I can’t work out how that could be the case unless either the settings sometimes change for no reason or else Windows is designed to do this on purpose for some as-yet undiscovered reason.

Either way, it’s not good enough.

Mostly it is about the Islamic world and the culture and people thereof rather than Islam itself (the Islamic people seem uniquely incapable of distinguishing these concepts), but there are a couple of encouraging comments from Mohammed in holy texts that can’t have hurt (although the program doesn’t address other parts of scripture that may have the opposite effect) and an interesting idea about the Q’uran helping out. The idea is that Arabic was rolled out as a universal language to help people understand the book in its original form, and Arabic was modified to make it clearer so that people didn’t misinterpret it. That doubtless helped science, albeit by accident, by enabling easy, unambiguous communication. (It’s interesting that Christianity didn’t feel the need to make their message unambiguous — indeed, until recently they deliberately obfuscated it by translating it into dead languages. I think they only stopped because it was too much like hard work.)

Right now the presenter, Jim Al-Khalili, is talking to a so-called “wise woman” who has a wide variety of herbal and similar remedies. I assume he’s just being polite, but It appears not to have occured to him that they might not work. To my eyes, that proves nothing at all to do with science. That could just as easily be superstition. It becomes science when you test it. It’s a blurry line when you’re talking about the early proto-science of the eighth century, but the fact that she’s still selling this stuff in the twenty-first doesn’t seem to have put him off his “Science And Islam Walking Hand In Hand” thesis. And now he is reading from a book which says epilepsy is caused by evil spirits. “Hardly scientific,” he says, “but Islam’s most tangible contribution to medicine is less in its specific remedies and more in its overarching philosophy. It is, after all, a religion whose central idea is that we should feel compassion for our fellow humans”. No, it’s just a religion. Like all religions, it contains loads of different ideas, many of which are perfectly horrid, and adherants can choose to focus on any of them that they fancy.

I know Islam has had some bad press lately, but you won’t fix that by trying to give it the credit for any and all achievements made by its followers or their subjects. Marcus du Sautoy managed to cover much of the same ground on the same channel without as far as I recall mentioning Islam. (I imagine he probably mentioned it in passing.) That should be a clue as to how important it was. Another interesting quote from Dr Bennison just now: “it was not the case [in ninth century debates] that people were expected to adhere to a particular line or adopt a particular religion. They were allowed to express their own sentiments and their own views very freely. The point was that they should do so in elegant Arabic and in good logical reasoning”. Compare and contrast that to the reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed, an arguably quite important side of Islam that the program utterly fails to mention. Where did “butcher those who insult Islam” come from? Why should I credit Islam with the former and not blame it for the latter?

This sort of thing bothers me because it kind of spoils an otherwise interesting documentary, and because if we confuse a religion with its followers then any meaningful debate is impossible. You can’t argue against an idea if that argument is seen as an attack on the people who hold that idea (or other similar ones, since the term “Islam” can cover a multitude of sins). I think that if you call a show “Science And Islam” then it should be about the relationship between science and Islam, not about the growth of science in the Islamic world (that show should clearly be called “Science of Arabia”), and as part of that I expect you to mention that the influence of Islam on science has at times been to hinder it. Granted I’ve only seen one episode, but even if that is redressed in future episodes, I shouldn’t have to watch a whole series to get balance.

The program now ends with the observation that “the first great achievment of the medieval Islamic scientists was to prove that science isn’t Islamic… Science… transcends political borders and religious affiliations”. Which is true only in the rather weak sense that science remains true no matter which parts of it you elect to ignore: science is not Islamic, and crucially, Islam is not scientific.

So, either to help out an ally, or to get in with Obama early on, or just to try to do something good for the world and hasten the release of illegally held torture subjects beyond those we’re legally obliged to accept, the Foreign Office has indicated that Britain might be willing to accept some of these people. This article has a comments box. That was never going to end well.

Quite simply the message from the Conservatives should be clear and unequivocal :

Britain must not accept any of these people.

The fact that some people who were originally held in Guantanamo and released went on to be come suicide bombers.

The risks are too high and Britian must now put its citizens first and not indulge itself in vague concepts of Human trights about non British citizens

POSTED BY: STRAIGHT TALK, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, BRITAIN | 1 JAN 2009 13:42:33

Someone on the site pointed out that in this context “some” was actually some figure between “not many” and “one”, but even without that, this guy’s argument could equally be used to execute all schoolteachers, since at least one of those has also committed a terror attack in this country.

We must not accept these people with the extended families they will bring with them remember if they come here we the taxpayers will have to pay for them also our soldiers which they tried to kill will have to pay for them this country is in a form of MADNESS it must stop

POSTED BY: DEE | 1 JAN 2009 14:40:27

It’s not even worth picking that run-on nonsense apart.

 this is george bush’s mess and he has to take responsibility for it. if brown accepts any people from it there will be a huge backlash. we haven’t forgot the london bombings.

POSTED BY: TONE | 1 JAN 2009 15:19:08
 

And if he can’t fix it in the next couple of weeks, then what? Sweep it under the rug?

 Why cant the US simply dump these folks back where they were originaly picked up? I’m sure they will find a ready welcome in Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

POSTED BY: DAVID | 1 JAN 2009 15:50:15
 

Because they’ll be killed and it’s illegal to deport people under those conditions.

 So hold on a minute….
The UK is not allowed to expel Islamic terrorists but we have to allow them in?
We have around 4+ million(not 1.8million as the government predicts) Muslims in the UK. At least 60% of them want Islamisation of the UK and are sympathetic to the Islamist cause.

I vaguely wonder where he’s pulling these numbers from.

Our government is allowing 5k Pakistani Halal butchers into the UK with their families even though we are supposed to have changed to a points based entry scheme that they do not pass.
We are importing Saudi Arabian Wahabism and the government does nothing. And now we are going to allow terrorists into the UK from Guantanamo Bay?

The point, you see, is that if they were terrorists, they would by now have been charged with something.

Who really British wants to live here anymore? I certainly don’t. Is this all part of the government’s plan to remove British people from the UK and build a new multicultural paradise doomed to all out future war as cultures start fighting one another for supremacy(No doubt Islam will be winner there).

I see.

This is madness. 
Then again our society deserves the government they vote in. If the UK is to fall unto a quagmire of Islamic terrorism and chaos, then you have yourselves to blame and not the government. Why? You voted them in to reap this destruction of your culture. Do something about it and vote them out. And I suggest also not voting for the Conservatives or the Liberals. They are no different to NuLabour and will continue the destruction of the UK. There will be only one benefit and that will be to the newly elected government members whose wages and perks will go up drastically.

POSTED BY: WINSTON SMITH | 1 JAN 2009 16:08:14

Well clearly he has thought this through.

You can be absolutely sure that they will be better treated by the British Government than our own servicemen.Thats Labour.

POSTED BY: ERICA | 1 JAN 2009 17:57:50

That sounds both true and relevant.

there should be the biggest mass demonstration on the streets of this country against allowing these people into this country thats ever been before, This should happen sooner rather then later before they become a burden to the british taxpayer.

POSTED BY: PAUL NOSWORTHY | 1 JAN 2009 19:29:53

I notice you have no security concerns: you’re just worried about immigration.

never ever thought I would say it ,but I cant wait until we have a BNP government.
just to end this lunancy.

POSTED BY: CARLYLE | 1 JAN 2009 20:10:13

The solution is clear: different lunacy.

