In Wakefields Defense Pt 1. Mel Phillips.

I was - for once; pleasantly surprised. Former doctor Andrew Wakefield being struck of by the GMC has attracted rather little media hoo haa. I at least expected a Jeremy Vine segment on the issue, it's the sort of thing he gets foisted on him - on his radio 2 talk show, with a defender there to stick up for him, but no. Not even Wakefields pal Peter Hitches had anything to say on his blog about it. Have they decided to leave him to it (and ignore their own role in the whole fiasco). Well no, Melenie Phillips has stuck by him with this small, vague on the ins and outs of the affair - blog entry. It's worth repeating in full. :

A TRAGEDY AND A TRAVESTY.

"Following the risible kangaroo court set up by the General Medical Council Andrew Wakefield, the doctor at the heart of the MMR controversy, has now been struck off the medical register while his colleagues have yet to learn their own fate. This is a tragedy and a travesty. I believe a monstrous injustice has been done here, which has crucified the one doctor who tried to alleviate and prevent the suffering of a particular group of children and which has also betrayed their parents. The full story of how this sinister travesty was accomplished and the full range of people who were complicit in it -- along with what it means for both medicine and public safety -- has yet to be revealed. Over time, I hope this will eventually be achieved."

It has to be vague on the details, because claiming Wakefield was acting on "patient welfare" is like saying Richard Nixon was "safeguarding the democratic process" when Watergate broke out. I mean come on! Safeguarding children by giving them bowel exams they didn't need? [GMC outcome] Betraying Parents, because they wouldn't tell them what they wanted to hear, despite all evidence saying that it was not so? The last sentence about the "sinister travesty" is ironically circular in regards to her point. I (for once) agree with her that the people who were complicit in the whole affair, and the ones who put children at risk because it suited their story in effect got away with it. But where she points at the GMC, I point back at her and all the others who spawned this nonsense without a shred of evidence to back the scare up, and got away with it. So yeah let these people be revealed in the role they had in the whole debacle.

MMR Scare. The Swan Song.

As we know Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who was the driving force for the now infamous Lancet paper that looked at a dozen case studies of the children of parents who believed that their kids who showed varying degrees of autistic spectra, had been afflicted by bowel problems caused by the MMR vaccine. I'll give a few details of what happened, as a much more in depth, and knowable summary, that I could never produce on the topic, has been done by the wonderful Dr. Ben Goldacre of "Bad Science", which can be found on this link. The case study designed to look for a link between two isolated things (not to see if A caused B. A point often overlooked by the so-called "MMR sceptics") and the report concluded that:


"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described,"


However the authors did say in the article that they believed thier was a possible link between MMR and the bowel problems and autism. That is LINK, not a causation. But from this point onwards, possibly the mother of all health scares in the last 30 years was unleashed. A health scare that had next to nothing to justify the furore that eventually ensued.


In an ideal world, Wakefields team should have published their work, the BMC should have taken one look at it, told them it was parp, and to actually rely on the bricks of scientific research, rather than the straw of anecdote, and a personal hunch. But no! - This is the real world. Wakefield held a press conference, where he said (and this is the smoking gun for the anti-MMR camp.) that he had doubts about the MMR (fair enough. More research before saying that to the media though.) vaccine, and that he believed that single vaccines should be used instead. And that is the clincher. HE SIMPLY HAD NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM. THEIR IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POSSIBLE LINK, AND A PROVEN ONE. It was; for any intent and purpose -an opinion, just that. He wasn't; as some have claimed -a martyr, or Galileo figure, standing up to the soulless minions of scientific orthodoxy. He was a man with an opinion. And he should have expressed that more. But by then it all kicked off in the press. The numbers of children who had been vaccinated dropped from 92% in the year before the press conference to 79% in 1998. Some figures put the vaccination levels at as low as 60%. Confirmed cases of increased levels measles were reported, and two infant deaths ascribed to measles as well. In the media storm, it was overlooked that subsequent research had failed to reproduce the link. 13 of the authors of the paper had disowned it's findings. Much larger studies in Japan and Finland failed to show any correlation between MMR vaccines and increased levels of autism. Nor did later findings by the GMC about Wakefields conduct in his "research" do much to dent his "martyr" status in some sections of the press. You know boring stuff like:


*Performed unnecessary and painful tests on children without proper consent. Extracting spinal cord fluid from Lumbar puncture, and invasive bowel and colon examinations without any surgical need to do so.


*Paying young children at a birthday party £5 a time for samples of their blood.


*He had not disclosed that he had received money from solicitors to fund studies to confirm the fears of parents who believed that their children had been harmed by the vaccine, and had vested interests in those funding MMR alternatives.

This should have been a cautionary tale of a rogue doctor who told all and sundry that they should not use a vaccine, knowing that he had no evidence to back up his warning. And what was worse was that he had performed invasive surgery on children under false pretences at times, and appears to have done so to promote a rival vaccine. There are few things more he could have done to have broken every standing rule of his profession. So no folks he ain't a martyr. No one in any profession would (and should) have walked away scott free.

It is hard to disagree with Ben Goldacre when he says that Wakefield isn't solely responsible for this whole debacle. It is regrettable that those in the media who went along with this scare (whether through scientific illiteracy or cynicism without any evidence to back it up.) will likely walk away from the whole affair without the full role of their guilt in perpetuating the scare being made apparent. Wakefield may have set the ball rolling, but those in the media from the BBC to (especially) the Mail, who took this stuff at face value without checking its accuracy. I'm sure Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips, the two pied pipers of this pap, slapped themselves on the back in how polemic and dangerous they were being in standing up to those science bullies. Perhaps they should have done the research into the topic (medical affairs tend to be quite important. Especially when childhood health care is concerned. Objective analysis doesn't count for a whole lot to many parents, in regards to their young kids.) before nailing their colours to the mast. I don't want to sound pedantic, but shouldn't someone have pointed out to the likes of Fiona Phillips, Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, Carol Vorderman and Lynda Lee Potter that there is an important distinction between the scientific method, and having "a bit of a bad feeling" or "I'm a Mum, I know whats good for my kids" about analysing the MMR vaccines safety. I don't blame the parents [who believe MMR vacines were the cause] of autistic kids. It's very easy to believe that their child's affliction had a root cause other than blind bad luck. The delivery of the injection at the age when symptoms of autism would start to manifest, injection or not, can seem to provide a post hoc explanation for their autism, and worse - and perhaps why the MMR thing was so emotive, because the parents feel that they are to blame for their child's autism, in allowing the triple vaccination, in spite of objective evidence. This can explain comments like this:

"I saw my son deteriorate before my eyes after MMR in 1989. No one will ever convince his father and I that the MMR was not to blame for his on-going problems and, remember. when a child is disabled in effect the whole family is disabled as everyone's lives are affected for the worse. Dr. Wakefield deserves praise for his efforts."

