Spectacular Crystal Ball Fail

Newsweek have recently been uploading articles from archived past issues onto their website, though I'm sure Clifford Stoll wishes they hadn't. Here's a snippet from his 1995 piece offering predictions on the future for the internet.

Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.

Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.

On hearing that his dismissal of computers being used in schools and the notion of online shopping was being digitalised, do you reckon he winced much?

Link Tank 13/11

Featuring nothing alcohol-related, welcome to the first ever 'on the wagon' Link Tank.

The future could belong to China

G20 leaders were protected in South Korea by six goldfish

#twitterjoketrial? That's nothing. Palestinian faces life sentence for Facebook blasphemy

Chinese city offers cash for picking up cigarette butts ... unintended consequences ensue

Illinois woman arrested for attacking policeman with a "rigid feminine pleasure device"

Perhaps she bought it at America's first sex toy drive-thru

War on drugs update: Eat a bagel, lose your baby

The new mind bleach - Tetris

"In 20 years, chocolate will be a rare delicacy" says someone not familiar with economic theory

People from other races really do all look the same

Incredibly, some Dutch people still don't know what marijuana smells like

Six dangers more scary than those people are actually afraid of

And one which would have been in last week if I hadn't been packing ...

The Kiwi Green Party think they own all children, homes and shops

Fishing For Tiddlers This Weekend?

Going fishing this weekend? Don't forget the tweezers to hold your dick with when having a slash, then.


Yes, it's those anaemic fucknuckles at PETA again. When they're not killing animals (too much hassle as they interrupt sleb-chasing), or taunting the families of swine flu victims, it seems they're not averse to primary school level insults.

[...] we wondered whether men who spend their time on a wet riverbank holding an extendable phallic object and being cruel to fish may be engaging in another form of overcompensation. Our top brains have taken a wealth of research findings and coupled them with the average size of men's genitalia in the UK to create a special formula which calculates how those who inflict pain and suffering on innocent animals likely measure up against those who don't.

That's right. If you are an angler, you quite obviously smell, and possess a tiny cock (what female angler inadequacies are, they don't say). Or, as one of PETA's 'testimonials' puts it.

"I got jealous just handling the maggots", Mike, Newcastle

Hmm. Now, although it all sounds very scientific, PETA, I think those who fish actually do so for the relaxation and solitude/camaraderie (delete as applicable).

Oh yeah, and also because hooking sea kittens for fun pisses off pasty-faced, tofu-nibbling, socially-inadequate, bleeding-heart, perennially-tearful, effete vegans something rotten.

(In case you were wondering, no I don't fish. But I do eat rabbit - lovely, fluffy-eared, gently lolloping rabbit. Delicious)

The Bad Guys Won, Folks (Redux) #twitterjoketrial

In light of today's unbelievable judgment in the case of Paul Chambers - the man who posted what was quite obviously a joke on Twitter - I make no excuses for ripping yards from an article penned here in July.

My middle eastern terrorist cousin, Al-Dicka Puddlicoteem, tells me that he has dedicated himself to destroying the lives of the western infidel by instilling fear in the entire population by way of jihad. He reports great success.

By contrast, my Irish provo nationalist uncle, Paddy O'Puddlecote, tends to sit in his braces and dirty wing collar shirt these days, supping warm Murphys and bemoaning the 'fecking English'. He's been a right bitter bastard since the 80s ended.

To explain, here is a map of Britain around about 1995.


Look at that. Proud, upstanding, full of life. Unbeatable.

Paddy O'Puddlecote blew up shopping centres; destroyed pubs in suburbia; bombed regiments and horses close to Buck House; raised merry hell in London on a regular basis. But the British people refused to buckle. We carried on as before, determined to make sure the bastards would never win. Our lives would not be compromised by a bunch of hideous psychopathic lunatics.

Our strength and resilience was respected throughout the world. Paddy hated that.

Here is the same country in 2010.


See what's missing? Yep. A spine.

The brave and colourful vigour and resistance has been replaced by an anaemic fearful cowardice, led by a cabal of uniformed dickheads and governed by the superlatively risk-averse.

Al-Dicka is ecstatic. All he has to do these days is fire a few ranty e-mails around, get some beardy lunatic to badly set fire to his shoes and the country goes into meltdown, gibbering in the corner like an extra from Carrie.

And now, not only are our feeble-minded authorities cowering in terror, they have also consigned our world-renowned sense of humour in adversity (and freedom of speech with it) to the proverbial dustbin recycling centre, as the Heresiarch points out.