No uk or non uk nationals caught fighting UK forces should be returned here. To accept such individuals constitutes a threat to our security and is a gross and blatant infringement of my human rights

POSTED BY: DAVE | 1 JAN 2009 20:42:37

Yes, but do you have an opinion about this story?

Carlyle,

I think you are not alone in your views. I think the UK is about to get a shock come next election. I also do not think that Conservatives will get the votes they are hoping for from disgruntled inhabitants of the UK. Many are realising that it will be the same old, same old with the tories, who incidentally set the ball rolling in the destruction of the UK.

POSTED BY: WINSTON SMITH | 1 JAN 2009 20:59:31

Presumably, then, you’re predicting a Lib Dem win, yes? That being the only possible outcome other than Labour, Conservative and a tie.

They should be allowed in to become investment advisors to the Church of England. They look like enviromentalists and the Archbisop needs advice.

POSTED BY: ROBERTO | 1 JAN 2009 21:35:03

What?

Has this loathsome Government any regard whatsoever for us?

POSTED BY: STEVEN | 1 JAN 2009 21:43:48

Let’s remind ourselves that they are the ones trying to stop illegal torture and you are the one arguing with them.

Suggest we house em on HMP Rockall

POSTED BY: DAVE | 2 JAN 2009 17:58:43

Suggest we don’t let you talk any more.

An immigrant, even an illegal immigrant can claim a jobseekers allowance and family allowance and housing benefit far in excess of my 80% war disability pension. Where is the logic in that?

POSTED BY: M WILSON | 4 JAN 2009 02:46:28

I imagine it’s the same logic that links this factoid to a discussion about Guantanamo.

This is what happens if you point out that they’re talking nonsense:

mattbramall - Are you living on cloud cuckoo land like Labour, have you forgotten about the innocent people who lost their lives in the suicide bombings in London.

I imagine he remembers them but correctly considers them irrelevant.

Do you really think these inmates are not Islamic extremists.

Yes?

UK security is a priority then suspected terrorists.

The Netherlands has made a stance, ruling out accepting any Guantanamo inmates. Also Dutch Immigration Service has expelled 1,475 people in 2008, the authorities expel foreign residents who have been sentenced to 1 month in prison or community work. The Dutch put their country & citizens first and if the Conservatives want my vote then they should be clear on putting British citizens first for security and welfare and tightening the Human Rights act to make it easier to expel suspected terrorists and foreigners declared persona non-grata. 

POSTED BY: QUIN WILLIAMS | 4 JAN 2009 10:03:24

I notice you keep using the word ’suspected’. If you replaced it with ‘convicted’ you would have a point, but then that point would be irrelevant. The point about suspected terrorists is that they might not have done it. Innocent until proven guilty and so on. I wonder with how much grace Quin Williams would accept his own deportation, detention and torture if there was suspicion that he might be a terrorist.

That’s just not on. Apart from the fact that creationism is anti-science enough without trying to trump psychology as well as biology, geology and astrophysics, this kind of thing is displacing real therapy that can actually prevent these deaths. But the hell with that — why bother preventing deaths if they can be used to promote an ideology?

An obvious question that may have entered your brain by now is “what on Earth does creationism have to do with suicide prevention?” and the answer is of course “nothing”, so a better question is “what does Chaplain Biscotti think creationism has to do with suicide prevention?”. Well. Apparently he has identified a Problem:

• In the last two years, completed suicides have escalated throughout the Air Force
• …
• The Air Force did not use spirituality as part of their suicide prevention briefing until 2005

It seems that he read that and thought that the solution was to add more spirituality. I cannot fathom how even the most religiously retarded mind could reach that conclusion from that evidence. So what’s his solution?

Dr. Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life,  provides a powerful model for Suicide Prevention, developing leaders, and making troops combat ready and effective.

No, it provides a pack of bullshit. (I haven’t read it, but I can easily surmise it’s a load of rubbish from the fact that Rick Warren wrote it.) After that are a series of laughably inept slides that are reproduced in the Kos article so I won’t bother here. Suffice to say that atheism (specifically, humanism) is equated with selfishness and then The Dreaded Communism, to the point where Darwin is inexplicably listed as one of the leaders of the USSR. It also uses the story of Pat Tillman, an atheist (as far as we know) who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, to push the idea of faith in general, including faith in oneself. That’s probably basically good advice, were it not displacing real therapy and attached to the rest of this pro-Christianity propaganda.

Chaplain Biscotti is not the Crackpot of the Month. That honour falls to those in secular roles above him, who allow and promote this, who push religion both as a way of reducing suicide and in general. I’m starting with Rod Bishop who seems to have compiled the presentation that contained Biscotti’s slides. Beyond that it seems to be so systemic as to make naming names as pointless as it is impossible.

Luckily the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is suing the US Military over this. How that lawsuit will go is unclear. I have no idea what the rules are on such things, not that that has anything to do with the result of any lawsuit with religion anywhere near it.

[BPSDB]

• Large Hadron Collider ‘may destroy universe’, say stupid people (original submission)
• Department for Children, Schools and Families to ‘give up on schools’ (original submission)
• Labour to use ‘guest leaders’ (original submission)
• Halloween update; local youths ‘less frightening than usual’ (original submission)
• Book of phone numbers ‘left on doorstep’ (original submission)

(I do like my headlines-with-quotes-in.)

Next, some of the ones they didn’t. I’ll put most of them after the fold, since there are a lot of them. Also, some might be offensive if you’re easily offended. First, though, my favourite, from early to mid October:

Gordon Brown has new kitchen sink installed under anti-terrorism laws

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has had his kitchen refitted under laws brought in in the wake of the September 11th and July 7th terrorist attacks.

The refit was proposed in August, as part of a larger reorganisation of Number 10. Brown’s wife Sarah raised objections to the plans at an early stage, saying that the new system would make cooking difficult and that she didn’t like the colour. It seemed that the deadlock was unresolvable until September 17th, when the Prime Minister realised he could use existing anti-terror laws to push the installation through without first gaining his wife’s approval.

Critics have claimed that this is “a clear abuse” of the power handed to the PM’s office by these new rules. One backbench MP said that while he understood the need to have special new measures to deal with the new kind of threat faced today, the government had taken advantage of the fear to pass laws granting themselves more power than they had ever been elected to. Other recent applications of the anti-terror laws include freezing the assets of Iceland UK, resolving the double-booking of a conference room in Parliament, and the emergency resolution on Tuesday which mandated it was James’ turn to do the washing up.

Brown has insisted that neither he nor the government has abused the trust placed in them by Parliament, saying that there are “other kinds of terrorism” besides violent attacks on civilians, and that these might be said to include refusal to wash dishes or bad taste in kitchen units.

The House of Lords is expected to overturn the decision, but James Brown has said that as he’s already done the washing up, it’s too late to reverse the damage and a system must be put in place to prevent these situations from arising in the first place.

Morrisons to launch own-brand Marks and Spencer

Supermarket chain Morrisons has announced plans to launch an ‘own-brand’ version of rival Marks and Spencer’s shops. The new stores, called ‘Morris And Sons’, will build on Morrisons’ existing corporate identity, the large green ‘M’, via the addition of an ampersand and an ‘S’. They aim to capture some of Marks and Spencer’s richer market by offering similarly high-class products at slightly lower prices. The new shops are expected to be opened right next to existing Marks and Spencer stores, and look similar enough that customers may enter the wrong one by mistake if they are not paying close attention. The chairman of Morrisons said, ‘this is my M&S.’

