only resource (i.e. that people like being talked to and then given a pill to take) is common to all therapeutic processes, and it is valuable.

But it is also true that many who end up visiting a homeopath do so as a last resort, when nothing else is working. That such people often see an improvement suggests that the remedies themselves are contributing to the wellness of the individual.

No, it doesn't. The fact that desperate people use homeopathy is not proof that homeopathy works: there's no logical conneciton between those two assertions.

The fact that people are desperate when they take a particular "cure" does not confirm the independent efficacy of the cure; in fact, given what we know about placebos, a desperate patient who has invested belief in the power of the drug he or she has been given is more likely to benefit from the placebo effect.

Objections to homeopathy begin with what are viewed as the impossible dilutions of the remedies, so that only nano amounts of the original active substance remain.

"Nano amounts"? That does sound very science-y, except while still retaining the benefits of being devoid all of all science.

Yet our recent discoveries in the world of the very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nano-quantities. We are discovering that the properties of materials change as their size reaches the nano-scale.

In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change.

We do not know whether this has a bearing on homeopathic dilutions, but it may offer a clue.

"There is no evidence for what I am arguing at all, but then that's true of everything I've said so far so it doesn't really matter."

Repeat after me: there is no case "for" homeopathy. Ben Goldacre is on hand in the second half of the feature to present the case against - in other words, to act as the voice of sanity and common sense - though to pretend that there's any true debate in the first place is grossly misleading.

melanie phillips: your puny rationality is no match for my faith-based logic

There's relatively little challenge involved when Melanie Phillips writes things like this:

It is the concept of a rational creator that lies behind the rationalism of the West.

Hang on, let's edit that a little:

It is the faith-based belief in a rational creator that..

..no, wait, I've broken logic. There's no way to render that sentence into actual human language that doesn't make the synapses fizz and admit defeat.

It's not the first time that Phillips has tried to argue that faith is the basis of logic - using the argument that an insistence on logic has paved the way for.. uhmm. irrationality in the form of dowsers, flower therapists and crystal healers. As I wrote at the time:

The conclusion that we should then turn to faith for empirical salvation is really quite brilliantly stupid: let's solve the problem of system which doesn't differentiate between truth and lies with a system that sees testing claims with evidence as proof of a lack of faith. Phillips' argument seems to be that religion is rational because she says so. Science is the enemy of reason! Hot is the enemy of fire! Up is the enemy of the sky!

Ahem. Still, on with the car-crash:

The idea of equality - fundamental to Western liberalism - derives from the belief that all human beings were created in the image of God.

Beyond the appalling revisionism of attributing liberalism to wholly religious roots, it's worth noting that various cultures in various periods have used religious beliefs to argue that certain classes of people are fundamentally not equal - that women, for example, are somehow lesser creatures than men and should therefore not work outside the home, vote, get an education or be allowed to become pope.

The great 19th-century campaigns of social reform, which brought about an end to slavery, universal suffrage and the transformation of Britain from a criminal cesspit into an orderly society, were motivated by Christian evangelicalism.

And, hilariously, slavery, partial-sufferage and gross social inequality were in part maintained by the selective interpretation of religious doctrine and the vested interests of organised religions. But apart from that, it's allll good.

Of course we expect political leaders to take decisions based on empirical evidence of what is in the best interests of their country. But certain acute situations require judgments which are, in essence, unavoidable leaps of faith.

In such circumstances, would we really prefer it if the Prime Minister decided what to do by just crossing his fingers, closing his eyes and sticking a pin into conflicting advice?

Well, given that there's no detectable difference between pin-based and faith-based decision making, I'm not sure it really matters. Anyway, I'd presume that god would guide the pin accordingly. It is, as ever, entertaining to hear Phillips advocating faith as the basis for legitimate political activity - while still maintaining how outrageous it is for certain religiously-motivated groups to spread their creed. All deities, it seems, are not created equal.

Phillips then resorts to claiming things that are simply untrue - things that are deliberate lies or based in gross ignorance:

In suggesting that life sprang into existence without any kind of governing intelligence, they fly in the face of the evidence emerging from science that the hitherto unimaginable complexity of life forms, including the living cell, makes it scientifically impossible for life to have emerged without some kind of intelligent design.

BONG! Wrrrrong. Completely and utterly wrong: so wrong it may involve imagining a god of wrongness and worshipping at his altar. Irreducible complexity is one of the primary arguments of intelligent design that has been shown - repeatedly and at painful length - to be entirely flawed.

Rule of thumb: when Melanie Phillips says something is scientifically impossible, you can get a very long way by instintively disagreeing (and until you can get to a library and prove her wrong).

melanie phillips: I am broadly in favour of democracy (when people vote for the candidate I like)

It's not that she's relentlessly self-centred but..

Yes I know that the election result is said to have been about domestic issues rather than foreign policy. [...] But the gloating by the left tells you all you need to know about the way in which the defeat of Australia's epic Prime Minister John Howard will weaken the free world in its war to defend civilisation.

Shorter Melanie Phillips: the fact that people voted on domestic policy in a way I disagree with proves that the left is trying to destroy our way of life.

Apparently, when Phillips argues in favour of authentic, western, liberal democracies, she doesn't actually mean the kind of authentic, western liberal democracy where people go around voting in democratic elections according to their personal preferences. In fact, those free elections weaken us from within and endanger the entire western hemisphere. Just so you know.

holy ironic

At the end of news that proposed gay-hate crime legislation may not go forward, I notice this little argument:

"In a democratic society people must be free to express their beliefs without fear of censure from the state. A homophobic hatred law would be used by those with an axe to grind against Christians to silence them."

Colin Hart of The Christian Institute

Of course, no-one with an axe to grind against gay people has ever used a religious document in order to legitimate their abuse and intimidation.. oh, wait.

HIV rates in the UK among highest in europe: this is not a surprise

The news that UK HIV rates are among the highest in Europe is horribly predictable. Combine cuts to sexual health services with sex education that has no legal requirement to teach about safe sex or STIs (despite persistent beliefs to the contrary) with cultural paranoia about sex in general, and you get this:

Health Protection Agency statistics have show that HIV and sexually transmitted infection rates among under 24-year-olds have been increasing for the past 10 years and now represent 5% of all new cases. [...] The survey, which included over 250 16 to 24-year-olds, showed that 89% rarely or never think about HIV when making decisions about their sex lives. And 41% consider themselves to be at no risk of getting HIV.

Knowledge about how HIV is passed on was poor. Over half believed it could be caught from kissing, while just under half said it could be passed on from toilet seats.

The stupid not only burns, but kills.

For about the one billionth time, can a political party find some courage and finally take action on proper reform to sex education? Hey - maybe a Liberal Democrat leadership wannabe could take a lead: it's a party that's been far better than most in the past. The alternative - ducking and covering from the shrieks of the Daily Mail and other socially conservative pressure groups - is not only cowardly but dangerous and expensive.

(If Labour was serious about reforming sex education, it would have got a mention in the Queen's Speech - even if it was phrased as to permit the queen not to talk about cock and vaginas directly, for which separate tickets could be sold.)

maybe we can spend the money on sick people

A little lost in the surge of data leak stories is the news that the NHS has finished the year in surplus - with rather more money left in the bank than previously anticipated. About twice as much:

The NHS will underspend by a record £1.8 billion this financial year, figures suggest, after a deficit of £547 million in 2005-06.

The health service generated a surplus this year only after a stringent drive to cut costs, including cancelled operations. In August, when the forecast was for a £983 million surplus at the end of 2007-08, ministers said that the money would be retained by the NHS and spent on improving services and patient care.

Today's prediction, reported in Health Service Journal, comes as Hospital Doctor magazine reports that millions of pounds have been shaved from NHS training budgets in the past two years.