This heartfelt comment exemplifies why, I think; Wakefield got his martyr status in some circles. Without the objective evidence of the MMR link to autism, parents who unconsciously (wrongly) blame themselves for their child's disability, rather than just plain bad luck, can transfer this feeling to anger towards "evil pharma", and a "medical cover up" that hid the dangers of the vaccine. The media cheerleaders of Wakefield were guilty (IMO) of compounding these parents misery, by pushing this story. We needed perhaps more salient medical experts pointing out that the comments above whist heartrending, are based on grief and emotion, not any scientific validity, or merit. The importance of collective herd immunity in cutting childhood diseases and the dangers to unborn by the measles infection should have been more vocal at the time. Especially in this more cynical age, where these kind of large projects are seen as by their very definition, dodginess embodied.

Fortunately the affair is over for now. I don't think Wakefields disgrace will dent his fully converted hard core following, but I doubt their ranks will swell much more, after the full extent of his malpractice is laid bare. I also expect his friends in the media will see this as the next "Gallileos retraction" before the orthodoxy, if they cover the outcome of it. The uptake of MMR vaccines is rising again to pre-scare levels, and although the deaths of the kids was terribly tragic, we are fortunate it was not higher. But this affair lays bare the dangerous levels of scientific illiteracy in society at large, and the extent that objective evidence is held in contempt, vis a vis emotive analysis. It highlights that baseless scares could manifest again, and next time the effects could be far worse, to a society that doesn't have the facts at hand.

Silly Season Kicks off with Dubious "England T-Shirt Ban."

I had a strong feeling we would, sooner or later have another "banned England shirt" story following on from the "ban" on England World Cup paraphernalia in pubs story , which was distinguishable for being complete bullshit, but about a contentious issue that is mired in half truths, and complete fabrications. A toxic combination if ever there was one. But sadly dynamite for disreputable tabloid agendas. That is presumably why we get this article about a women whose kids were apparently chucked off the bus for wearing England shirts that "offended" the driver, who was of Eastern European birth.

Actually from the women's transcript of the "encounter" we learn she won the argument (with the help of other "irate passengers", none who seemed to be pissed off enough to come forward.) and was allowed to stay:

"Miss Fardon, who also has a ten-year-old step-son, from Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, said: 'He (the driver) said: "He won't be wearing that during the World Cup, will he?"

'I said Dylan would and the bus driver said: "I find that really offensive. You should dress your family in less offensive clothes."

'I was completely gobsmacked. He said we'd have to get off the bus but I argued with him and other passengers backed me up, so he let us on."

The story; I suspect -is PA wire copy, stuck in the mail to fill space, and raise the readers blood pressure (the online article, which is now missing from the news stories page, as well as in today's printed paper -has 30 comments all in arms about the supposed incident). The article is loaded with quotation marks and "supposeds" and "allegedly" comments, indicating no ones checked to verify the veracity of the article, which would presumably be easy, as the driver on that specific route should be easy to track down. Indeed the bus company responded to the article with this:

"Paul De Santis, Commercial Director for First said: "We have carried out a full investigation and can't find any evidence to substantiate this claim. No driver fitting the description given was working on any routes in this area at that time. Our buses were busy around the time yet no one else has been in touch with us about this alleged incident. "We expect the highest level of professionalism from our drivers and such an act would not be tolerated. However, in this instance it now appears that no such incident took place."

In a longer version of this statement, First busses even say they are going to put banners on thier busses supporting England in the World Cup, which doesn't allay feelings that this story is either a misunderstanding or fabricated.

This kind of thing is what tends to kick off (sorry) the so -called "silly season" in the media, when at the summer wind down, editors have to look for stuff to fill pages to compensate for the down turn of hard news. Unfortunately these kinds of story can have a knock back. That pub ban is still being circulated as truth on facebook, and this story has spawned a group set up by a mate of the women in question calling for the elusive drivers head to roll. It also paradoxically has comments casting yet more doubt on the offended woman's side of the story, but how seriously we can take these is still a matter of some doubt. As with the pub story we have the unpleasant ant immigrant comments that use isolated incidents, and even pretend ones as a stick to beat all immigrants. It is not too much to say that on many levels, those who protest the loudest want these stories to be true, and will accept them at face value.

It would be horrifying to think that someone who was not ethnic British could be on the receiving end of furore at such dubious anecdotes.

You Cant Even Wear An England Shirt Now.... Er Coz.... You Actually Can.

I have had a few of those silly groups you can join, showing up on facebook recently. Nothing new there then, they are ten a penny - everyone knows that. But these recent ones have alarmingly highlighted, via the medium of shouty sentences in badly spelled capitals -that the PC brigade are going to ban people from flying the England flag / Wear England T-shirts during the world cup or for ever. It really depends on different sources what is getting banned and where. Smelling a prime example of flat Earth news I eventually found out via other on line sources who had got the same facebook groups showing up all of a sudden, - a possible source story that can trigger things like this flag flying fiasco. This surprisingly rhetorically tame; given the subject, -short from the Sun on police guidelines to curb drink violence during the World Cup. The upshot of the story is that the police have issued guidelines (not laws) on preventing kick offs off the pitch. Things like glass bottles being replaced with plastics, and; -the key line on which the article is based.

"Among World Cup guidance, it suggests "dress code restrictions - eg no football shirts"

It is hard to say, in the absence of greater context, how far they feel that this suggestion should go. But the critical sentence is this.

"Pubs are not obliged to follow the advice."

There is emphatically no ban on wearing the England shirt.

"but it warns: "Police will not hesitate to use powers under the Licensing Act should we find you are not actively supporting the prevention of crime."