While the move has been praised by the Monopolies Commission, who have long felt that Marks and Spencer currently have an unfair dominance for the market of Marks and Spencer products, critics have complained that the culture of supermarket own-brand imitations has gone too far this time. One lawyer has even condemned the move as ‘blatant passing off’, but representatives of Marks and Spencer maintain that their customers are not about to desert the brand for a competitor. Officials have warned that if own-brand Marks and Spencers become commonplace then the term ‘M&S’ could become generic, like Xerox, Hoover or Sellotape, and simply be a word that any company could use to describe produce which is not as posh as it thinks it is. Marks and Spencer are reportedly working on an advert for this eventuality which begins ‘this is not just M&S chicken…’

Some people have expressed fears that if the plans are allowed to go ahead then high streets may consist of nothing other than Tesco versions of popular chains as early as 2015. Experts insist that there is no evidence that this will happen, pointing to America as an example, where a chain of ‘Frankie & Johnnie McDonald’s Steakhouse’ restaurants has been operating for years without incident.

‘Shit’ to be upgraded to Class B swear-word.

After massive public outrage at increasing use of the word ’shit’, often by children as young as eight, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is set to announce plans to upgrade it to a class B swear-word. In her speech, Smith is expected to criticise the current cursing classifications as “archaic”, citing such oddities as thumb biting, seen in Shakespeare but rare in modern Britain and still considered a class C curse in the eyes of the law, and the fact that ‘punani’ is still not listed on the legislation.

There are also plans to crack down on rogue cursers who supplant their swear-words by ‘cutting’ them using harmless letters (producing variants like the increasingly popular ‘feck’), or more dangerous punctuation marks or characters from Wingdings or Zapf Dingbats.

There is growing concern among parents that ’shit’, while not particularly offensive in its own right, may lead on to the use of “harder” curses such as ‘fuck’ or the middle finger. Some are afriad that their children may experiment with dangerous cocktails of powerful swear-words such as ’sheep-shagging motherfucking cunt’. However, others have argued that making ’shit’ less acceptable will do nothing but increase its strength. “The whole appeal of swearing is that it’s a taboo,” said one representative. “If you try to regulate it, that will only encourage people. Surely we all remember what happened whet the government tried to classify ‘knob’ as a class C swear-word. Use sky-rocketed and we lost a generation of stand-up comedians. Since it was declassified and isn’t considered offensive any more, nobody bothers to say it much.” This point is addressed in the text of the Home Secretary’s statement, citing the drop in use of the word ‘nigger’ as a success story for the legislation.

Civil rights campaigners have also slammed the plans, claiming that the right to free speech means that citizens can use any words they like and in any order, provided that it is not libellous or fraudulent.

Parliament has not yet unveiled plans to close the loophole which allows elaborate innuendo, but a certain member is expected to push through such a crackdown in the near future.

(alternate, more offensive headline: ‘Cunt’ to be upgraded to ‘B-Word’.)

Britain to Jacqui Smith: “We were being sarcastic” (probably makes no sense now)

London to host 2012 Olympics in Second Life

The chair of the London 2012 Organising Committee Sebastian Coe, has announced that the stadium where most events will take place is being built inside the Second Life computer game world. The game world has previously hosted conferences and meetings and some real-world companies have offices there. However, this is the first time a major public sporting event has been held entirely within a virtual universe. The virtual stadium will be able to seat 80,000 spectator ‘avatars’, and of course those without Second Life characters will be able to watch on TV. Second Life was chosen over the game world of World of Warcraft to prevent athletes from using performance-enhancing potions such as Swiftness.

London Mayor Boris Johnson hailed the plans as innovative, and said they show that Britain and London are leading the world in embracing the future and online culture, but fellow Conservative Ann Widdecombe said in her Daily Express column that it was a stunt, “a shameless failure to live up to Britain’s promise when we bid for the games, and to just fob the IOC and the world off with something cheaper instead”. Her party leader David Cameron dismissed this opinion, however. Speaking on Webcameron, he said that the modern Conservative Party was excited by the new possibilities made open by the technology, and said that his Second Life avatar, Secameron, had already reserved a seat. Johnson made the speech from a podium outside his Second Life HQ. His avatar is a tall, confident man in a business suit, with neat, black hair in a left parting and a large and conspicuous pair of blue horns which he hasn’t worked out how to delete.

Many athletes have objected to the plans, saying that their years of training will be useless in Second Life, but Coe said in an interview that the Internet was the future, and that that might mean traditional skills become obsolete. Johnson answered the criticism less deftly, saying “well, maybe you should have learned to do something more useful than throwing a heavy frisbee a long way”. His office later clarified the remark in a press release, but former discus champion Carl Myerscough whose avatar attended the event later said “I would have pelted him with eggs if I knew what button did that”.

McCain and Palin to host Countdown

John McCain and Sarah Palin, the failed Republican contendors for the White House, have been signed to present the next series of Countdown, say sources close to the programme. “After Des O’Connor and Carol Vorderman quit the show, we’d been hunting for a new pair to replace them. We needed an older man and a woman about Carol’s age who our viewers would find attractive but not intimidatingly so. And they should know each other and have some chemistry. After months of auditions, we turned on the TV and were shocked to see the perfect pair running for election.”

McCain released a statement confirming the leak, saying “When I first got the offer, I thought it was for MSNBC’s Countdown, currently hosted by Keith Olbermann. It seemed like a good opportunity to tone down the network’s rampant liberal bias. Then they flew me to a state called ‘Yorkshire’ for the audition and I realised my mistake.”

Reporters were also shown a copy of the tape from the audition. McCain is said to have not really grasped what the show was about or who it was aimed at, and viewers responded well to that, because it represented strong continuity. Palin performed well in the letters game, and better than expected in the numbers. In the first round she failed to make the target of 270, but by the end of the show she had found her form. Faced with a 75, a 10, a 4, two 7s and a 1, and a target of 689, she drew a complex-looking diagram on the board made up mostly of numbers, arrows, and arithmetical operator symbols, and explained, “Well, it’s like my momma always said, when you have the sevens, and a four, and you see what you do with them and you multiply… you multiply the numbers, and you pray, and all of them just really come together beautifully so that when you get down to it it’s really a matter of whether you want to make 689 or not.” Then she cocked her head to one side and squinted at the audience to see whether they had understood. 80% of the audience found this ‘not at all different’ to Carol’s performance.

Producers had hoped to test McCain’s ability to handle a Crucial Countdown Conundrum, but one contestant had ammassed a large lead in the early stages of the contest and there was never really any chance that it would go down to the wire.

Vatican City on international watch list

A spokesperson for the Foreign Office was forced to admit last night that the Vatican City had for some time been the subject of international security amid rising fears of religiously-motivated terrorism.

‘We have a number of criteria for these decisions,’ he said, ‘and the Vatican City meets many of them. It is a real cause for concern.’ He went on to point out that only people who subscribe to the national religion - Catholicism - are allowed to work in the Vatican City. Homosexuals are not permitted to work there either. ‘This is not what we can reasonably call a free or democratic nation. It has no education or healthcare infrastructure, and has some very strange laws about celibacy.’

There are also fears that the state may be a harbour for fascism: the Vatican was declared an independent nation in 1929 by the Lateran treaty, signed into law by Benito Mussolini, and recently appointed a former member of the Hitler Youth its leader in a secret vote between only a small number of men. The Vatican has never participated in any kind of international dialogue, and sources say that any official negotiation between it and the United States may be unconstitutional. Sympathisers with the Vatican are barred by law from becoming UK royalty.