"The money would be retained by the NHS and spent on improving services and patient care" - i.e. restoring the cuts to the training budgets, reinstating support for sexual health and other key services, re-hiring the staff whose contracts were allowed to end and re-booking appointments for surgeries. Hurray! It's a book-keeping miracle!

world spinning around

In the name of demolishing political stereotypes whereever possible (and presented without sarcasm) here's the compassion of Anne Widdecombe .

No, really.

regal lickspittle

Please save me from Royal correspondents:

It was a pure Diana moment. The late Princess used to touch, even hug, leprosy and Aids sufferers to show that those unfortunates need not walk the world with a warning bell.

But this was different. This time it was the Queen who shook the hand of Stephen Wakodo, who is HIV-positive. She may have been wearing a long black glove, and the physical encounter may have lasted barely a second, but for an 81-year-old monarch who does not, as a rule, do cuddly-touchy-feely, it was an undoubted first. [...]

A Palace spokesperson later confirmed that Mr Wakodo had made history in becoming the first HIV-infected person to shake the Queen's hand. "It was the Queen's first visit to an HIV/Aids clinic and therefore the first time she has knowingly met HIV-infected people," the spokesperson told The Times.

Whoop-de-fucking-doo, she acted like a human: someone give her a biscuit.

There's also a remarkable difference between a gloved, micro-second handshake and being "cuddly-touchy-feely"; frankly, after decades of travel I'm amazed there's anyone left in the Commonwealth who hasn't felt the distant courtesy of the Queen.

suckers

I write about sex all the time and even I didn't think the question related to losing your virginity:

UKIP claims 'sex census' victory

The dropped question would have asked the "date(s) of the beginning of consensual union(s) of women having ever been in a consensual union: (ii) first consensual union and (ii) current consensual union".

Mr Clark said: "Whilst they now claim that this has nothing to do with sexual partners, the clear inference in normally understood language is precisely that."

"The clear inference in normally understood language is precisely that"? HA! Anyone doing the coursework component of this blog now owes me 300 words on the problems of claiming "precise meaning" from a "clear inference" while still admitting the phrase might actually mean something else entirely.

It suddenly seems far more likely that UKIP pounced on the mangled language of a standard EU document to generate a story out of thin air. Why? Because the willingness of the British tabloid press to fall for this kind of story (EU bans curved bananas etc. etc.) is limitless, even when it has only a minimal connection to fact. Anyway, the story here is "EU doesn't do stupid thing."

The particular idiocy is that there's plenty of actual, real-world reasons to criticise the EU: this kind of story is useless because it fixates on problems that don't actually exist and pretends they are endemic. Frankly, if the choice of questions on a government form was the height of our problems with the EU, we'd be laughing: it's penny-ante tabloid fervour and little more.

two victims

A less-reported detail from the entirely awful story of the Saudi woman and rape-victim sentenced to 200 lashes for appealing her original sentence:

The young woman’s offense was in meeting a former boyfriend, whom she had asked to return pictures he had of her because she was about to marry another man. The couple was sitting in a car when a group of seven men kidnapped them and raped them both, lawyers in the case told Arab News, a Saudi newspaper.

The woman and the former boyfriend were originally sentenced to 90 lashes each for being together in private, while the attackers received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, and 80 to 1,000 lashes each.

And that's a reminder for anyone who thinks that the act of rape has something to do with sex and desire, rather than violence, power and the attempt to humiliate.

Picked up via The Slog.

it's beginning to look a lot like consensus

Some more of those outrageous liberal types agitating against an extended detention limit:

Gordon Brown's plan to extend the 28-day limit for holding terror suspects was in tatters last night after opposition from the Government's senior law officers as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Both the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, and the Solicitor-General, Vera Baird, QC, believe that the case has not yet been made to extend the period of detention, The Times has learnt.

Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, told the Commons Home Affairs Committee that the Crown Prosecution Service had found the 28-day limit "useful and effective". Asked if he would be joining calls to go beyond that, he said: "The most I can say is that it is a matter of record that we have not asked for an increase. We are satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment."

I point this out because certain commentators (naming no Melanie Phillips) seem to think that a reluctance to extend terror limits is a poison spread by woolly-headed leftie-liberals, oh my, rather than (at last count) the position held by most of the political parties who are not Labour, as well as the Times, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

melanie phillips: this circular argument is round

Melanie Phillips, textual analyst and defender of the Magna Carta:

I was particularly interested to read, in the NYT story, the words of Magna Carta:

No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we pursue him or send after him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

Note that no-one shall be imprisoned except by jury trial or 'by the law of the land'. It is clear that the protection being offered here to individuals was against the arbitrary use of power by the King. The protection against such an arbitrary use of power was to be found both in trial by jury and in the law of the land. The law was itself a protection against such power. So it would seem to follow that if Parliament passes a law enabling the pre-charge detention of suspects, that is itself a protection against arbitrary power by the government, the modern equivalent of the medieval King. Far from betraying Magna Carta, therefore, extending pre-charge detention would seem to be expressly permitted by it.

Bravo. So if the government passes a law making something legal, it will therefore be legal! Hurray! Buns for everyone!

Phillips will be delighted to know that - after many months of complaint about various illiberal measures taken by the government - that she can stop whining because, after all, the Magna Carta expressly permitted the government to do so. It doesn't matter if the power that Parliament awards itself is arbitrary because Parliament gets to decide whether that's true or not: it's a check and a balance without any of the inconvenience of checks and balances.

It takes more than a degree of chuztpah for a determined critic of governmental intrusion into common life to suddenly assert that laws can longer be judged illiberal because the law itself is a protection against arbitrary power. I'm sure that will come as a mild surprise, for example, to self-nominated "gay-rights martyrs" - previously defended by Phillips - who have suddenly discovered that they're on the wrong side of the argument all along. Well, either that, or Phillips' argument is incredibly self-serving and selective, and not intended to apply to any other occasion in time or space.

Putting paper-thin constitutional scholarship aside, the question has never been whether the government has the technical power to pass a law enabling the pre-charge detention of suspects: the question is whether that move would represent an intolerable, unjustified or disproportionate impingement on personal liberty and the process of justice.

this screw-up entirely proves our competence (updated, updated again, update III)

Maybe I'm unnecessarily pessimistic, but I fully expect the ID card programme to continue despite yesterday's news of a massive leak of personal information entrusted to the government.

Having shrugged off every other objection to ID cards based in reason and past experience (notably that human error - rather than human malevolence - is a persistent and unavoidable problem), I expect the following arguments to be made when the dust has settled:

1. The leak of data from HMRC has absolutely nothing to do with the way data will be collected and stored by the ID card programme, even though it will still be a government IT programme run by humans (i.e. fundamentally prone to the same institutional and staffing screw-ups, even in the presence of clear guidelines or safeguards).

Having made the argument that this incident has nothing to do with ID card information, the government will simultaneously maintain that:

2. This leak of data proves the need for a secure way for people to confirm their identity.

This argument is known as the "our incompetence should engender further trust" position. Put simply, the very fact that civil servants can act stupidly (as per the human condition) and make identity fraud easier is proof that that civil servants (preferably not quite the same as the first set) should be allowed to have a massive database of biometric data for the purposes of fixing their own screw-ups.

Then, with a flourish, someone will suggest that:

3. This leak of data proves that the expense of the ID card programme is justified: our current systems are clearly outdated and need urgent improvement.

This one is also known as as the "only iris scanners at every tax office will set us free" gambit - adapted from the notion that ID cards will save us from everything from uncontrolled immigration to credit card and benefit fraud while whitening our teeth.

As I say, pessimistic.

Update: My predicted time-scale was far too modest. The non-denials have already started to arrive from the Home Office. The Guardian reports:

The Home Office insisted that the biometric elements in its database, the electronic fingerprints and facial scans, will keep it secure and proof against identity theft, even if there were to be a major breach and stolen confidential data. [...]