That applies to publicans anyway, so can't be construed as a proxy attempt to enforce it. I highly doubt that any publican will enforce a moratorium on football shirts during matches. It would drive away 90 percent of their clientele, during one of the pub worlds (and my god they need the trade these days!) most busiest seasons. It would be suicide to try it.

As usual with non stories (which it is.) that trigger this kind of thing. (and "Christmas is now Winterval." kinds of stuff.) This flag / t-shirt ban is a world cup staple, when others learn of it secondhand, and haven't read the story in full, get outraged with it, pass it on in a distorted form, where it starts to mutate along with other political correctness tropes and folklore, like a stone gathering moss, so we end up with facebook proclamations from someone who hasn't read the story, but has put 2 and 2 together and got a colour for the answer. Something like this.

"POLICE ARE GOING AROUND PUBS AND CLUBS SAYING THAT WE CANT WEAR OUR ENGLAND TOPS 4 THE FOOTIE & GOTTA TAKE THE FLAGS DOWN AS ITS UPSETTING THE PEOPLE THAT DONT COME FROM HERE! NOW IM NOT RACIST BUT THIS IS TAKING THE PISS! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY AND WE NEED TO MAKE A STAND! WOULD YOU REMOVE YOUR TURBAN & BURKHA BECAUSE IT UPSETS ME?"

The reference to immigrants (or migrants) has been tacked on to the story in several of the messages like this one, despite the Sun article (if indeed that is the source.) mentioning their sensibilities at all. Some of them are pretty unpleasant too, and it is all based on a mythical ban, that was never anything to do with Muslims (that's who the offended party are supposed to be.) at all. It is a classic example of the old phrase "A lie told often enough becomes true by virtue of its pervasiveness." that is ascribed to Lenin, and Dr. Goebels as well as others respectively. Likewise a few PC soundbites become true because the embed themselves in the consciousness by virtue of them being widely spread. And this is what pisses me off so much about the presses role in spreading this kind of stuff. Although the Sun didn't actually implicate Muslims in the story. The constant myths and fabrications about PC, health and safety and immigration do have an affect, and will influence people. So we have a situation where people are berating police for issuing a ban they never made, to publicans who wouldn't enforce it, even if it existed, which it doesn't. - cause its stoopid. All in the attempt to placate non offended sensibilities, that were never thought to need placating at all. The police did little more than issue some leaflets to pubs. That's all.

What a bloomin carry on!

I was downhearted to see that people can be so gullible with this kind of thing. But it was at least positive to see that some Sun comments saw through it, by the virtue of reading the article in the first place.

"Come on people READ the story. Don't just make things up. The police are ADVISING pubs about dress codes. There is NO BAN. And this isn't about race or national identity - they are trying to stop violent incidents. Isn't that a good aim?I don't think it'll make any difference though. "

"I think some of you need to read the story again. Its about advice to pub to implemnt a dress code including no football shirts (football shirts not jut England shirts. Its got nothing to do with immigrants or racism but because of the trouble"

"Come on people! They are not banning England football shirts from pubs!!

Liz Jones Shopping Bill

We've mentioned Liz Jones financial troubles before on here, and not content to give this dead horse one more flog of the whip; I learned that someone at the Guardian had ran a short, highlighting; from her previous chronicles on her mission to blow zillions on shite, why she may have landed herself in the position she is now. I won't link the article as it is worth listing them in the post itself. To paraphrase Richard Littlejohn, you really couldn't make this shit up.
So here we go. The Liz Jones guide to worshiping on the alter of overpriced, bullshit tat.

1.) BAT SANCTUARY. £26 000 (How?! Why?! What on? A fucking Batmobile, and camp rubber suit?)

2.) MARKS AND SPARKS ORGANIC PRAWNS FOR THE CATS. £400 PER MONTH.


3.) DRESS. £4000. (She figures she spends more on this type of crap than one of the members of Girls Aloud.)


4.) WHEELBARROW REPAIRS. £95 (Its a metal box with a wheel attached? FFS!)



5.) WATER BILL £270 per quarter. (At first not too eccentric. But not when she has a well, and doesn't drink tap water at all, but some bottled water with a stupid name.)


6.) SPECIAL STEEL FRIDGE. £3000 (It should be able to re-animate meat products back to life, and double up as a stasis device to sit out fall out in the event of a nuclear war for that cost)


7.) SHOES £450 (Nuff said.)


8.) SPECIAL TOOTHPASTE £8.95 (Special Toothpaste. Are you fucking kidding me?)


9.) HOLIDAY IN MOZAMBIQUE. £26,000 (Includes private jet and business class.)


10.) SHED PRESENT. £530 (A present for her god son. I'm not even going to figure that one.)



GRAND TOTAL OF.-



£60 753.95p



Now I hope that her less well off readers haven't been sending her money after her SOS column. They would be better off telling her to flog the three grand fridge for a start, to pay off her debts. But if these accounts are true, I think I can see that little issue of why she might be in the mess she is in. Ho hum...

Knighted for Laughing at Mingers

Apparently pop musics "Mr Nasty" Simon Cowell is possibly going to be knighted, on the recommendation of Gordon Brown for his actions in the Haiti earthquake. (the charity music song) Cowell engenders mixed emotions in me. He is undoubtedly very good at what he does. His unpretensiousness and lack of evasiveness in his self evident desire to make populist, audience grabbing shows like X factor and Britain's got Talent with the express intent of making himself rich is refreshing (but not particularly admirable.) in a populist; prepackaged and mass marketed music business that is loaded with a lot of pretentious bullshit about "being deep", and "wanting to share my dreams and visions" (AKA sell lots of tunes and get rich and famous.) It could be argued that his shows allow everyday people (if you define everyday people as soft focus; good looking under 25's. Susan Boyle and the fat guy the few exceptions to the rule.) to crack a market they would not be able to reach normally. His shows could also be seen as a (unintentional) way of propping up the dwindling traditional recording labels in a world of youtubes and Internet downloads. But there is the flip side as well. It was not too much of an exaggeration to say NME were justified in labelling him the "Antichrist of pop." In the earlier days of the millennium at least, it was grating to see promising indy acts struggling on a shoestring, in a market being saturated by mas produced; bubblegum music. As Ben Elton coined it - "McDonalds for the soul." Cowells base desire to flood the music market with plastic and insipid tunes (I hope I don't sound snobby. I'm not saying this kind of stuff has no place. It just seems to push out others who want to break into the market. Cowell himself admits as much.) It was hard not to wince at one of musics most richest men proclaim he "hates music". Not entirely because of his blatantly earnest chutzpah, - but at him exemplifying the rule of knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

We can't get away from the underlying mockery for entertainment, and the exploitative nature of his shows. For every stranger plucked from obscurity to fame, there are several more victims of the fame game. It is no exaggeration to say that without the acts put on to be laughed at and mocked, the show would lose much of its appeal. With the benefit of selective editing; - and the opportunities for compounding humiliation this entails, for many "comedy entrants" the apparent "anyone can make it" nature of the show just leads to them making it to a highlight show of the worst acts. Its hard to remember car crash telly, like their real life counterparts often have human victims as well.