It was also confirmed that the country has thousands of cells of ‘devoted followers’ scattered around the world, including in the United Kingdom, however reporters were assured that neither the UK or the US is planning an invasion.

More worryingly, there are reports that Tony Blair has recently been associated with the ‘rogue state’.

Woolworths now worth less than wool.

Man who cut off own hand to free himself ‘would have been okay anyway’

Following a car accident on a country lane, keen mountainclimber Liam Richards and nephew John, 19, became trapped in their vehicle on Tuesday. With no signal on his mobile phone and unable to escape the vehicle, Richards eventually resorted to using his penknife to amputate has own left hand, which was pinned between two crushed panels. ‘I’d seen people on TV who’d done it, and I thought, “I could do that.”‘ He then ran to the nearest telephone box to raise the alarm. According to Dave Moore, the first paramedic who attended the scene, ‘Mr Richards was incredibly brave. I don’t know how many other people could have done what he did,’ but added ‘of course, a local woman had seen the accident and alerted us already, so he would have been fine anyway. Still though, wow.’

‘I saw his car swerve off the road and hit the tree from my kitchen. Straight away I dialled 999 and told them to come right away,’ said local Margaret Houseman. ‘I tried to get his attention, but then I saw him cutting off his arm and I had to sit down for a bit. I couldn’t speak. I didn’t know any first aid anyway.’ Paramedics say that Mr Richards’ hand was not badly damaged, but due to the way he had severed it, it would not be possible to reattach it.

Also in the car was John Richards, who was instantly killed upon impact. Peers at his school have described him as ‘annoying’, and ‘not one of the more popular boys’. His teachers said that he ‘rarely paid attention’ and ‘consistently underachieved’. The car had been travelling from a nearby town after a shopping trip, an activity the family say the pair ‘did not particularly enjoy’. Richards said they hadn’t bought anything special that day, ‘just some clothes and stuff.’

Asked about the need for such trees to be removed from the sides of rural roads to prevent such events in the future, John’s mother, Sylvia, issued a statement saying ‘you can’t save everybody all of the time. Obviously we’re all shocked by John’s tragic death, but overprotecting everyone will not help in the long run.’

The car was a 1996 Nissan Micra, which Richards described as ‘basically okay’ and ‘easily replaceable’.

Wikipedia user sets new world record time

Wikipedia user “90.196.252.184″ is celebrating today after breaking the men’s world record for updating Wikipedia after a major world event.

The Wikipedia page “100 metres” was updated to reflect Usain Bolt’s historic race only 9.69 seconds after the race ended. The previous record was set earlier in the year on July 7th when user CoolKid1993 updated the encyclopaedia to reflect Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal from the Democratic nomination race only 9.74 seconds after her sentence ended.

90.196.252.184 has so far been unavailable for comment, but a statement issued on his User:Talk page simply curses himself for failing to log-on to the website and claim the record under his preferred name.

The record has been ratified by Wikipedia’s controllers, however an appeal has been launched by user 218.186.13.2, who claims that 90.196.252.184’s time should be disregarded because he misspelt “Beijing” in the record table halfway down the article. CoolKid1993 has refused to endorse or oppose the appeal, standing by his initial statement that he always knew the record would be broken and is excited at the talent coming up through the Wikipedia registration page.

Nobody has yet bothered to set a women’s record.

Gordon Brown spending all day replying to e-petitions

Over the last year, in an attempt to connect with younger voters, the Prime Minister’s office has set up a comprehensive interactive website, as well a Twitter feed and pages on Facebook and Flickr. A source inside 10 Downing Street has told reporters that Gordon Brown now spends ‘most of his time’ tending to these services and profiles.

“It took a while for him to get to grips with all the services, but once he did it was impossible to get him off them. We had hoped that other staff would keep them up to date, but Gordon insisted on doing it himself. Now he spends most afternoons responding to e-petitions.”

The Government has not officially responded to this, although the Downing Street Twitter profile did post an update to explain that the Prime Minister felt it was important to connect with the population as directly as possible. Some, however, have expressed concern that it may be his way of hiding from reality. “Brown has 72 friends on the Downing Street Facebook page, which is far more than he has in Parliament. That said, many of them are clearly gimmick accounts. We know for a fact that he’s never actually met anyone called Jesus H Christ.” Brown’s Facebook page lists him as “in a special relationship”.

There have also been accusations that the new digital services are a waste of money. The amount of updates on the sites in total is thought to be a major drain on government time, especially since most of the Twitter updates are 135-140 characters long, suggesting that Brown spends several minutes crafting each one.

According to a note posted on the Downing Street Blog, the blame for this situation rests firmly with the media, whose incessant nagging two years ago forced all politicians to purchase iPods to fill with music which was more popular than them.

US National Debt mysteriously ‘rolls round’ to zero

At 2:41 yesterday afternoon, panic gripped the White House as the National Debt reached nine trillion, nine hundred and ninety-nine billion, nine hundred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars for the first time in the nation’s history. Officials immediately set about drawing up a raft of proposals to fix the problem, including tax increases, spending cuts and the invasion of Switzerland, but at 3:07 a junior staffer working in Times Square phoned and pointed out that actually the national debt stood at only a few hundred dollars, one of the lowest on Earth.

At first President Bush did not believe the news, and immediately flew out to New York to check the clock for himself. Some aides attempted to explain that the debt could be more accurately checked within the White House, but Bush insisted that he liked to get his information the same way the American People get theirs. One staff member is reported to have insisted that there will be plenty of time for that in February, but the President’s resolve was characteristically strong. At a press conference, he told reporters that this new era of prosperity spelled an end to the fears of foreclosure faced by millions of Americans and that his vision and the $700bn financial bailout should be credited with the reversal in the nation’s economic situation.

One journalist at the press conference asked if it was possible that the debt had “run out of digits and rolled round to zero”, to which the President responded that complex issues like the economy never have just one cause. “The design of the clock may have been a factor,” he conceded, “but it was [his] decisions and leadership that pushed it over the edge.”

Bush has promised a wave of tax cuts and spending increases in order to make sure that Americans see the benefits of the new solvency in the budget, however President-Elect Barack Obama has announced that he intends to reverse these, claiming that the reduction in debt is somehow “an illusion”. Early polling figures suggest that Obama’s popularity dropped seven points following the announcement.

Outbreak ‘could have been prevented’ by rubber tongue cleaners

The World Health Organisation has said that the cause of the recent outbreak which killed nearly a million people in the poorest parts of Africa was a tongue-borne virus which could have been prevented had these people had access to basic vital medical supplies such as toothbrushes with little rubberised tongue-cleaners on the back.

‘People don’t realise how vital these tongue-cleaners are,’ said the spokesperson. ‘They think they’re just a gimmick cooked up to sell more toothbrushes after people got wise to the whole “flexible neck” fad. But the truth is that a dirty tongue can be disastrous for your health. Remember that everything you eat goes over your tongue. In many ways, it’s simply a miracle that mankind survived this long without this technology.’

He went on to explain that he considered it ‘imperative’ to make tongue-cleaning brushes available to everyone, and has joined forces with the WWF to make this technology available to the animal kingdom. ‘Most animals have some form of tongue and yet only mankind have developed a pimpled rubber pad to clean it with. It is surely our sacred duty to provide this to our brethren in other species, before they are decimated by germs that live on the tongue and inside the cheeks, and those hard-to-reach places around the gumline.’

Fox News: Obama to end ‘pork barrel’ citing rules of Halal.