Legislation includes sentences of up two years for "an unauthorised disclosure" by staff from the database, and a maximum of 10 years for those who tamper physically or technically with it. Activity on the system will be audited, and an alert raised if an unauthorised action or attempt to access the register is made.

The immediate problem with this brand of reassurance is that the current breach was not an intentional theft, nor was it an attempt to physically or technically breach the system.

The screw-up was the product of authorised access by a man doing his job, albeit badly, not a cabal of evil hackers. It's not human malevolence we really have to worry about: it's human incompetence which gets us every time.

Updated again: I missed PM's Question Time today, otherwise I would have heard Gordon Brown arguing in favour of biometrics as a secure way for people to prove their identity (argument 2 in my handy list).

I'm also listening to someone on Radio 4 making a somewhat spurious case for the "need" to prove identity to the government, arguing that if you don't like the idea of someone pretending to be you then you should support ID cards.

While it's a subtlety that might have slipped past the government, it's possible to dislike the idea of identity fraud AND still recognise that ID cards are an illiberal waste of money that won't solve that problem.

Updated finally: I give in. Alistair Darling has now been heard arguing that with biometric information, this kind of data loss wouldn't really matter. That sound you're hearing, incidentally, is that of a million computer security specialists crying in pain in the night.

collective cabinet embarassment

As previous blogging here probably makes clear, I've little sympathy for the self-inflicted moral quandries of Ruth Kelly. Today's Telegraph report on the upcoming fertility law reforms - based on the ever helpful and anonymous "Labour party sources" - looks like a warning shot across her bows:

Ruth Kelly and other Catholic ministers will be expected to vote for Government plans to reform fertility laws, Labour sources said last night.

Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill ministers are proposing to remove the requirement on fertility clinics to consider the "need for a father" before providing IVF treatment. The Bill also states that where a lesbian couple have engaged in a civil partnership, both will be entered as the legal parents.

Privately, Labour sources concede that the Bill will raise "serious problems" for Catholic MPs such as Ms Kelly and members with large Catholic populations in their constituencies.

But the growing unease among backbenchers has made it impossible for Labour whips and Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, to grant exemptions for ministers such as Ms Kelly or to turn a blind eye if they choose to be absent on Government business.

This was, as you may remember, Kelly's apparent strategy of choice for dealing with her personal aversion to gay rights legislation. By managing to avoid most of the key votes on the issue during her time as an orindary MP, she managed to end up as the minister in charge of equality with a clean slate - never having voted against equal rights, but not really ever having voted in favour of it.

She took the method one step further by leading key equalities legislation through Parliament without talking about it in public and only turning up to declare victory on behalf of teh gay when every attempt to derail the Bill had been foiled.

The situation here is slightly different: the Bill doesn't come from her department, though she is still bound by the whip, and cabinet collective responsibility. It is slightly embarassing, though, that anyone should have to be reminded to turn up at their desk for work on Monday morning.

our friends in blasphemy

It's blasphemy week all week here, starting with a reminder of the poem that triggered the last successful prosecution:

As they took him from the cross
I, the centurion, took him in my arms-
the tough lean body of a man no longer young,
beardless, breathless,
but well hung.

Yes, it's everyone's favourite contribution to the canon of Jesus-related erotica, The Love That Dare Speaks Its Name , remembered for terrible puns in the first stanza and for entirely failing to trigger prosecutions after a mass-reading on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square in 2002.

Next up, Warren Ellis' 2006 novel - Crooked Little Vein - and sex toys helpfully embossed with face of major deities.

the right to an absentee father

The traditional family - still enjoyed by the vast, vast majority of people in the UK - is apparently so fragile as to be unable to survive a tiny number of lesbians who want to take legal responsibility for their children. At least, that's the argument that is being put forward with an apparently straight face (pun intended):

Britain's leading Roman Catholic churchman gives warning today that the role of a father in a child's life will be undermined by legislation to make it easier for lesbian couples to become parents to test-tube babies. [...] Opponents of the move, which will grant gay couples the same parenting rights as heterosexuals, say it will "drive the last nail in the coffin of the traditional family".

This, once more, nonsense that even the most tenuous logic will dismantle. Even in the context of long-term social changes (which mainly pre-date gay rights law) the "traditional family" is still both common and popular. It may not fit the exact mould of life from fifty years ago (noting that very little else does) but the "opposite-sex parents and children" model of family dominates. Allowing lesbian couples to take dual legal responsibility for their offspring will not change the legal rights, privileges or abilities of traditional families in any way whatsoever.

It's almost identical to the argument that was made against gay marriage: that the possibility of two men demonstrating a lifelong commitment would immediately and irrevocably undermine every other marriage in existence. Apparently, the mere existence of a stable and committed lesbian couple will prevent anyone else from enjoying the same, albeit with the involvement of one or more penises.

Cardinal O'Brien's argument that IVF undertaken by a lesbian couple is fundamentally selfish - and denies the right of a child to a father - is gloriously one-sided. No such moral means-testing ever applies to heterosexual couples who seek to have children, either naturally or with IVF - their motives in pursuing offspring are, of course, beyond reproach. That the vast, vast majority of fatherless families might have begun with "traditional" heterosexuality seems to slip from mention, as does the recognition that lesbian parents - on whom the majority of gay pareting research is based - raise children who do as well as heterosexually parented children in every way.

Instead, we have the unexamined appeal to a right to an intrinsic, irreplaceable quality of fatherhood - simultaneously reduced to the most minimal biological and legal connection that undercuts the actual practice of fatherhood, and ignoring the very real commitment and love shown by parents with no biological connection to their children. To enter into the pretence that a biological link - or rather, a name on a piece of paper asserting that link - is the only thing holding back social ragnarok is simple hyperbole.

re: pause

That said, you really need to read Ben Goldacre's patient evisceration of homeopathy in todays' Guardian. You might then want to head over the Independent and shudder at details of a symposium on the homeopathic treatment of AIDs in Africa, timed for World AIDs Day on 1st December. Excusing my blogger's accent for a second, the phrase "total fuckwads" springs to mind.

You might also then want to shout loudly at the Independent for printing an explanation of how homeopathy is supposed to "work" without mentioning that there is absolutely no evidence to support that theory, and for trying to suggest that only "some doctors" disapprove. The belief that homeopathy is a form of near-sociopathic fraud is enjoyed by the vast - indeed, overwhelming - majority of researchers and scientists.

The absolute nicest thing you can currently say with any integrity about homeopathy is that it's a expensive placebo: there really is no "debate" of substance that can be offered in the name of balance.

pause

Away travelling, interviewing and researching for the next few days: fresh posts after the weekend.

nobody stone anyone until I blow this whistle

Nothing quite shouts "liberal democracy" like a good old-fashioned blasphemy trial. There's also this argument in Frances Gibb's report that's worth reproducing:

The proposal [to abolish the offence of blasphemy] was welcomed at the time by the National Secular Society, which said that it had been fighting the blasphemy law for more than 100 years. But at the same time, it expressed concern that the new incitement laws may be creating a new "all religions" blasphemy law.

The balance is a fine one — but incitement to religious hatred is clearly distinct from remarks that followers of a religion find insulting, disrespectful or undermining of their beliefs.

At least I know what I'll be writing about next week.

lord west: gorblimey, I done gorn confused m'self

In case you missed it yesterday, a u-turn of exquisite speed:

Lord West told the BBC at 0820 he had yet to be convinced of the need to extend the 28 day limit, a view at odds to most recent ministerial comments.

Just over an hour later, after a visit to Downing Street, he told the BBC that he was actually convinced of the case. He later insisted he had not changed his mind, saying as a "simple sailor" he had not chosen his words well. [...] During the Today programme interview former Admiral Lord West said he still needed "to be fully convinced that we absolutely need more than 28 days".