If the knighthood goes ahead I don't know what Cowell will be knighted for? Services to the meritocracy of fame. Or knighted for services to laughing at minging people who can't sing.

Is This For Real?

I found this extraordinary article from Liz Jones yesterday, and I have to ask myself "is she for real", cause if she isn't she's apparently hoodwinked some free cash. Seems Liz has totally cleaned her self out of cash. The articles are full of hubristic self pitying, and an ability to pin the blame on everything but herself. If she is completely broke (and I have doubts she is, and that she even writes this stuff as "straight") it is the result of her ball breaking profligacy (she had a small animals psychic at one point, and a shower tray that was made out of some limestone that was quarried from one special place.). She also appears to have blown loads on bloody designer label bullshit, no sane person needs at all, and on the kind of ludicrously expensive, and pretentious self indulgencies, that crafty salesmen can push to pampered rich people in order to deflate bank balances. (the adjective spiritual will almost certainly be used in the sales pitch.)And her taking on some more injured animals (which is noble at first. But not if you can't afford to keep them.). Which she describes in these unintentionally funny lines, that just seem a bit too Marie Antionetteish to ring quite true.

"Michael needs an operation to remove a cyst on his eyelid. Grace Kelly needs to be spayed now that she is a year old and has had her first period. Dream is still on anti-cellulite medication, and needs a visit from a vet at least once a week, a visit from an equine podiatrist every two weeks. Jess needs her teeth cleaned: she has terrible breath, and could develop an infection if this is not sorted out as soon as she has lost a little more weight. Benji is due his inoculations. The chicken with the strange lump and feather loss has been diagnosed with cancer and requires home visits from Tara the small animal vet (the animals are small; Tara is normal-sized); I won’t take the chicken to the surgery because she becomes too stressed."

The articles are interspersed with the usual blame everyone but herself, and "oh did I tell you my ex was a bastard" stuff, as she bares her very soul for her readers. But what is disturbing is that some of her readers have donated money (one donated a scratch card. Hey it's the thought that counts.), and some of these readers don't seem to be well off. She lists some:

‘Liz, I have a two-bedroom flat in Kennington you’re welcome to share.’ The next read: ‘As we’re pensioners we’d be unable to solve your long-term problem but can send some money towards food and petrol. Patrick and Rita.’

‘I’ve sent £20. Please don’t return it – I wanted to show you not all people are greedy. I’d like you to enjoy a bottle of wine, and battle on! Ann.

‘I can let you have some money for food, and I do not want it back!!! I too have been without food, electric, hope! I’m a 63-year-old widow. I wish I could help more. Maria.’

And: ‘I’ve lost my company, my wife and my children. I get ten calls a day from debt collectors. In January I tried to take my own life. A.’

And: ‘I could do you a food parcel. It would be more Sainsbury’s than Harrods, but you could pick it up as you pass on the M4. David.’

I have £20 to last me until the 24th when I might or might not be paid but you’re welcome to £10. Caroline.’

On Monday, in among the bills, were dozens of letters, mostly addressed to ‘Liz Jones, somewhere on Exmoor’. I opened the first. A £10 note tumbled out. ‘You worry me!’ wrote Carole.

‘Tinned dog food is expensive. Gracie stress wees because she needs more of you! Don’t you dare buy Cava with this!’

There's a few things in there that make me think shes just made these "comments" up herself. I can't see someone sending her money cause she has none herself, not even for food and petrol (by the way how is she going to pick up the hamper on the M4? With no fuel.) and then tell her to buy some plonk. I also have a hard time believing Caroline would donate half a 20 pound allowance that's to last a fortnight - so blase. Tinned dog food is dirt cheap. The tinned dog food Liz buys would clean out an ASDA till person a years wages.

Gracie fucking stress wees!

Now if her money worries are true, that is of course traumatic for her, and if she is suicidal (as she claims) she should seek help (both financially and mentally.). But she only has herself to blame for getting into this mess. She must earn a 6 figure salary (unlike her "benefactors") and should want for little. It should be easy to live within your means. Unlike many in debt she has assets to flog to raise the money her creditors want. Ditch the car, the stupid shower and all the Gucci handbags and other tat, rather than some poor pensioners who may or may not exist.

It's hard to say whether the money problems and the donators are real. If Liz Jones wants to portray herself as a narcissistic knob for the benefit of her readers, that's her concern. I'd like to think that not even Mail on Sunday sub eds would allow Liz Jones to raise money under false pretence. But if I read half of what Nick Davies "Flat Earth News" exposes, you do think to yourself? Would they?

Superstars Who Have Opinions.

I came across this letter whilst on the Mailwatch website (it was mentioned, the site was not the origin of the letter.) and felt it really did justify a post. It certainly should be circulated through the websphere. It really is one of the most uncompromising calls to arms, appealing to human decency and common civility and morality, over unthinking adherence to "religious sensibilities" and "the way of things." The letter is from the Canadian mother of a gay son, called Sharon Underwood. I don't know the context of the homophobic commentary that has spawned her damning response. But as a blogger who has occasionally posted on my disdain for people masking their bigotry under the shield of "respecting my beliefs.", I feel I must reproduce the full transcript of a letter; that with the hindsight of being on the suffering end from intolerance, and the furious, morally uncompromisingly literate prose, and rational, utterly knife edge deconstruction of any weasel worded defence of bigotry, and indeed justifying intolerance of your fellow man as "morality" or "proper values." I don't think any evangelical anti-gay "justifications" survive the bulldozing they get. So here is Sharon from Vermont:

"Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.
I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.