Trading halted as wasp enters London Stock Exchange

The credit crunch looks set to worsen today as news emerges that trading has been suspended on the floor of the Stock Exchange due to a wasp which has been loose above the exchange floor for the last four hours.

It is thought that the insect got into the building on the coat of a licensed broker, but authorities have yet to name a suspect. Trading had been in full force until shortly after lunchtime, at which point investor Brian Jameson “thought he heard something”. At first he suspected some kind of electrical fault, but ruled that out when he noticed the sound was moving.

When traders started to realise that there was a wasp in the room, they started to head for the exits, wary of being stung on the trading floor. This has lead to a situation known in financial circles as “a bee market”.

Some companies are, however, benefiting from the incident: those who trade on the Internet are reporting ’significantly’ less competition, and there are reports of a single investor still on the floor, who appears to be doing quite well for himself. So far, the wasp has stayed away from him, although nobody can guarantee how long his luck might hold. This has lead to speculation by some analysts that the wasp may have been introduced deliberately in order to reduce his competition.

Authorities now say that the wasp is buzzing about behind one of the large screens in place to show current stock prices, and is impossible to access. “It would be easy if we unplugged the screen,” they admitted, “but it’s been there ages and we’re not sure where all the wires go any more. Anyway, that one guy is still using it.” At present, there is no way to know how long the danger may last, or how much it could affect the value of British companies.

“At Least We’re Not Falling Into The Sea”, says North (also probably no longer makes sense)

Doctor, Liverpool fail to regenerate

Common maths errors “should be accepted”

According to an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement by Ken Smith, Professor of Criminology at Bucks New University, university lecturers should stop correcting the most common mathematical errors in students’ work and simply accept them as “variant” answers.

“Why shouldn’t 57 be a prime number?” he asks. “It looks like one, and a lot of my students think that it is. Surely that gives it as good a claim to be prime as any other number?”

Other proposals to “simplify” mathematics in his article include making 0÷0 equal to one, truncating π to four decimal places — 3.1415 — since that’s all anyone can remember, accepting “proof by example” as mathematically valid, and allowing students to “cancel the d” in calculus questions.

“I’ve seen mathematics teachers repeatedly correcting the same error in the same student’s work, and yet the problem would be solved if they simply accepted the 10 commonest errors as correct.

“Mathematics teachers are just too uptight about the subject to allow any change. Would it hurt them so much if 0.9 recurring was strictly less than one? That would seem pretty sensible to me.”

Scientists calculate formula for the perfect number of days’ detention

Scientists at the University of Westminster have calculated a scientific theory to work out how many days the government should detain a terror suspect without trial. According to Dr. Brown, the formula is D=T×(21/7)×1W, where D = number of days detention, W = number of days in a week and T = number of towers destroyed, and 21/7 is the date of the most recent attack on London.

The academics and mathematicians behind the study, commissioned by the Labour Party, say that the formula will be of use to anyone planning to detain criminals beyond the period normally allowed by law.

The scientists have stressed that the formula is only valid in Britain. Dr Blair was quick to point out that their research found that “in America, for example, imprisonment, or even torture, without trial should continue indefinitely”.

Human rights campaigners have welcomed the findings. A spokesperson for Liberty said “oh, well, if it’s maths then I guess it must be okay”.

42 Days: What do YOU think?

The 42-day detention without charge of terror suspects is a controversial measure, and it is hard to find anyone in government or the media whose opinion is not guided by an obvious vested interest. Therefore, in line with standard media practice, we have found two ordinary members of the public on opposite sides of the debate and given them both a chance to have their say here:

Mohammed Imami

I was arrested in Euston Station three months ago. I hadn’t done anything wrong. I was released without charge after 26 days, but my employers had already replaced me. My marriage had been strained to breaking point and I hadn’t been able to pay my bills. My life has been a total nightmare ever since. I cannot see any justification for the new measures.

Moyra Haynes

Well, as a woman who was raped by a man released without charge from police custody 39 days earlier, I have to say I’m in favour of the measures. I only wish we’d had them sooner. It turned out that my attacker hadn’t actually committed the crime he’d been arrested for, but that’s the power of these new measures — they still would have protected me.

Official Chinese Olympic report mentions only events China won

Following the discovery that the fireworks seen around the world at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics were computer generated, and the replacement of a singer Yang Peiyi with a more photogenic mime, details have begun to emerge of other alterations the Chinese have made to the Olympic Games’ image.

The official website so far makes no mention of the swimming events in which Chinese athletes managed only bronze and silver medals, and bloggers in Beijing are reporting that they can’t find the stadium anywhere in the city, leading to speculation that a more attractive city, possibly in Korea, has been used as a stand-in.

One intrepid Olympic correspondent has noted that only one of the Chinese synchronised diving team is ever available for interviews, and that his dressing room contains a fifteen metre high mirror.

Judge decides Mosely basement romp “not wrong”

Josef Fritzl seeking to hire same lawyer.

Inflatable church blows away, converts four (This was the week that two unrelated inflatables were in the news. I just related them.)

An inflatable church designed for Italian beachgoers became detached from its moorings last week and blew into a town centre. Three men and a woman having lunch in a local cafe at the time were struck by the blow-up house of God and were instantly converted to Roman Catholicism.

One of the victims said, “I was having a coffee outside, when suddenly I felt something large and rubbery brush past the back of my head. I was filled with this amazing feeling of love, and I suddenly felt that somehow everything was going to be alright.”

Not all of the group were happy about the conversion, however. One was previously a non-practicing Christian, and did not notice her conversion for two days, when she saw the Pope on television and couldn’t shake the feeling that his word was infallible. Theologians diagnosed her with Catholicism the following day. Since then she has read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in its entirety twice, but failed to beat her condition. “It’s been dreadful,” said another. “I was quite happy as an agnostic, but since becoming a Catholic I’ve been racked with guilt and had difficulty reconciling much of my knowledge with my new faith.”

Also struck by the floating house of worship was Abu Mohammed Ahmed, then a devout Muslim. He is considering suing the operators of the inflatable church, claiming that since his conversion he has been shunned by his family for apostasy and finds it difficult fitting in to his new church. He has, however, found that he quite likes pork, previously forbidden to him since pigs are considered unclean in Islam.

Tesco Store Sign Changes Again

A drive by the Plain English Campaign (PEC) to change signs in Tesco stores has caused mass confusion. The offending signs originally read “10 items or less”, but the PEC complained that “less” should only be used to modify mass nouns. Their proposed alternative, “10 items or fewer”, was deemed ‘too stilted’ by the store’s managers and “no more than 10 items” sounded ‘too negative’. A new sign was eventually unveiled that read “up to 10 items”, but this soon came under fire from the public, who no longer knew if they were allowed exactly ten items.

Tesco rejected a proposal from the UK Mathematics Trust to solve this problem using signs that read “n items, where 0 < n < 10″, when a focus group admitted it had them entirely stumped. The phrasing “10 items or not as many items as that” was rejected also, as was “No more items than you have fingers” as it was feared that the latter might offend the disabled, and nobody was sure if thumbs counted anyway.

In an interview with the BBC, a spokesperson for the Plain English Campaign was asked if it was true that there had actually been less than 5 complaints about the original signs. “I’m sorry,” was the response, “but I don’t know what you mean,” and he kept up this ridiculous charade until the interviewer gave an audible sigh and asked if fewer than 5 people had complained. The spokesperson then admitted that actually nobody at all had complained.