"I want to be totally convinced because I am not going to go and push for something that actually affects the liberty of the individual unless there is a real necessity for it." But then at 0930, after a half-hour meeting with Mr Brown, the peer told the BBC he was "personally convinced" that the 28-day limit needed extending.

Or "personally convinced" he was about to lose his job, perhaps? I think this might be an example of one of those irregular nouns: I am a "simple sailor," he is a "mendacious bastard."

Incidentally, here's the "simple" sailor's bio:

Promoted to rear admiral in 1994, he rose to commander of the United Kingdom Task Group in 1996. In 1997 he was promoted to vice admiral and chief of defence intelligence.

He was promoted to full admiral in 2000 when he took up position as fleet commander-in-chief. In this role, he was responsible for organising the fleet response on 11 September 2001, which involved major maritime deployments in the northern Indian Ocean and moving the Royal Marines into Afghanistan.

He was appointed First Sealord and Chief of the Naval Staff in September 2002, he was also the first and principal naval aide-de-camp to her majesty the Queen.

Yes, he's fresh out of school.

It's really never encouraging when a minister clings to his job by claiming his own ineptitude (previously known as the Ruth Kelly Defence).

improving the investigation of rape: why is this still a debate?

Not really having time to finish wading through the acres of misdirection on the issue of rape (including the call in the Mail to reduce sentences in order to persuade people to take allegations of rape seriously) until after the weekend, I'll just point to Unity's post - and this comment in particular:

Horrific and (often) violent a stranger rapes are, they are, if the rape is reported promptly allowing good forensic evidence to be gathered, by far the most likely to result in a successful conviction. The most difficult task facing the police in such cases is that of identifying and capturing the perpetrator successfully. Once that's done then everything else will tend to fall into place because, as mock jury studies have clearly shown, given solid factual evidence juries do convict and convict without any difficulty, precisely as they should.

Where the real problems lie are with the vast majority of rapes in which the offender is known to the victim. From the same data, 54% of women who reported having been raped indicated that the perpetrator was a partner or ex-partner, 4% reported that they had been raped by a family member and 40% by someone who was known to them as a friend, neighbour, date, work colleague, school mate, acquaintance or as someone in a position of trust.

(Yes, that does add up, in total, to 105%, but that because a proportion of women are, sadly, victimised on more than occasion by different perpetrators).

Leaving aside the fallacious argument repeated in certain quarters that any action taken to increase the low level of conviction for rape will inevitably lead to unjust treatment of anyone accused of rape, the impoverished and deeply variable state of the investigation of rape in the UK has been well documented for some time - alongside various investigations showing the impact of jury prejudice and the apparent willingness of the legal system to ignore its own guidelines.

It's a subject where it's incredibly unclear why we're still having the debate when clear and pragmatic steps in the right direction are available, even before we start changing law. As I've argued repeatedly before, a system unfit for the task of actually investigating reports of serious crime is highly damaging both to victims and the accused, and - given continuing cultural beliefs about women - adds to a pervasive distrust in the allegation of rape which is ultimately far more detrimental to genuine victims of assault.

consent and reform

I'm puzzled (though relieved) that David Cameron's call for reform in sex education hasn't triggered much objection - though admittedly this is probably because the pledge came within the larger story of action on prosecuting rape.

I had half expected that the notion of teaching children about the idea of consent would be pounced on as "encouraging" under-age sex, as have all but the most timid previous suggestions for reform.

Partly this is because there's currently very little to go on - a paragraph in a speech to the Conservative women's conference - but also possibly because the suggestion of reform has been very carefully framed:

And we need our schools to talk about consent to sex when they teach sex education. I know there are some parents who have concerns about sex education, and they should reserve the right to opt their child out. But I believe that sex education, when taught properly, is extremely important. It should not be values-free. That must mean teaching young people about consent: that 'no' means 'no'. At the moment, this is not even compulsory in the sex education curriculum.

First, note the emphasis on parents being able to opt out, to assuage the fear of a loss of control over their children's education; secondly, the emphasis on "values." (There's also a little rhetorical chicanery in Cameron's support for parental opt-out - while criticising the lack of certain compulsory elements in sex education.)

It will be vital to discover exactly which "values" Cameron thinks sex education should impart - that is, if the reference to values isn't merely a response to the claim of "moral relativism" (which in the past of the Tory party has sometimes meant "sex education without sufficient condemnation for sex outside of marriage.")

The problem for Cameron, in other words, is the question of which point the pragmatic transmission of information also has to carry messages about our cultural beliefs and priorities. It's made worse by his relative political proximity to some of the most socially-conservative voices in British politics - to people who are still not happy about the decriminalisation of homosexuality and aren't afraid to let him know.

Socially-conservative "family values" campaigners have certainly not been shy in arguing that even discussing the existence, use and availability of contraception (to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and STIs) sends a contradictory message to teaching about marriage and the age of consent.

Similarly, recognising the existence of gay people - and the mere possibility that they might have valid and successful adult relationships - has triggered the accusation of relativism and the "down-grading" of marriage. Even sex education as it stands is repeatedly criticised as "too explicit," even though the hallmark of recent changes has been to emphasis age-appropriate teaching.

The reluctance to address these kinds of issues in the past has prolonged a flawed "compromise" in sex education: the derrogation of sex education to schools and local authorities in a manner unmatched in any other area of the curriculum. By law, the only compulsory element is the biology of sex - nothing more.

The result, as we have seen, is startling ignorance, confusion and almost surreal contradictions in what is and isn't taught across the UK. The push forward - sometimes with support from unexpected quarters - has been slow but may yet acquire momentum.

Some of the government's current sex education programmes are genuinely positive, despite tabloid accounts to the contrary. Further, obvious solutions are within our grasp: it will be interesting to see if Cameron seizes the initiative.

everything in moderation

I think there might be something wrong with Iain Dale's method of filtering out "smears, bile and libels." Either that, or none of the following counts:

Rusbridger is increasingly desperate. Watched him the other day on the box and he looked absolutely unwell. He was practically incoherent.

How hypocritical of Mike about your use of the internet, whilst blogging away himself. What a nasty little shower!

Tom Watson is a nasty esxcuse [sic] for a human being.

Hmm.

fortune favours the press release

Let's watch some press officers earning their bonuses. The Daily Mail, 11th November:

Sales of Apple phone slower than expected

It was supposed to be the must-have gadget of 2007.

But just hours after going on sale in the UK, the new Apple iPhone was met with disappointment by buyers struggling to get to grips with its shortcomings and its hefty £900 cost. [...] Apple refused to comment on the number of iPhones sold in Britain since its launch on Friday evening, calling the information "commercially sensitive".

Ever keen to help a struggling brand, here's the.. uh.. Daily Mail, 12th November :

Apple iPhone 'fastest selling product of all time'

Mobile phone giant O2 today said that the iPhone was its fastest selling product of all time after the gadget went on sale in the UK on Friday. The group, which is owned by Spain's Telefonica, confirmed they had sold tens of thousands of the hotly hyped product.

The rush to buy iPhones saw the number of visitors to O2 stores soar to three times those recorded in the same weekend last year, according to the group.

Hurray! What a remarkable reversal of fortune!

family education trust: we have reason to believe your future hypothetical husband is unfaithful

Apparently, the real problem with sex before marriage is that it turns your wife into a whore:

The Family Education Trust is to send a leaflet to all secondary schools advising children to abstain from sex outside wedlock. It believe that teenagers who have sex before marriage will enter wedded life with "skeletons in the cupboard" and a greater propensity to have extra-marital affairs.

"If your husband or wife has had other sexual partners in the past it is much more difficult to be confident they will not do so again," the leaflet says.