My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.
He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.


If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.

For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?


A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.


He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.


You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?"

One of my footnote labels is "Morons Who Have Opinions". It is gratifying that for every brain dead knob who has access to a word processor, there is; ever so occasionally, a superstar who can outdo them a million fold on a strongly worded letter to the editor.

Who will the Mail Hate Now?

The Daily Mails proprietor once summarised his job as "giving his readers a daily dose of hate.", and under a succession of editors like David English and Paul Dacre, he has had willing accomplices. Now I don't think with a new PM, we are suddenly going to see the Mail drop all the same old hate campaigns against immigrants, "feckless welfare junkies", public sector jobsworths, and the liberal elite. It just wont happen, it's as much a part of the papers fabric as the mafia are to the Godfather films. However their number one target is out of the picture now, the Labour party are out of Downing street, so this shifts the focus of the Mails ire somewhat. So how is this going to affect their editorials?

I don't claim to be clairvoyant, but we can assume that the Mail (and Express/Sun) will be glad that their beloved Tories are in. But there is that elephant in the room, the coalition with the Lib Dems, which they may (and will) perceive as a threat to their alliance with Cameron, and these guys absolutely hate to lose! The fact that the inheritance tax threshold [Tories wanted it to increase] will not go up is a concession to Nick Clegg as well as the post of deputy prime minister, and the likelihood he will take up the reigns during Camerons planned paternity leave won't allay those fears. The commentary in the rightwards press does seem to single out Cleggs perceived venality, and that the cabinet level Lib Dems as a bunch of sandal wearing strident protesters out for trouble. I can imagine Clegg will receive a lot of flack for being the man who came third, and got second in command. (in the mold of "unelected Brown" There seems to be an inference that they [Lib Dems] should be reined in, and reigned in as soon as possible. It may be interesting to see how more traditionalist Tories react in comparison to the press coverage. Normon Tebbit said they should have ditched any alliance and gone it alone. Will they accuse Cameron of pandering to his new allies, and straying even further from what they see as "core conservative values", and they think he has been straying too much even before the coalition took power. How much of a stir will this cause? I also think the presence of such a high profile europhile like Clegg in this government of which the majority party is bitterly divided, and increasingly hostile to the EU, just seems to be a big cloud on the horizon, as it always has been for the Tories. Again it doesn't help that Cameron was seen as making promises he couldn't fulfill in regards to the Lisbon treaty. Not to mention divisions on how to deal with the deficit.

Interesting times.

TV Review. Derren Brown Investigates. The Man Who Contacts the Dead. (C4)

CLICK HERE TO WATCH DOCUMENTARY.

Derren Brown Investigates, does what it says on the tin. The mind boggling (how the hell he does what he does, I don't know. I suppose that's the point) conjurer follows a bald headed Liverpudlian psychic called Joe, in order to ascertain the validity of his claims about being able to contact the spirit world (and apparently John Lennon himself). Joe, self evidently regrets agreeing to the documentary, being chippy and evasive throughout, not being able to feign his contempt for the whole thing. We see Joe in action at a one to one reading or whatever they call it with a women. Surprisingly he gets some details right about the women's relatives who have "passed on." (more on this later.) Brown probes him on how he does it, and Joe claims its to do with energy transfers and and magnetic fields and what not. I imagine several physicists exploded in their front rooms at this point. Brown says it would be an astounding achievement if he really could contact the dead, and the concept is potentially staggering. How plausible that he can contact the dead is another matter completely.

They both try out (though Derren is reluctant to do so. He is emphatic, he has no psychic ability. He's a conjurer.) their ability on some Hollyoaks stars. On one girl; they deduce where she went on holiday, and what car she owns. Joe is irked that Derren can beat him at his own game, and is quite rudely dismissive of him (he is rather grating), claiming his readings have more factual basis. In a twist on this reading, Derrens driver claims that Joe might know she drives a Mini, as he was stood outside the car park when she pulled in! (Joe angrily denies this.)

Derren then sees Joe perform at a "Psychic Night" gig at a hotel, alongside a researcher into the practices of psychics. He explains "cold reading", whereby a person can use visual and vocal clues to fish for information about a stranger, ostensibly knowing more about them than they actually know. He analyses the use of abstracts;- random names to garner a reaction from the audience to establish a "grip." We see how the audience (who are almost all women, and credulous to his "abilities".) fill in the gaps for him, interpreting random numbers and names as related to their "spirit". How he dismisses stuff he gets wrong, and can shoehorn unrelated "hits" to form a narrative. So - called Barnum statements, general descriptives that can apply to anyone (something for everyone.). In fact one of the things I liked about this documentary was that you could see these in the other readings. Your mums happy in heaven (What else would people want to hear? She fucking hates it?) Old women suffer from joint problems. Hollyoaks girl is told her last relationship ended in heartbreak (what else was it going to end in? A merger with Tesco.) We also see him recap stuff relayed to him earlier, that he puts back out as "readings". And if all else fails, he blames any errors on "bad spirits", audience error, and bad vibes. Never the fact that he's either a shit psychic, or he isn't psychic at all. I never!

The researcher concedes that a casual observation can't prove / disprove his abilities alone. He will have to undergo some kind of test under controlled conditions. He (vigourously) refuses to take a controlled test, in which he never has face to face contact with his "customer" to rule out cold reading, - in order to give them messages from the spirit world. His rationale is lousy, he needs to see the person in order to send the celestial text message; or something. Derran accurately says this is like a bloke saying he has a UFO in his back yard, but it's invisible and intangible, so just take the blokes word for it. A pre arranged test takes place when a women who wants a reading off Joe, from a specific person (her sister) fails totally. He can't get anything right at all. He is outraged to find that she was approached beforehand (why didn't the spirits warn him.) and claims that Derren scared the spirits off. (the blame game.) He terminates the meetings after that.