The signs currently read “zero, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 items”, and so far nobody has complained except for the man who makes the signs and two shoppers in Cambridge who were offended by the use of the so-called ‘Oxford comma’. Tesco management have admitted they neither know nor care what that means.

It is thought that all of this has cost Tesco just fewer than £2 million.

Lillian Ladele ruling is overturned on appeal

Threatening to fire a homophobic registrar who asked to be exempt from registering homosexual civil partnerships was not an act of discrimination by Islington Council, a court has decided. The ruling, published today by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, overturns a previous decision that found in favour of Miss Lillian Ladele. Miss Ladele intends to appeal today’s ruling to the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers acting for Miss Ladele say she was shunned by colleagues who mounted a witch hunt against her because of her homophobic beliefs on marriage. The original tribunal accepted the claims, but today that decision has been reversed by the EAT, chaired by its President, Mr Justice Elias. The EAT did accept that Islington had acted in an improper, unreasonable and extraordinary manner (paragraphs 62 and 77 of the judgment) but ruled it did not amount to discrimination.

The ruling

The ruling states: “The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her prejudices; they did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of these duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely held homophobic prejudice. The council were entitled to take the view that this would be inconsistent with their strong commitment to the principles of non-discrimination and would send the wrong message to staff and service users. There were clearly some unsatisfactory features about the way the council handled this matter. The claimant’s prejudice was strong and genuine and not all of management treated it with the sensitivity which they might have done.”

Squeezing Christians

The case was backed financially by The Bigotry Institute. Colin Hart, its Director, said: “Gay rights are not the only rights. If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out homophobes from the public sphere because of their prejudices.”

Councillor John Gilbert, Executive Member for Human Resources at Islington Council, said: “The council is extremely pleased with this decision which it believes to be the right one.”

Clues

1. Something odd — dessert begins before a drink. (4)
2. Charged particles — Si? (4)
3. Hitchhiker confused after 4 suggested (6)
4. Heard jolly greeting (2)
5. Heard a relative bet (4)
6. Swindled by headless chad (3)
7. Loathe jumbled articles (4)
8. One bit, say, where a drill might be kept (2,1,4)
9. Cotton’s starting deteriorating on the spindle (4)
10. Endless money for me! (3)
11. After end of bombs, Mandy’s innards found in bunker (4)
12. Warm, with expanded belly. Good times. (4)
13. Walking trees in advent setting (4)
14. Part of the mind has nothing in it (5)
15. Infidel to heartlessly attempt robbery (7)
16. Fuss after a party (3)
17. Polish singer in function (5)
18. Constant singer (1)
19. Mixed side on a plate (7)

You may not like our president but you’d better thank God he’s in office. My world - your world -is much safer because President Bush understands the need to seek out and punish those who have and would continue to harm us. … Just remember that you sleep in safety tonight because Americans, led by our president, are willing to die for your safety.
Gary Williams, Granbury, Texas

Only because the UK doesn’t have any oil.

Bush has turned the recession into a growing economy… That’s worth my vote any day.
Joe Brassard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

How’s that working out for you?

I voted for Bush because he is an honourable man who makes decisions based on principles, not polls and a man who can be taken at his word. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rarity among politicians.
Cathy Jones, Bayonet Point, Florida

He panders to his conservative base rather than doing what the public want.

President Bush may be polarizing in his international policies, but at least I can be certain that he will not allow terrorist actions to go unpunished…
Hayley, Dallas, Texas, USA

…whether they did it or not.

I voted for Bush to usher in the complete and utter destruction of the United States. Sometimes, you just have to tear it all down and start over again. No one will destroy America faster than Bush. Go Bush!
Tim, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Fair enough.

Your average European needs to watch the movie “Open Range” to better understand their American cousins. We all must defend Western Civilization before it is subsumed by the barbarians. The Europeans are going to (not) breed themselves out of existence and only the US will be left to carry on the civilization that has come to us all from the Greeks, through the Romans and brought into the modern age by the Europeans.
Mark Salas, Boswell, OK

You voted for Bush because you’re a crazy person. Okay.

He makes me feel safe.
Danielle, Illinois, USA

Well, he would. ‘Danielle’ is not a very Islamic-sounding name.

Bush is against abortion and that is all that matters to me. That is the only issue I consider and there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way. Some people say it is ignorant to disregard the other issues, and maybe it is, but that is how I feel.
Bertha, Upstate NY

As long as we’re clear.

If he had been president in the 90’s UBL [Usama bin Laden?] would not have gotten away with everything he has done. He will be caught by President Bush, that most American believe, even if the liberal media doesn’t want to report what Americans really feel. President Bush is Great!
Rebecca Saunders, Houston Texas

Certainly bin Laden never managed any major terrorist attacks durng Bush’s presidency. Unless us Democrats are forgetting something, as Hayley seems to think.

I voted for Bush because I am a Bible-thumping right-wing gun lunatic who hates gays, isn’t that right? That’s not actually true, but it doesn’t matter what the reality is, because that’s how the European media will depict it. According to them, if I don’t agree with pacifism and appeasement, I must be an inbred redneck idiot. So I suppose that’s why I voted for Bush: I am an idiot.
Gonzalo Rodriguez, London, UK

As long as we’re clear.

I voted for George Bush (to the disapproving consternation of my European cousins) because an election is a choice, and the two candidates offered two different approaches to leadership.

I think they wanted more than “because there was an election”.

Ever since an attempt was made in the 1770s to tax our favourite breakfast beverage, Americans have never liked being told what we should do, or how we should do it.

From what I have read, I expect the majority of the European populace, most of whom I assume were born post-war, not to approve of the American people’s decision. For insight, however, I suggest that holidays or other visits to the US not be limited to Boston, New York and Los Angeles.
Arthur Xanthos, New York City, USA

Anyone?

Because he doesn’t believe that our foreign policy needs a global test. Europe needs to get on board with us or get left behind!
Ben Rice, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Do you know what foreign policy is?

Staunch supporter of economic freedom for all Americans and freedom for all nations 
Miek Kondracki, American in Poland

Except Iraq. And Afghanistan. And parts of Cuba.

And America.

I voted for George because: 
1. He is intelligent. He graduated from Harvard Business School. They don’t give out free passes there. 

Yeah…

2. He has character. I grew up in backwoods Texas where bank loans were granted upon a handshake. Your word was your bond.
Warren, Salisbury, NC, USA

How’s that working out for you?

I voted for Bush because I will not have Bruce Springsteen, Gerhard Schroeder, Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore telling me who to vote for.
Peter Sosniak, New York

Except for bin Laden.

The US was founded on Judeo-Christian values and a majority of Americans still hold close to these. Some may want to deny this, some may be deceived by what they see on the television, and some actually may not know this. This is hard to comprehend for a lot Europeans who have discarded these values and embraced secularism.
Michael, Texas

You voted Bush because you don’t understand the way your country works. Makes sense.

Jesus Christ, the American flag, the Ten Commandments, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are as sacred as the Bill of Rights.

So, not sacred, then.

Only President Bush and the Republicans have consistently stood up for these ideals.
David Belland, USA

Liberty? Really?

And Bush has shown the heart to bring democracy to two of the worst places on earth - Afghanistan and Iraq.
John, Boston, Mass, USA

Heart, maybe. Competence would have been a useful ally.

Bush is our president, we elected him, we care about religion, and Europe better get used to it because we’re not about to let you vote!
John, Stockholm, Sweden

Hang on, didn’t John from Boston just say… oh, forget it.