This new theory appears to be that the highly desirable marital vows of fidelity mean next to nothing - and that the only way to have trust in your partner is to avoid any circumstances where trust might actually be necessary.

And, given that marriage is historically in decline and that there are more single households than ever before (and never mind the homos), this is essentially a request for a majority of the population not to have sex, ever. As in the past, an interesting sales-pitch.

I'm struck, as in the past, by the sense of loathing when it comes to sex:

Entitled Why Save Sex?, the leaflet states that saving sex for marriage is "the way to real freedom: freedom from fear, embarrassment, shame and emotional pain, as well as freedom from physical disease".

It's a system of belief that assumes fear, embarrassment and disease are in someway an unavoidable consequence of pre-marital sex. Marriage, furthermore, is not a universal guarantee against fear, embarrassment, shame, emotional pain or physical disease.

In fact, a system of belief which argues that your sexuality must be suppressed at all costs in the name of a possible future marriage (which is your one chance at sexual contentment) is more likely to make people feel paranoid about sex when it finally arrives than not.

It is worth noting that headteachers are under no obligation to do anything with unsolicited sex advice pamphlets, other than to recycle them.

further thoughts on hate-crimes legislation

Having read Iain Dale's column in The Telegraph and various other commentary, I want to briefly expand and hopefully clarify some of the observations on hate-crimes legislation I made last week.

I'm not going to consider the claim that objections to such legislation are anti-gay; while there are a probably a small minority of people for whom any number of policy positions are informed by their loathing of the homo, it's not a useful way to discuss the virtue (or otherwise) of the proposals.

So, in some kind of order:

- hate-crime laws have no impact on free speech beyond our current and longstanding laws against threatening and intimidating speech do generally; the notion of incitement to hatred can be understood in this context.

- the claim that such laws are a form of "thought policing" ignores the above: that there are some forms of thought-as-speech we are perfectly happy to police in our culture. The relationship of hate-crimes law on speech is by no means unique; the key is respecting proportionality.

- following on, proportionality in punishment is a recognised principal in law. David Neiwert at Orcinus:

It is the basis for the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter -- both are predicated on the death of another person, but both vary widely in the kinds of punishment they receive. There are multiple categories of assault, depending both on harm to the victim and the perpetrator's intent and motive.

Hate-crime laws simply recognize that hate crimes innately inflict greater harm, both on the victim and the broader community, as well as to the basic underpinnings of democratic society. They make painting a swastika on a synagogue a more grievous crime than the simple act of vandalism it might otherwise be. Likewise a skinhead "stomping" of a minority is treated more egregiously than a bar fight.

Correspondingly, hate crime legislation does not undermine the notion of equality under the law any more than the application of varying punishments according to the impact of the crime under general law.

- that notion of impact (as I argued last week) is through an understanding of hate-crimes as bias-crimes which have an impact on extended communities.

Though the legal approach in the US is different in a few significant ways from what is being proposed in the UK, Neiwert's posts on the principles behind hate-crimes legislation are invaluable for anyone wanting to take the debate forward.

received opinion

The Times' assement of the controversiality of Bills coming in the next Parliament is useful, but misses one key element: there, for example, few surprises in store for the positions either the Guardian or the Mail will assume in the debate on abortion, or the direction in which they'll try to drive opinion.

In fact, the willingness of certain newspapers to act as a regular and uncritical mouthpieces for pressure groups (The Telegraph and the Mail's speed-dial use of LIFE) tells us quite a lot about the future conduct of that debate - and not least because the claim of controversy sells papers.

ground penetrating radar reveals new depths of irony

The Daily Mail takes time out to print an advertorial accusing other newspapers of scaremongering. How nice to see such wholehearted support for high standards in science (coff* MMR*coff) reporting.

My personal favourite, though, is still " the internet is destroying the world as we know it," which opened with the epic lines:

Your child is next door on the computer, destroying the world as we know it and wrecking two of the most fundamental values that underpin society..

ZOMG, OH NOES etc. etc.

about that conspiracy

Liberal Conspiracy has a daily linklog which is gradually taking shape, though not without the street-theatre of traditional start-up screw-ups - and currently includes yesterday's discussion here of the meaninglessness of political correctness. Yes, self-pimping works.

(EDIT: to save you another click - the short version of the controversy is "man mistakenly links approvingly to 'idiot of the highest order.'")

I've also realised that the LC doesn't use categories or tags yet, or any kind of historical navigation - which is going to make a group blog quite hard to navigate once it reaches any size. Anyone know a good reason why they're not in use? Are they being held until there's more content?

(I have now received my secret decoder ring of Liberalism, adding to my membership of the Gay Mafia , the International Order of Feminazis and the Academic School of Dangerosity. Quickly, to the Secret Bat Literary Salon! etc. etc.)

pragmatism, risk and the terror threat

To get beyond this morning's snark, the most obvious objection to Phillips' framing of the debate over extending detention of terror suspects is that she assumes over-simplified readings of her opponents.

In the debate as she describes it, there's no room for measured judgement in assessing risk. The missing element, in other words, is the possibility of accepting certain risks as the price of living in a liberal democracy.

The debate, then, is about what we're prepared to do or give up in the name of preserving our way of life while making sure what we're left with is worth saving: whether the potential additional security from lengthier detention is worth compromising certain beliefs about justice and due process.

There are any number of measures (on a sliding scale of authoritarianism and violation of international law) that we could choose to adopt to secure ourselves from any and all (terrorist) threats. The fact that we - or our elected representatives - elect to show some restraint illustrates that we're capable of making balanced, pragmatic decisions. It's never a case of defending ourselves from terror at any cost; similarly, the opposition to extending detention isn't about the wholesale denial of risk.

As such, the reduction of debate to those kind of positions by Phillips and others is unhelpful because it ignores the possibility of reading the warnings and recommendations of police and security officials and yet still consciously deciding to adopt different policies. It's possible to both recognise that 90 days might - theoretically - assist the police in securing a greater number of convictions AND make the hard-headed decision that such a speculative pay-off isn't worth the cost.

While Phillips clearly thinks that the implications of extending detention are acceptable (or represents no cost at all in the circumstances), to represent her opponents as muddle-headed idealists ignores their ability to make pragmatic judgements and actively accept risk. While the notion of self-restraint when threatened with radicalism is Phillips' definition of "cultural suicide," it's also one of the things that defines the traditional liberal culture that she claims to champion.

(Edited to add links.)

melanie phillips: this daily mail editorial is facile and superficial

One of those zen moments of punditry, courtesy of Melanie Phillips:

The consensus among the chattering classes (and the Conservative party) appears to be that extending the time limit beyond the current 28 days would presage the end of civilisation as we know it.

Beyond accusing other people of jumping to alarmist conclusions before doing so herself ("The scale of what Britain is now facing [...] is a public emergency,") here's an example of the "chattering classes" opinion Phillips derides:

You'd think the Home Secretary would have to have the most compelling of reasons for trying to curtail one of our most ancient freedoms. Well, think again. Challenged yesterday over her plans to extend imprisonment without trial, Jacqui Smith had to admit there had never been a single case in which the police found the present 28-day detention limit inadequate.

All she could say was it was "at least highly possible" that such an instance would arise. Possible, Ms Smith? You'd water down a precious, hard-won liberty on the basis of a mere possibility?

Actually, that was leader comment from Phillips' home-from-home, the Daily Mail, presenting an argument which - in Phillips' words - is "facile and superficial." I look forward to her lambasting the Mail's editorial team for putting forward this case with the same vigour she reserved for Magnus Linklater of The Times and Shami Chakrabati of Liberty.

The core of Phillips' argument, incidentally, is that she favours the "best estimate" for a detention limit offered by the police amd we should give it to them, without question. If you're looking for an argument as to why this particular number is compelling - or analysis of the police's logic in reaching this number - then you'd better look elsewhere.