Things like this are frustrating to watch sometimes. Joe is so evasive, and so full of weasel words, we end up with a one sided affair. (If you want to justify the tenacious, at least have a crack at doing so.) He can't justify the foundations of his ability, because the foundations simply don't exist in the first place. By his own admission we can't try to apply some kind of controlled conditions to evaluate his "powers" because the controls invalidate them by default. (This is a common qualm from homeopathists and alternate medicine people as well.) All we are left with is his word for it, and like the famous Carl Sagan quote "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and the "that which can be ascribed without evidence, can be dismissed by evidence" leaves us with only one conclusion you don't have to be psychic about.

Some might say that if people are credulous enough to part with cash for this kind of thing, then so be it. But I always feel that this is far from victimless. There are real human emotions being trampled on by this sort of stuff. The night in the pub for instance. Liverpool has its fair share of social baggage. There was talk of drug deaths, alcohol deaths and suicides. There was something terribly intrusive about the whole thing. I don't really blame someone who lost a loved one, grasping at straws. The ability to contact the dead would bring comfort to many who felt they didn't get to say goodbye. But fake catharsis (that they've paid for.), on such tenuous evidence? Which leads us onto the conclusion of Joe's "abilities" It later transpires that the successful reading he had (the one I said I'd mention again.) was a neighbour of his sister. I'm not psychic but;-..... And if I'm honest I don't think Joe is either.

That Little bit of the Fifteenth Century, Right Here in the Twenty first.

We tend to think that religious leaders; who are such shrinking violets that they have to imprison a teacher for calling a teddy Muhammed, or can claim that loose women cause earthquakes, and not be laughed off the face of the earth. Or incite people to set fire to stuff over some daft cartoons in a shitty Danish paper no-one reads, is a trait exclusive to the Muslim world. A sign of religious lunacy unplugged, a theocratic zeal (by the minority) that has been largely banished from the once Christian Europe. So it's going to be obvious that a 26 year old pop star; who is looking at two years in jail for blasphemy, for saying dinosaurs are more plausible than parts of a holy book, has happened in Saudi. Wrong! This pop star,- Dorota Rabczewska; is from Poland. Yes in the godless, athiestic wastelend of Europe, it is potentially possible (the article this post is on about is highly partial, so its 20/20 how likely she actually faces jail.) to be imprisoned for "disrespecting religion" She actually said:

“it is hard to believe in something written by people who drank too much wine and smoked herbal cigarettes.”

Oooh Dangerous...

This got the response from a Polish fundie, worthy of Stephen Green of Christian Voice.

"Ryszard Nowak is chairman of the Committee for the Defence Against Sects. This group exists to “protect Christian values”

It is clear that Doda thinks that the Bible was written by drunkards and junkies. I believe that she committed a crime and offended the religious feelings of both Christians and Jews."

No? She challenged an idea. It's called freedom of speech.

If you think this is just sabre rattling, it becomes more disturbing when we hear:

"The couple aren’t the first to be brought to court over offending Christians. In 2003, artist Dorota Nieznalska was convicted of “insulting religious feeling” and sentenced to six months of “restricted freedom” — that is, travel restrictions — and 20 hours/month of community service. Why?

In 2002, Nieznalska created an art installation called “Passion”. Part of the installation offended Christians.

League of Polish Families members attacked Nieznalska verbally and physically at the Gdansk gallery where her Passion installation was being exhibited last year. The work, an exploration of masculinity and suffering, shows a cross on which a photograph of a fragment of a naked male body, including the genitalia, has been placed. The League sued the artist. In July 2003, a court found Nieznalska guilty of “offending religious feelings.” It sentenced her to half a year of “restriction of freedom” (she was specifically banned from leaving the country) and ordered her to do community work and pay all trial expenses. When the judge read the sentence, League members packing the courtroom applauded ecstatically. The artist has been pursuing legal appeal to get the sentence overturned on free speech grounds."

Whether it is just pure shock value, or whatever. It is appalling that an EU member can restrict travel and impose community service. -For an artist who superimposed a willy on a cross. No-one was harmed, a victimless crime, and you get treated as if you had shoplifted. This is the problem with curtailment of freedom of speech, especially vis a vis religion. If they can get "offended" at this, and get them prosecuted, what next? You can bet that, empowered; - they will find something else to censor. A disturbing cycle. The article ends with this interesting, if slightly shouty summation.

"How can Europeans cry foul when Muslims are offended by a cartoon, when they themselves press charges and demand imprisonment over something as simple as a pop star making negative statements about their religion?

Blasphemy laws are an offense to anyone who values liberty and intellectual freedom. They are a tool used by religious fundamentalists to silence nonbelievers. Fundamentalists of different religions do not use the laws to silence one another (such as Christians vs. Islamists); no, they are used solely against the secularist. Maybe it’s time for the secularists to start suing** the religionists!"

** I know he's being sarcastic, but better to shoot down these peoples "arguments"with debate, than call in the lawyers. If you have to immediately do that, then you must have pretty lame foundations.

Blimey Gordon

Gordon Brown seems; PR wise, in this past year, to the election run up, to have had the media equivalent of being stripped naked and walloped with planks that have large, protruding rusty nails sticking out of them. All whilst wearing a comedy dunces cap. It's been pretty much wall to wall bad press. He's been pulling faces on youtube. He's (allegedly) walloped staff. He spelt the surname of the mother of a dead soldier wrong. (Incidentally so did the Sun paper that hauled him over the coals for the very thing they ended up doing.) He's trailed behind in these televised debates. And he sounded off against a granny in Rochdale, whilst a Labour party member called him the worst prime minister ever. Not entirely a vote winning strategy. I honestly thought that he couldn't have done worse for himself if his glass eye had accidentally fell out and landed on the "emergency nuclear red button" which then triggered an accidental nuclear strike on Finland. Yes Gordons been hauled over the coals the past year. But then we see this speech given to Citizens UK and you think, where is this inspirational, energised guy who looks like Brown, been brought in from? Not the tired, run down Brown, we usually see, who can barely scrape second place, if polls are to be believed (which they have a shaky record.) It is just so much in contrast to the general portrayal we get of the PM. Shame for them it was 2 days before polling day.

Melanie Phillips Just Doesn't Get Science.