I voted for Mr Bush because he stands for the values as defined by the word of God.
Mike McF, Frisco, Texas, USA

Such as slavery.

I hope his second term will bring peace and democracy to the troubled regions of the world and domestically bring greater prosperity not only to America but also to the Third world.
Ben, New York

That would have been nice.

To the rest of the world, whose comments have been nothing but disparaging: You simply do not understand Americans! You never have, and I doubt that you will ever fully understand our thought process…
Leah, Richmond, VA

I expect so.

I voted for President Bush, because what others saw as stubbornness and arrogance… I saw as strength and perseverance.
Laura, USA

As long as we’re clear.

I voted for Bush because I could not stand the elitist media and the pundits telling me that he was a fool. I was tired of people like Michael Moore trying to influence my decision by making movies that had only one purpose - tear down the president. I disagree with many of his policies and would not have voted for him except for the fact that I am sick and tired of these people telling me that I am not smart enough to figure out for myself what is right and what is wrong. The Republicans should thank Moore and give him a prominent table at the inauguration!
Michael C, NY, USA

It just got on my nerves so much that people who only get a sliver of heavily bias coverage about America could hold such closed-minded opinions about our elections. Maybe four more years will give you a chance to open your minds to new ideas and consider that there are Americans who have a right to believe differently than you.
Andrew, Washington, DC

So you won’t be voting for a black liberal in four years, then?

I voted for Bush, so that he can clean up all his mess during his second term. No-one else should be made responsible for all his folly and self-disillusioned war on terror. The only war that the world needs to fight is to eradicate poverty, diseases, genocide, atrocity and many unjust situations in many parts of the world. These are the real terrors that breeds human terrorists. Go to the roots of the cause. Don’t try to be a fool to treat symptoms of these terrors.
Jaime Stuart

He’s not an unruly child, you twat, he’s the President! While you’re teaching him a lesson which he won’t get, other people are being tortured horribly to death. You twat.

He needs to win the heart of the world by fighting this war more broadly and involving every one with a freedom flag. We hail Bush. 
Saurabh K, Santa Cruz, CA

And, by Godwin’s Law, that is the end.

The problem I have with it is that there’s no difference between a word that is swearing and a word that is not other than how people react to it. I’ve been over this before. The actual meaning of the word is irrelevant, as demonstrated by the relative offensiveness of ‘poo’, ‘crap’ and ’shit’. So if the words aren’t offensive because of what they mean then why is it? It’s arbitrary. It’s made up. Someone decided ‘fuck’ was offensive, so you started taking offence at it. So now it’s offensive because you take offence rather than the other way around. That’s self-reinforcing nonsense. It’s basically a religion. So if you want to legislate based on some arbitrary list of words you’ve decided you don’t want to hear, I see no reason to listen to you.

Here’s one:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make urgent representation to the Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, the broadcasting institutions operating in the UK and film regulators, asking them to stop the use of unnecessary swearing and bad language in their productions (including those available for downloading from websites) and to urge providers of user-generated content to take similar action.

…

 

In May 2008 the Radio Times conducted an opinion poll, which found that 69% of people believed there is too much swearing on TV. In November 2008 the Sunday Express launched a Clean Up TV Crusade focusing on the excessive use of swearing and the Sunday Telegraph conducted a poll which found that 56% of people thought the f*** word should never be used on TV. The Office of Communications (Ofcom) in its Communications Market reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 found that the majority of people believe there is too much swearing on TV.

…

John Beyer of mediawatch-uk

 

Haha, ‘the f*** word’. You won’t even use the word in its correct context. Even when there’s ambiguity. You might mean ‘fart’. Or ‘feet’. And let’s leave out the question of what percentage of Radio Times readers are grannies. Of course they’ll say there’s too much swearing.

But that’s a sensible one — reduce swearing. Fair enough. This one is madder:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ban swearing on TV and Radio.

Too many ‘F’ words. Why? Whats the point? Get back to good pubic standards of decency. Stop the Ross-dross and promote proper use of the English language. Stop swearing on the Radio and TV!

Chris K

It’s saddening that people genuinely think that this is appropriate language in which to petition the Prime Minister. It’s also a bit of a worry that they equate ‘talking like I do’ with ‘proper use of the English language’.

And this one is even madder:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ban all Swearing in public places .

Ban all swearing in public places and especially on the British Broadcasting Corporation, to bring back a standard of decency and set an example to the younger generation.

Mrs Margaret Elward of housewife

This has six signatories, including a ‘Mister Why on earh is the PM being petitioned for this?’ and someone claiming to be called ‘because we care about standards in our Country, you obviously don’t’. Well, they have a definition of ’standards’ which means arbitrarily excluding certain words from our vocabularies (but not ‘knowing how petitons work’), and I’m sorry but I have bigger things to worry about than that, and that’s before we get onto the bigger issues with allowing the government to ban words they disapprove of.

Really, who are these people? “Set an example to the younger generation”? Do you really think that the biggest problem with young people is that they (we?) swear too much? It just doesn’t make any sense. Even if someone stops us swearing, we’ll just make up some other words and shout those in exactly the same context, and then presumably half of them will try to get the new words added to the list and the other half will say ‘well, that’s not the f-star-star-star word, so that’s okay by me,’ and go back to watching Father Ted.

It’s ridiculous. Why do people insist on acting stupid?

Oh, wait. I think I know the answer to that one.

Neither is fun to read. Quacks do love to go on, possibly because simply saying a lot of things is an effective way to stop sceptics from being able to counter them all — it takes a second to say ‘miasmas exist’ without a reference but it takes a good five minutes to properly explain why they don’t. Throw in a stock ‘reference’ and a response might take an hour to craft. Of course, you can just say ‘prove it’ but that won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already have a healthy respect for science. It also doesn’t help that the English is somewhat broken. Possibly it is a second language. (In the quote below I have refrained from adding ‘[sic]‘ after errors, as it would be appended to every other sentence and just look like Vithoulkas had been at the sherry.)

Apparently, Randi fell ill and the challenge had to be postponed, by which time a change of management meant the centre would not be willing to participate. I can sympathise with this — the research unit I work for has this kind of problem all the time. Almost exactly this has happened at least once. That’s one of the problems, unfortunately, with doing proper science: everything has to be planned so meticulously that the slightest detail can throw it out and cause long delays. Vithoulkas claims that this was a trick to avoid ever having the experiment:

In 7.4.2006 Mr. Gindis wrote to Mr. Randi in order to signal to him that the homeopathic team was ready to start… But instead Randi suspended all activities of the experiment attributing it to his supposedly state of health!

Mr. Randi knew very well that this period was crucial for us to start the experiment and we had made this urgency explicit by sending several e-mails urging them that it was necessary to go ahead immediately. But Mr. Randi needed …six months “to recover” denying to assign a collaborator.

James Randi is 80 years old. Is it really that hard to believe he might be ill?

Vithoulkas and his team refused to accept this change to the schedule and have decided to do the experiment without Randi, which Randi.org quite accurately described as a withdrawal from the challenge. Randi points out that as his foundation is the one offering a million dollar prize, he gets to set the terms. Vithoulkas has decided that this is unfair and then, brilliantly, written Randi a retraction for him to post. He hasn’t. It seems to me that as a homeopath Vithoulkas is unfamiliar with the problems faced by real scientists doing actual clinical trials and is presumably used to ploughing on in an ad-hoc fashion and knocking the whole ’study’ out in a week.  I can see how in that case Doing It Right might look like stalling.