It helps to remember that merely mocking the desire to know how such a figure was reached does not make the enquiry illegitimate.

philip davies: beware the imaginary forces of political correctness

Philip Davies' attack on the phantom of political correctness at the Cornerstone Group blog does a nice job of undermining itself:

Political Correctness is an issue about which I feel very strongly and I am proud to be a supporter of the Campaign Against Political Correctness co-founded by John and Laura Midgley. It is quite difficult to define political correctness, but people tend to know it when they see it.

My definition, for what it is worth, is the restriction of free speech and the promotion of positive discrimination usually done in the name of minorities but usually perpetrated by white, male, middle class, sandal wearing, lentil eating, guardian reading do-gooders with too much time on their hands and a misguided guilt complex.

When people come across examples of PC they don’t know whether to laugh or cry and we often read about the craziest aspects (such as baa baa green sheep) and think we can smile about it.

Ah, yes. The famous multi-coloured sheep, which has become one of the most often repeated and entirely untrue stories of political correctness gone wild.

The story - for non-sheep fanciers - was that a nursery school had changed the words of "baa-baa black sheep" in order to avoid the suggestion of racism; a later variant had a nursery school teaching "baa-baa rainbow sheep" in order to indoctrinate children in the dire creed of gay rights. Neither story has ever been true, despite headlines to the contrary.

Davies' tentative definition of political correctness manages to ignore how that label has become a premier method of attack, often by offering polarised or simplified terms for debate and claiming that objection to such framing is the work of the thought police.

More often than not, it's a collective swipe ("PC zealots," "the PC brigade," "Guardian reading do-gooders") at a group that doesn't really exist - or isn't countered by sensible pragmatism. It's a rallying cry that neatly ignores the larger issues concerning free expression in this country - whether it be the state of libel law, or the restrictions on public assembly - in favour of introspective hand-wringing.

It's particularly revealing that Davies' comment has to begin with an imaginary attack on freedom of speech:

Personally I found this exchange to be extremely funny but given the stereotype of Scottish people being tight I have no doubt that there is a politically correct zealot somewhere who believes that Nigel’s comments were offensive and possibly even racist. It is quite amazing but there are no doubt such people who have such a sense of humour deficiency.

Yes, so great are the powers of political correctness that a man is able to make a mild joke based in stereotype in Parliament and suffer no consequences whatsoever.

The larger point is that the boogey-man of "political correctness" is little more than a verbal cudgel, stripped of all but the most cartoonish meaning.

(EDIT: In response to the criticism that this is a dismissal, not a reasoned reply: that was the intention. Think of it as the appropriate response to a comment piece that trades primarily in stereotypes and repeats stories that have already been repeatedly debunked.)

starting to set the hate crimes debate straight

Dizzy's post on potential hate-crimes legislation (linked uncriticallly by Iain Dale as "post of the day") repeats most of the misapprehensions of how such laws actually work - and the reason for introducing them in the first place. He writes:

Surely victims of violence are victims of violence? The motivation for the violence should not alter the seriousness with which the law judges and punishes the act.

If a 15 year-old kid is beaten up because someone “didn’t like the look of him” is he really less of a victim of an unjustified attack than his friend who is beaten up because he is gay? Surely it is the assault that is the crime, not the reason that someone chooses for doing it?

The answer is apparent when we think about hate crimes as crimes of bias: crimes committed with a motivation of bias (racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, or gender) against the perceived class of the victim. Quoting a recent post from David Neiwert at Orcinus:

Hate crimes are message crimes: They are intended to harm not just the immediate victim, but all people of that same class within the community. Their message is also irrevocable: they are "get out of town, nigger/Jew/queer" crimes.

That's why bias-crime laws are about imposing stiffer sentences on their perpetrators: they cause more real harm to the community. This principle -- greater harm brings stiffer punishment -- is a basic element of criminal law.

Dizzy also gives space to a hearty piece of scaremongering which is almost wholly false:

Soon if a heterosexual man is beaten up by a group of gay men, or for that matter lesbians, simply because he is straight (it may be rare but it can happen) that will simply be assault of whatever degree (common, actual or grievous).

The reverse however will be a proscribed form of hatred that places the assault on a pedestal of higher seriousness and the victim of the former as a lesser victim.

No. This is plainly wrong, if previous equalities legislation are any kind of guide.

Previous law has not specifically referenced homosexuality or lesbianism, but introduced the qualifier of sexuality. In other words, any incitement on the grounds of sexuality (whatever that sexuality might be) will be considered.

While the media has phrased the proposal as addressing gay hate-crimes, the change would most likely address orientation (much as the Sexual Orientation Regulations were seen as gay rights legislation, even though they gave protection to everyone, gay and straight, from discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.)

As such, the claim that hate-crime laws create "second-class" victims is plainly misleading.

women's institute campaign for licensed brothels

Not for the first time, the Women's Institute defies the stereotype:

The village of Holybourne in Hampshire is the unlikely birthplace of this crusade. Members of the WI branch there were deeply moved by the events last December when five street prostitutes were murdered in Ipswich.

The branch made licensing brothels the subject of its motion for debate at the autumn meeting of the Hampshire WI Federation, which has 6,000 members. The motion received almost unanimous backing and Hampshire WI will now go to the national organisation and mount a lobbying campaign to try to persuade local councillors and MPs to change the law. [...]

Mrs Johnson said that WI members had voiced their fury at the "romanticisation" of prostitution in the recent TV dramas Belle de Jour, starring Billie Piper, and Fanny Hill, which glamorised prostitution in Georgian England. "About 95 per cent of street prostitutes are addicted to a class A drug and many are desperately trying to support their habit or to raise their children," she said. "Images of beautiful actresses lounging around in pretty lingerie paints an unrealistic image of prostitution, which is very dangerous."

The WI also voice the concern raised here in Edinburgh when kerb-crawling was criminalised: that the primary effect of such measures is to push prostitutes into more dangerous, less public areas to work. (My problem with that argument, incidentally, is that it seems to assume an unavoidable base line of violence directed towards sex-workers.While it's pragmatic to want to reduce risk for prostitutes whereever possible, it also speaks of a resigned acceptance of violence  by men towards a certain class of women).

ordinary people still to blame

More of those ordinary people to blame for their ordinary choices:

The overwhelming majority of adults want to be married, according to a survey. More than seven out of ten would like to be wed - greater than ten times the number who want to live unmarried with a partner. And when it comes to starting a family, there is also a clear majority in favour of marriage. Those who would like to have children with a spouse outnumber those who want them with an unmarried partner by more than 15 to one.

The findings are a clear rejection of the idea that co-habitation is an equal alternative to marriage. This belief has been Labour orthodoxy since Tony Blair came to power in 1997. In that time, the number of cohabiting couples has shot up by two-thirds. Meanwhile, the number of married people has declined to the point where, for the first time, fewer than half of women are wives.

So we reject co-habitation with all of our hearts and minds.. while co-habiting in greater numbers than ever before. Even though marriage is thought to be best, people seeming to be choosing not to - well - actually get married. It's a rejection of "Labour orthodoxy" which stops just short of active support for any of the alternatives.

(It also helps to remember that if - gasp - fewer than half of women are wives, then they are probably quite a lot of single men kicking around too. It's also entertaining to see the Mail reporting that 1 in 5 are not confident about the future of their family, rather than - as with the BBC - that 4 in 5 are optimistic. Hmm.)

it takes two to spin

There's a strangeness to the story that Gordon Brown should personally take the blame for spinning an education speech, when it would be very easy to name the No. 10 press staff involved. From The Telegraph:

Gordon Brown was today embroiled in a fresh row over spin after Downing Street was accused of misleading local newspapers about the Prime Minister's plans to praise successful schools in their areas.