I chanced upon this completely bizarre article by Melanie Phillips, on the Science / Religion schism. I don't actually know why I actually even have to describe it as bizarre. I mean what else did I think it was going to be? I was alerted to it by a blurb on a conservative leaning magazine, whose name I've forgotten in Sainsburys today. (Northernbloke inspirations can pop up pretty much randomly.) It was as delightfully full of holes as I expected. I think Mel could be described as a "cargo cult intellectual." She tries to use the right words to dress it up as a serious academic expose on the hypocritical entrenched irrationality of the new atheists / rationalists /the left/ supporters of anthropogenic climate change. Tick whoever fits the thing she disagrees with in the respective point in the article. But in the end it is just a hodge podge of superficial straw men, tortured logic, double standards, and passive aggressive intellectual buck passing. (count how many times she uses the "Anyone who disagrees with X is branded a bigot by X argument. NB Try and argue your corner a bit more then!) What also strikes me is her complete scientific illiteracy, and ability to turn the article from a diatribe against militant atheists, to an anti euthanasia screed, to a climate change denial piece, to a Britain's going to the dogs rant. It really boils down to a "The liberals are the real bastards" piece, with the standard "guilty as charged." right wing memes chucked in. It is a staggeringly silly article!

Ready for the knockdown? Here goes:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that reason and religion are mortal foes. Reason deals a death blow to religion; religion is clearly irrationality on stilts. "

They can be mutually exclusive, and often are. But reason (the ability to use rationality and a systematic outlook to assess a thing) and religion (the belief, and belief structures in place, in a divine force that controls the destiny of the material world / humans) can go hand in hand. It was; when the major religions formed, ostensibly reasonable to believe in a force that created the universe (for want of a better explanation.). Religious doctrines can have rational origins (the Islamic taboo against booze is sensible for a religion founded in a desert region.) The real, bare bones schism of analysing the universe is between "science" and "faith" and "knowledge" and "belief ". Science is a methodology, a way of looking at the universe, by hypothesis and objective observation of evidence. Faith is a belief (it could be drawn from a rational analysis.) system. It sets out with a presumption of truth. It may even survive things that disavow this truth, or it may shoe horn parts of evidence to bolster a truth. These two doctrines are utterly different ways of looking at the universe (this doesn't mean they are automatically hostile. And that the "other" camp is "bad". A thing that Mel has not taken to heart.). And really are a meeting, - not of opposites, but of two incompatible paradigms, that are of two worlds. (I emphasise they are not enemies. Just totally different.)

"If only religion didn’t exist, reason would rule the world and there would be no more wars, tyrannies or murderous hatreds. It follows therefore that religious people are either stupid or unbalanced and are inimical to progress, modernity and happiness.

Well, this universal truth isn’t true at all. In fact, reason is underpinned by religion — at least the Biblical variety. Without Genesis there would have been no Western science, no equality and human rights and no liberal belief in progress."

Religion doesn't cause these bad things. Human nature does. Irrationally based world views and exclusive religious doctrines can (and do) compound these things. That is the real root of reasonable objections to doctrine and faith based analysis. (not always the domain of the religious.) True reasonable thinkers are above such generalisations about religion being solely the cause of human ills.

The claim that the bible has naturally brought about modern science and "enlightenment values" is also very dubious as well. The Genesis creation myth is; even by the standards of its own time, a pretty poor hypothesis about the creation of the world. There is no mention of ancient Greek disciplines such as those of Aristotle and Plato, which if anything (it would be hard to say one specific thing created "Enlightenment values.") contributed the most to establishing modern scientific paradigms. Or other great cultures that predate the New (and Old in some cases.) who seemed to have both grasped science and culture. Indeed the "golden rule"* (Treat others as you wish to be treated.) was likely external to the Abrahamic faiths.

She continues on:

"Indeed, the paradox is that some of our most noisy advocates of reason say a lot of things which are demonstrably absurd.

Take those scientists who promote not science but scientism — the belief that science can deal with every aspect of existence. The scorn and vituperation they heap upon religious believers is fathomless. And yet their materialism leads them to say things which are just… well, nutty.

For example, Professor Richard Dawkins told me he was ‘not necessarily averse’ to the idea that life on earth had been created by a governing intelligence — provided that such an intelligence had arrived from another planet. How can it be that our pre-eminent apostle of reason appears to find little green men more plausible as an explanation for the origin of life than God? "

Mel drops herself in it a bit here. She has for once, cited an example of one of her "accusations" against the Antichrist of atheism himself no less. It is fairly easy to hypothesise that life may exist off Earth. The fact that life exists here is proof that life exists somewhere. This means that given the right conditions and chemical raw materials that it could be hypothesised that it exists elsewhere. Extrapolate up to sentient life (though your perhaps best to wait before evidence of life off Earth before seriously doing this.) and them seeding life elsewhere. Hypothesising the existence of a superbieng (who can break the laws of physics) with no real physical proof of its existence is a bit harder. Melanie Phillips cannot objectively analyse varying hypothesis, and relies on personal opinion. A bit of a bummer, for an article on assessing the scientific method.

"Contrary to popular myth, Western science was not created by Enlightenment secularism. It grew out of the revolutionary claim in the Bible that the universe was the product of a rational Creator, who endowed man with reason so that he could ask questions about the natural world."

That doesn't really stand up. For a start most people can figure out that the world seems to obey some kind of natural laws, and lots of things consistently behave in a routine way. There's an order in place, (though most revealed religious beliefs fall a bit flat on trying to figure out what this order may be.) and that people can study that order to figure it out. Hey Mel, that applied even back then.

I'm not going to slate the Bible totally. I think Jesus had a few good ideas, and smoothed over some of the sillier cruelties of the Old Testament. Although not a believer myself, Christianity has given nice hymns and churches. It can be inspirational and uplifting. It is also often intolerant and divisive to the point of inciting hate, and hypocritical. But one thing that is consistent about it (and it's Islamic and Jewish cousins) is it's inherent irrationality. These three faiths are concerned with the parochial. They are didactic, revealed from authority and are (to the practitioners) exclusive to the truth, to the extent of the contrary (in English this means they are self evidently the truth, and contradictory things should be ignored /revised accordingly.) This doesn't provide an atmosphere clement to rationality.

We get these nuggets that pretty much speak for themselves.