Still, whoever is right, I presume that since homeopathy4health is now in the business of chastising sceptics who she feels are shirking from a challenge, she will be immediately getting six bottled remedies and negotiating with Andy Lewis to find a trusted third party so she can participate in his far easier, lower-stakes challenge.

Otherwise frankly she’s fooling nobody but herself (and that’s only because herself is so very credulous).

The progressive secularisation of the cultural environment and the accompanying decline in religious practice means that religious belief of any kind tends now to be treated more as a private eccentricity than as the central and formative element in British society that it is.

No, it isn’t. It’s Winter Solstice season, when almost every religion ever invented has a major festival, and still almost nobody I know cares at all about religion (except for those who are against it). That would probably be because it’s a kind of private eccentricity. On account of the progressive secularisation of the cultural environment and the accompanying decline in religious practice. Religion is so important in public life that more people will shop online than attend church on Christmas Day and the Bible Society reckon that one generation from now there will be less than 90,000 people in church on Christmas. That’s less people than consult life coaches (it says here). You can’t simultaneously claim that people have stopped practicing religion and that religion is a “central element” in society.

‘Private eccentricity’ is a phrase I’ve never heard anyone use about religion until I read this, but I like it and might have to start.

Over the past 40 years, social prejudice against Catholics has largely disappeared, and Catholics have been fully assimilated into the mainstream of British life.

Good for them. Well done. But don’t worry, keep ranting and you can still be a social pariah if you like. And you can live in a make-believe world where God loves you and religion is a central and formative element in British society, and where phrases like ‘central and formative element in British society’ mean something. Won’t that be nice?

Intellectual and cultural acceptance is another matter; and there is a widely perceived conflict between religious belief (and the Catholic Church in particular) on the one hand and the prevailing notion of what it means to be a “liberal” and tolerant society on the other.

Hang on there, Cardinal Fear-Quotes. You’re saying that people saying “infidels will burn in hell” is at odds with liberalism and tolerance? Of course it is. You don’t promote tolerance by dividing people into arbitrary groups, giving them all different rules about how to live, and telling all of them that the only way to save everyone else from eternal torture is to make them follow your rules. That’s how you start a war. Having lots of people with deeply-held convictions all at odds with each other is probably not a good way to make peace, is it?

Leaving aside the polemical views of Professor Richard Dawkins and his fellow atheists on the essential irrationality of all religious belief, …

That’s a bit like saying ‘leaving aside the crazy rantings of Harold Shipman on the idea that two fours are eight’. You can’t just pick the most controversial person you can think of who holds an opinion and pretend that the opinion is as controversial as him. Religious belief is irrational. (I realise my word isn’t helping here as I’d probably be as controversial as Dawkins if I had his publicity.) You believe in an invisible magic man who made the universe, handed out a bunch of cryptic rules, and now spends his time appearing to uneducated people in shrines and not saying anything. You want to tell me that’s rational?

…there is a current dislike of absolutes in any area of human activity, including morality (though this does not apparently preclude an absolute ban on anything that can be interpreted as racial, sexual or gender discrimination).

So, there’s only a dislike of absolutes that you made up or read into a laughably out-of-date book, then. As long as we’re clear. I shall steer clear of stoning people to death for opening their eggs at the wrong end, then.

In part, this dislike stems from an entirely understandable revulsion for totalitarianism; and there is no denying that too absolutist an approach to ethical problems leads to intolerance. But as the ongoing debate about faith schools has demonstrated, the intolerance of liberal sceptics can be as repressive as the intolerance of religious believers.

Yeah, we’re so intolerant of ignorant people forcing unsupported ideas and dangerous ideology on vulnerable children (and you can read the bottom of this post to see what Murphy-O’Connor thinks we should do with vulnerable children) and calling it ‘educating’ them. We’re also intolerant of someone killing their daughter for her choice of boyfriend. Where do you want to draw the line? Let’s hear it: at what point do you think an injustice becomes great enough that we shouldn’t ignore it as ‘their culture’? Is there a line in your head?

Partly I’m just baffled that someone can type “the intolerance of liberal sceptics” without straining their irony glands and having to have a little lie down.

What should be the limits of tolerance in a liberal society is a key question in the wider debate about “multiculturalism”. Because of the Catholic experience of what it means to be a credal minority, British Catholics are likely to sympathise with those ethnic and religious groups who want to retain their cultural and religious distinctiveness in a British environment.

The issue of integration is made more pressing as a result of the migrations from eastern Europe, Africa and South America over the past few years. This has been most vividly demonstrated by the arrival in Britain of more that 500,000 Catholics from Poland, and they alone will change the face of British Catholicism.

Well, there’s them, and the millions of Muslims who’ve turned up and dressed differently than most British people and built mosques everywhere. Although yes, certainly most of the public debate has centred around Polish Catholics. Apparently they’re taking our plumbing jobs.

The growth of ethnic chaplaincies, especially in London, offers a support that is familiar, but, as with previous migrations, integration into existing communities is already taking place through school and work.

…and must be stopped at once! How can you say that and still support faith schools? It’s totally self-cont– oh, forget it, it’s like trying to teach a Lotto machine to count.

For Catholics, the conflict with liberal opinion focuses at the present time on two issues on which the Catholic position is characterised as intolerant and (even worse) “reactionary”: the absolute value of every human life; and the central importance of the family and the institution of marriage as fundamental pillars of a rightly ordered society.

You mean, your arbitrary and unscientific assertion that a cluster of cells none of which are brain counts as a ‘person’, and your even more baseless and frankly rather offensive claims that homosexual sex is wrong? Yeah, those are sticking points.

Many other Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, broadly share the Catholic Church’s position on these issues, but I think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church bears the brunt of “liberal” hostility on both fronts.

Maybe that’s because you write about it in the Independent. Also, you have a Pope. If Pope Ratzinger (I’ll call him Pope Benedict XVI if he’ll call me Captain Marvellous) just once acted Infallible and said being gay and having abortions were basically okay then the problem would halve overnight. Can’t really do that for Islam. Islam’s an idea with a life of its own and that can’t be reasoned with. Catholicism has a leader and a structure full of people we can pester about it. Just a shame they’re all stubborn, bigoted fools.

One area of specific concern for the Catholic Church is marriage and family life.

You mean, hating the gays. Come on: it’s a spade, say the word ’spade’.

The British enthusiasm for debate and tolerance of alternative views has led to an acceptance of diversity and pluralism. This is welcome, but if an acceptance of diversity and pluralism becomes an end in itself there is a grave risk that long-accepted cultural norms, such as marriage and family, are undermined to the detriment of society as a whole.

“People like to be accepting, and that’s good, as long as they’re not accepting of any of the things on my List Of People I Hate For No Reason.”

The vocal minority who argue that religion has no role in modern British society portray Catholic teaching on the family as prejudiced and intolerant to those pursuing alternatives.

Because you hate the gays?

Catholic teaching is clear that all unjust discrimination is wrong, but this teaching cannot accept the relativistic acceptance that all approaches are equivalent.

So presumably you’ll be immediately stopping believing a load of made up rubbish and from now on waiting for evidence, yes?

British society champions tolerance and freedom, but that freedom is dependent on responsibility.

You have freedom to do whatever you want, on the condition that you don’t use it to have homosexual sex? I wonder if Murphy-O’Connor has read Catch-22.

With the exception of the US Evangelical movement, I can’t think of even one mainstream religious leader who I have a lower opinion of than Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. He shouldn’t be given a platform to air his views; he should be sidelined for them. In fact, no,