Mr Brown last Wednesday delivered a keynote address on education policy. Before the speech was made, at least four local papers reported that the Prime Minister would identify their local schools for specific praise.

From The Times:

The episode began last Tuesday evening when Downing Street contacted a number of regional papers in Birmingham, Lancashire, Yeovil and Bradford with quotes from the Prime Minister, which the journalists claim they were told were going to be used in his keynote education speech the next day. But when Mr Brown actually stood up at Greenwich University he did not praise a single school by name.

Downing Street said last night that the quotes e-mailed to newspapers were never intended to be seen as sections from the speech. The journalists involved said they were specifically told the passages would be in the speech.

The silliness stems from the fact that the journalists and political correspondents covering the story know exactly who lied, and to whom. They know (or can find out) exactly who, in which press office, fed the misleading quotes to local papers.

Yet for some reason we have to endure the dance of professional courtesy, where journalists to keep names out of press briefings even when the person briefing them is obviously setting them up.

Disinclined to make a fuss and run the risk of isolation - denied access to insider gossip, leaks and off-the-record briefings, effectively making the job as it stands unworkable - the broadsheets resort to inconsequential finger wagging.

If the papers covering this story - now hotly claiming fraud - were serious about holding the Number 10 press office to account, they'd name names. But, seeing as they won't do that (and risk the cosy relationship) it's business as usual: blame Gordon, for something he probably knew nothing about.

While that's fun and fills a few headlines, it doesn't even approach the very simple form of accountability the press corps seemingly chooses to ignore - and invites the 10 Downing Street press team to try the same thing again later because they know they can get away with it with little real consequence.

The behaviour of government spin doctors is directly proportionate to what journalists are willing to tolerate or participate in: even if today's reports are intended to be a warning shot to the Downing Street press team, it's way off target.

political correctness gone mild

Yet more evidence of the liberal homo-biased agenda of.. uhm.. free speech:

"Poof" may no longer be a derogatory word when used on television, Ofcom has said, after rejecting 200 complaints over Big Brother. [...] "In our view, it is not possible or appropriate at present to establish definitively the degree of offence use of the word 'poof' can cause in all contexts," the watchdog said.

"For example, it is clear that within the gay community itself, the word 'poof' can be used in a playful, affectionate or self-deprecating way."

Ofcom said, however, that it was "sympathetic" to concerns that the word might be emulated by younger viewers, with the consequent risk of bullying at school. Broadcasters were urged to exercise care about the frequency with, and context in which, the word is broadcast.

Words take meaning from context and use: who'd have thought?

Snark aside, it's a nice illustration of the capacity of regulatory bodies to respond to cultural sensitivity - both when we start to realise certain words are derogatory towards certain groups, and the point at which our culture has moved forward far enough to feel confident using once seemingly taboo words.

that announcement you've all been waiting for

Official news: the liberal conspiracy does exist.. but I'm not a member of it. Unless, of course, I'm some kind of undercover spy infiltrating the right. Only time - and an expose in the Mirror - will tell.

pessimism at twice the price

I think this is the definition of the very least he could do:

Sources close to the PM yesterday described a report in the Sunday Mirror that Mr Brown was about to announce a major U-turn by scrapping ID cards as "garbage".

But a number of ministerial sources did confirm that the PM was concerned enough about introducing such a huge multi-billion pound scheme to insist that the technology must work before it is introduced. This could lead to a delay in the implementation of ID cards. At present the government plans to roll out ID cards for foreigners and extend biometric passports for UK citizens.

What powerful leadership: insisting that something that doesn't actually work isn't used. It would nice if he'd take the next logical step and insist that we don't spend money on something that isn't actually needed.

However - as the Guardian points out - the track record of secrecy surrounding the development of the ID cards scheme means that it's extremely unlikely that we'll be allowed to know the useful details of any such review, rendering it largely pointless. Existing reviews are thought to be highly critical - not least because a glowing report extolling the successes of work so far would undoubtedly have been leaked.

Stony silence on a project costing billions of pounds is not an encouraging sign; at best, it suggests that a policy is being doggedly pursued despite every indication along the way that it represents dire value for money or will result in expensive failure. That particular form of pessimism is all the more warranted by past admissions that we're going to have an ID card scheme regardless of cost because of the supposed benefits (anti-fraud, anti-terror, prove-your-self to the state, oh my).

Consequently - and in the worst case - any technological review may just determine how much more money will be pumped into a flawed system to make it workable, or whether existing development will be scrapped in favour of a fresh start at even greater expense.

nadine dorries' fake sleaze allegations

Some problems with Nadine Dorries attempt to trigger a sleaze investigation over donations from Emily's List - most of them based in that simple thing called reality.

1. The figures on the Emily's List website make it seem highly unlikely that donations crossed the £1000 threshold that would require entry in the Register of Member's Interests.

2. More importantly, the regulations of the register tells us that:

'One-off' benefits such as gifts, visits and donations appear with their date of registration and remain on the Register for a year from that date and until they have appeared in one printed Register.

Money from Emily's List to aid selection would fall into this category. The last time money given to a named candidate led to their successful election as an MP was in 1997 - in other words, ten years ago. The only exception is Anne Snelgrove, who was selected for the 1997 election but didn't win until 2005.

Even if a conscientious member had listed a donation at the time of election, it's unlikely that - as a one-off donation - it would still appear in the online or printed register.

Sounds like Dorries is mounting another smear campaign.

short break

Going to be away from the blog for a few days, due to work commitments: will hopefully be able to update by email but will be slow to respond to comments, if at all.

please sir, may I give you some free advertising?

Wow! Another "study" paid for by a company who want to get their name in the paper, supported by another academic for hire:

Britain's hug-less society emerged in a poll by soap company Imperial Leather which revealed one in three people receive less than the recommended one hug a day.

And three out of four of us yearn to be hugged more often than we actually are. Yesterday senior psychologist Dr. David Holmes, of Manchester Metropolitan University, said: "Political correctness is partly to blame as we have been conditioned not to touch anyone anymore as it can easily be deemed inappropriate."

It's hard to know where to start with this complete and utter nonsense. Exactly who has been arguing that hugging is unacceptable? And who sets the recommended "one-a-day"? From whose arse have these facts been pulled?

Journalism by press release is always ugly - I'm gagging slightly when I reach the following paragraph:

A spokeswoman for Imperial Leather said: "Physical contact is a human need, and although often forgotten, hugs are essential to combat and cope with every day stresses.

"Our study found having huggable, snuggleable soft skin makes us feel happier when coming into contact with loved ones."

That's empirically measured snuggleability, of course.

I'm amazed that the Mail editorial team didn't just get down on its collective knees and fellate the management of Imperial Leather: it would have been slightly more dignified.

anonymity, pseudonymity and civility online

Ben MacIntyre's comment piece in The Times chooses to make no real distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity - and the crimes which anonymity is thought to spur ("intemperate flaming of opponents, bullying, dishonesty and a general coarsening of language and incivility") are hardly the exclusive activities of the anonymous.

Granted, the blogging accent can be a little blunt, but often not without due cause. There are also plenty of places - hopefully including this blog - where the justification for anger is apparent, and persuasive.

I'm particularly uneasy about this judgement:

Most sites accord equal prominence to anonymous postings and those whose authors have identified themselves. Yet the writer who puts his or her name to an opinion is performing a qualitatively different function from the anonymous contributor lobbing incendiary devices from behind an electronic parapet.

First, the notion that pseudonymous writers can't form opinions as compelling, reasoned and valid as named writers is nonsensical (never mind the simple labelling of all unnamed writers as literary rioters). If a writer is able to form a well constructed argument that shows his or her thinking, that is rational and persuasive, what matter the name? Either my argument is persuasive, or not, and it's the role of an informed reader to actually think about what they're reading.