"This is because ideology [secular], by wrenching evidence to fit a prior idea, is inimical to reason and sacrifices truth to power. That’s why environmentalism’s most famous offspring, man-made global warming theory, is totalitarian gobbledegook. There is no evidence to support it, plenty of evidence against it and even more evidence that much of the ‘science’ on which it is based is fraudulent."

None? None at all? Even though Carbon Dioxide (even natural CO2) is a well documented greenhouse gas? No evidence?

"But like other ideologies, it appears immune to challenge, however compelling the case against it."

Circular logic.

She then comes out with this.

"It can’t be [why "militant athiests" dislike religion] that religion has committed terrible atrocities, because atheism has committed terrible atrocities too. Maybe it’s the fear that Biblical morality fetters the freedom to be footloose and fancy-free. After all, if genes are selfish why should they alone have all the fun?"

Oh look, it's the "Hitler and Stalin were atheists too" canard. It's been debunked better elsewhere, so what about the "selfish gene" comment? Its a misunderstanding on her part. The "selfish" only means that a species genes have no "purpose" beyond being perpetuated. It doesn't mean that selfish genes (they're mindless protein chains, and physically couldn't "feel" anything anyway.) beget selfish species. Jeez someone by this woman a science book!

"But since Biblical religion actually underpinned reason and morality, the decline of religion means the erosion of truth and conscience. If religious totalitarianism was rule by the Church and political totalitarianism was rule by the ‘general will’, this is cultural totalitarianism, or rule by the subjective individual.

In Britain, the effects are plain to see. Everything is upside down: the transgressive becomes the norm while the normal is discriminatory; victims become aggressors while aggressors are indulged; education leaves children in a state of noble savagery; broken families are promoted as lifestyle choice.

And a brutal utilitarianism means elderly or coma victims are starved and dehydrated to death, with anyone who dares to mention the sanctity of human life dismissed as a Bible-bashing nut-job."

Let's put aside that religion and morality are somehow physically intimately bound at the seems; - my brain is really starting to hurt now. Seemingly completely interchangeable right wing memes are being mashed up together with tortured logic to produce a horrid anti - science mess.

I realised that in the end I had to throw the towel in a bit with this stuff. I mean how can you possibly counteract an article that berates its opponents for treating the world as divided into two impermeable factions, their opponents being horrid bigots. - By splitting the argument into two utterly opposing camps. The other side being horrid bigots. I mean for Gods sake:

" In Manichean fashion, the left divides the world into rival camps of good and evil. Anyone who is not on the left is ‘the right’ and thus beyond the moral pale. But much that is demonised in this way as ‘right-wing’ is simply an attempt to uphold truth, reality and liberty against the distortions, fabrications and bullying of ideology."

Takes one to know one Melanie.

I need a bloody drink now.

*There is some evidence to suggest that Jesus may have been influenced by Hellenic disciplines. It is thought that Joseph was no humble carpenter, but a master tradesmen, with JC as his apprentice, travelling around the world, and immersing himself in foreign disciplines (even perhaps what is now England). The "son of God" thing may have been Jesus applying Helenic systematics to a local religion. Him seeing himself as a gateway between God and ordinary "Joe Palestinians" A kind of Bronze Age mathematical out the box thinking.

Not Being the Suns Mouthpiece.

The fallout from the increasingly preposterous "Duffygate" affair on Wednesday has been taken up by the press, to increased levels of bizarre after Gordon Brown went round to her house in Rochdale to apologise in person for the "bigot" comments that were unwittingly broadcast for the benefit of everyone who cared to listen. We have had the rather unedifying spectacle of 50 eager reporters, cameramen, the odd PR man all decamping on the front door of a working class widow in her late sixties, waiting for her to deliver a few tasty morsels about the PM who was caught ragging her behind her back. Now it isn't really a surprise the press would do this, and I can't really say that I'd really blame her if she, as a women of limited means wanted to make a few bob by talking to the press. Apart from a PR man from Bell Pottinger (more on them later.), she had refused to say anything. But what was unusual, and was picked up on by the other reporters was the absence of any Sun reporters in the scrum. Surely a newspaper so visibly supporting David Cameron would relish a story that would damage the opposition? Where could they be? Then they all realised like any other object composed in 3 dimensions, a house has a rear that is obstructed to those seeing it from the front, and they scarpered to the back where 2 guys from the Sun were apparently taking photographs in her kitchen (they'd snuck in through hedges at the back. I doubt a flipping big camera being shoved in the foliage does wonders for the Leylandi.) and were seen coming out of her house looking remarkably dejected. According to Fleet Street gossip, Richard Moriarty - a Sun reporter, had good reason to look glum. He had offered her (reportedly) between £20 000 to £70 ooo to spill the beans. But he had also asked could she really lay into Brown, and would she mind endorsing David Cameron as well. As a Labour voter she stuck to principle and told him to get lost. It's certainly a strange affair when PM's and high ranking journalists are more afraid of standing up to Rupert Murdochs empire, rather than a paunchy pensioner from a provincial Northern town. Now normally I would stop the article here, as a charming tale of one - nil for "normal folk" putting the political / media elite to shame. But it produced further twists, and accusations of foul play, that wedged it all out of proportion for a while.

Bell Pottinger had set alarms ringing (see what I did there.) to those who knew about that PR company, and thought something iffy was afoot. The founder of it; Tim bell, was a big advertising guru for Maggie Thatcher in the 70's, and the currant chairman is a Tory activist who had gloated about Browns misfortune on his blog. Did the Bell Pettinger guy visiting Mrs Duffy also want her to shovel some shit at Brown? Astonishingly this wasn't the end of the suspicions that the whole thing was a bit dodgy. There was a counterclaim leveled against the firm that another Labour supporting director (who was Tony Blairs director of communication, after Alastair Campbell.) had stepped in before the hostile [to Labour] press to negotiate some form of damage limitation exercise with her! And that's not even getting into the role that the firm played in faking the moon landings (I made that last one up.). the actual reason the Bell Pottinger guy was there was that Mrs. Duffy had panicked about the press intrusion, rang her daughter to see what to do. The daughter just happened to work for a solicitors that used the services of a PR firm called... Bell Pottinger, who she asked to help her mum out. No greater conspiracy after all.

The twists and turns of this strange affair highlight the shady world of media PR pretty well. What they don't highlight is a sense of proportion and priority in media coverage of this election.