Merely giving a name to a text is not proof against the sins of falsehood, dishonesty, incivility or anything else. It doesn't even seem to act as much of a disincentive in the mainstream media: try reading Richard Littlejohn. Put simply, named texts are not definitely more reliable - anymore than un-named texts must always be distrusted - and insisting on that kind of dichotomy is disingenuous at best.

Even then, pseudonymity is a kind of naming: I don't write anonymously, but under a singular title. You can go back and compare what I'm typing now to other things I've written and the sources I draw upon; you can judge for yourself what kind of trust to place in my words. You can treat this blog as I'd hope you treat any other piece of text trying to convince you of something and exercise a little critical judgement.

While it's slightly popular to describe the internet, blogs and discussion forums as pits of incivility and lies, the attempt to pin those problems (as and where they exist) on anonymity is overly simplistic. It ignores the extent to which pseudonymity need not be a meaningful barrier to transparency and preventing sock-puppetry. It unfairly ignores the possibility of those who "put on masks" and behave well.

While Blogger might have very blunt tools for comments and moderation, any concerned website owner can introduce simple and appropriate controls; Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads has written at length about the kinds of ethical behaviour we might (and should) expect from those of who create spaces for discussion. While I think I'm right in saying Ireland is no fan of anonymous commenting (and that's even when you have IP tracking) I've yet to read a compelling argument why pseudonymous writers can't work within that framework.

Finally, it's interesting to note that recent examples of failures to behave ethically (the selective posting of comments, sock-puppeting and the rest) take place beneath a veneer of courtesy and the smear that concern over such questions is "obsessive" and a sign of mental illness or conspiracy.

In other words, concern over the apparent coarseness of some parts of the internet is a red herring when you can quietly and politely moderate your detractors into silence.

smells like defeat

So, to summarise, couple throws self-induced hissy-fit over the imagined consequences of a law: that they were going to have to "promote homosexuality." They refuse to sign the adoption service's "equalities promise" - even though they know it means giving up an 11 year old child in their care - and become religious martyrs in the pages of the Daily Mail.

Then, someone sits down with them and explains that their self-induced panic was based on the misapprehension that tolerance is the same thing as "promotion" of homosexuality. They climb down off the horse and sign the equalities document, an act which they had previously declared was impossible on the grounds of principle.

Not quite sure that the couple can then count this as a "victory."

melanie phillips: disingenuous, moi?

While Melanie Phillips is busy accusing others of being disingenuous..

The overwhelming weight of evidence is that children do best if they are brought up by their mother and father. The reason adopted children do so well is that this situation as replicated as closely as possible. As far as I know, there are no reliable studies of same–sex adoptions, for the obvious reason that they are such a new phenomenon. There is a small body of research into same-sex parenting, although most of this is into lesbian households with virtually no studies of parenting by two gay men.

..it helps to remember that personal ignorance on the existence or content of such research does not prove it doesn't exist.

While she's right that the field of research is small (but growing), it tends to say things like this:

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

It's also hard to read Phillips' argument that gay men must be treated as presumptively dangerous as adoptive parents until proven otherwise as anything other than the product of prejudice.

The precariousness of the position is compounded by the fact that single gay people have been able to adopt since the 1930s. In practice, unmarried couples have adopted but only one person was allowed to assume legal guardianship. Changes in the law have merely widened the legal safety net for children and young adults in their care. No rational argument is given as to why two gay parents should be more dangerous than one.

It's particularly unpersuasive when Phillips also has a record of being unreliable with the facts when it comes to gay adoption - such as when she claimed (without any evidence) that adoption boards were privileging gay couples over straight. This claim came around a month after the law had changed in England and Wales (a period stretching over the Christmas break) leaving almost no time for any such cases to even have been heard, let alone fixed to please a queer liberal cabal.

Of course, the notion that a gay couple might be better adoptive parents than a straight couple - for any number of social, religious, financial or ethnic reasons - is something Phillips could never admit.

the theoretical disapproval of saudi arabia

Gah. If you're going to pick a fight, then actually pick a fight. Anything else is just noise:

Religious and cultural differences should not be used as an excuse to deny women equality or deprive them of basic human rights, Cherie Booth, QC, said yesterday.

In a high-profile speech on women’s rights, Ms Booth condemned those who sought to justify discrimination by reference to different cultural standards. In many cases, she said, unequal gender treatment arose from the misinterpretation of religious edicts by male leaders, rather than the teachings of the religion itself. [...]

She steered clear of direct criticism of Saudi Arabia, whose King Abdullah is on a state visit to Britain. Despite gender inequalities that include a ban on women driving, she said that some Saudi women attended university and ran businesses.

Well, so long as an educated class of women can enjoy some partial degree of equality, then we're fine. Providing they can get a lift to work or to class.

It's a theoretical kind of condemnation, where we condemn the concept of discrimination but don't actually want to talk about the real world examples of it with the people who are responsible, because that would be discourteous. We'll have "cultural exchange" and "discourse" without actually exchanging or talking about anything.

As far as I can make out, this week's strategy on Saudi Arabia amongst most of the political class - with remarkably few notable exceptions - has been to hope that an intricate series of indirect references, allusive hand gestures and state dinners (coupled with stern looks, disgruntled coughs and the forced sharing of a limo with Prince Phillip) will cause a shift in policy in that region.

It also looks quite a lot like a begging letter, asking very politely if we can continue to be their strategic oil and defense bitch.

oh noes, crismus unda attak

I see that the wah on crismus is off to an early start. Entertainingly, the think tank's supposedly outrageous central assertion that the UK is no longer a Christian nation does have a body of evidence to support it (religious marriage down, religious observance down, people identifying as religious or spiritual in decline, people identifying as Christian hovering around the 50% mark) which is probably why the Mail doesn't try to directly deny it. That's for the foaming comment section.

However, while I don't think the government has anything truly useful to add to the way people celebrate whatever religious festivals they observe, the presence of bishops in the House of Lords is indeed an anachronism: there's no reason why a "state" religion which has shrinking support from the populace should enjoy a privileged, unelected position in our political system.

anti-choice liars, part 1 billion

More shrieks of outrage in defeat, and more lies:

A report by MPs calling for women to be allowed to carry out DIY abortions at home has been condemned as 'deplorable and misleading'. [Pot, meet kettle...] They said the MPs had ignored compelling scientific research - including 4D computer images of foetuses 'walking in the womb' at 12 weeks - and all moral and ethical considerations.

Except that the purpose of the Science and Technology Committee was to examine science and technology and that the committee specifically agreed not to discuss moral or ethical issues.

Except that footage of 12 week foetuses proves absolutely nothing about foetal viability: there has never been even a shred of evidence to support pulling the limit back as far as 12 weeks.

If you're arguing that the "real" evidence didn't get a propert hearing, introducing irrelevant material and getting people to testify on things outside their expertise isn't going to help - it's going to make you look like an enormous fraud.

Dorries has now turned off comments on her blog, arguing she doesn't have time to read them. It's coicidentally the same moment when people start asking her direct questions:

You mention the 'Abortion Industry'. I'm interested in what you think this comprises and how you think it works. Any further comment on this?

Nadine - would you say you were wholly anti-abortion? I'm not quite clear exactly what your stance is.

It would have been interesting to get answers to both of those. Perhaps a journalist could ask her when she next releases a "report" slurring the reputations of health workers?

UPDATE: Dorries' sudden no-comment policy probably has something to do with her entirely false accusation of Ben Goldacre, who is now having far too much fun about the whole thing.

UPDATE: More on the Amazing Disappearing Comments of Nadine Dorries at Big Sticks and Small Carrots, with evidence of the horribly familiar strategy of moderating dissent into thin-air.

It's also mildly ironic that Dorries' first post in her new comment-free blog is titled "Chatterbox."