If you don't instantly recognise that this is a joke, then you're probably not English. You'll be German, or possibly Canadian. I'm not going to analyse its comedic structure, or how it plays subtly on ideas of impotence, self-importance and bombast in the tradition of Tony Hancock, or how the exclaimation mark at the end is a dead giveaway. All that matters is that it's an instantly recognisable joke. (Though you can find a thorough linguistic analysis here.)

A joke. That's all. With no victim, no person offended, and no cost to the country except by those who have spent our taxes in pursuing Chambers in the first place.

Forget Chambers' joke. If I were a terrorist, tears would be running down my cheeks today as I hilariously watched the self-inflicted carnage to British mettle and way of life being played out for the world to see. I'd be ecstatic that my threats had reduced the country to attacking itself and destroying more fundamental liberties than I could ever dream of harming on my own. All without my dying and without even having to buy fertiliser or nails. I'd call it a big win. HUGE, in fact.

Not only that, it has also brought our system of justice into disrepute, as succinctly articulated by CharonQC.

[...] if our courts really think the tweet Paul Chambers posted on Twitter was a real threat and ‘menacing’ (Police/Airport staff did not appear to do so) then we really need to do some serious thinking about our civil liberties, our freedoms, and our stance on terror…

This is a disgrace and undermines my faith in our legal system…and, I suspect, many others will be of this view as well.

Yep. I'm there already, and the overwhelming consensus - from right, left and centre of the political spectrum - is of the same opinion.

In fact, the biggest joke in the curious affair of the Twitter joke trial is that the justice system itself - and most especially Judge Jacqueline Davies - has now become the joke to end them all (I could have chosen any of around a hundred tweets already).

If politicians had any sense, they would pull heavy strings in this case to restore faith and sanity to the judiciary, but since the vast majority of MPs are quite incapable of independent thought, that's unlikely.

So instead, today we have witnessed a crucifixion of civil liberties, freedom of speech, and trust in the judiciary to identify common sense and act upon it.

Victory, once again, to the bad guys. And yet further down does our national pride spiral.

Chambers is hoping to take this to the High Court, but that requires many crispy oncers. Donations are being gratefully received HERE.

UPDATE: Other less, err, 'tabloid' articles on the same subject:

Alex Massie - The Epic Justice Fail
Dungeekin - The Joke's Over
Crazy Elmont - Justice Isn't Blind, It's Retarded

Well, That's Settled Then

Yesterday's rundown of responses in relation to dentist enrolment forms showed a certain amount of confusion on the part of dentists and their professional bodies. However, there was one reply I hadn't received at time of writing, that being in response to a letter sent to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's office.

In timely fashion, it materialised today. And far from being the usual evasive, wishy-washy affair, I think this could be called an unequivocal stance (emphases mine).

Dear Mr Puddlecote,

Thank you for your email of 1 November to the Department of Health about dentistry and information relating to the patient’s tobacco consumption and weekly unitary alcohol intake. I have been asked to reply.

It is not a mandatory requirement, but good practice, for dentists to collect information on patients’ tobacco consumption and alcohol intake. The dentist will take no further action where the patient declines.

The Department is not aware of anyone being refused NHS dental treatment on the basis of not providing information on tobacco consumption and alcohol intake, and it would strongly urge anyone who is being refused dental treatment to complain to their local primary care trust.

I hope you find this reply helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Gatty
Customer Service Centre

Indeed it is helpful, Mr Gatty. It proves categorically that my recent Dental Pricktitioner correspondent is not only wrong, but also acting in contravention of DH guidelines as well as, possibly, breaking codes of conduct pertaining to his registration as a dentist.

I suggest it might be worth cutting out and keeping those words for future reference. Such indisputable advice from an impeccable authority is certain to instantly silence even the most intimidatory and stubborn dental jobsworth.

If you're reading this, Snakey, you may find it fun to revisit the practice who refused to enrol you and smugly demand that they do so. Although, considering the potentially painful nature of backlash from a chastened dentist, perhaps a complaint would be less risky.

In Case You Missed These ...

Here are two articles which are simply too good to leave till Saturday.

Firstly (via Belinda), are the MSM starting to realise that 'science' isn't all it's cracked up to be? Writing in the FT, John Kay puts his finger adroitly on the problem of vested interests debasing science by producing fantasy dressed up as fact.

The studies I have cited are carefully referenced and use advanced statistical techniques. But sophistication of method is used to torture data to reveal conclusions that do not obviously follow from them, but which fit either the researchers’ preconceptions or the sponsor’s policy objectives, or both.

Free registration is required, but it's well worth it to read Kay destroying the myth (which lackwit MPs believe without question) that modern day studies are anything more than a bastardisation of ethics in pursuit of a payday.

Also, if you have 30 minutes free this lunchtime - and if you haven't heard it already - check out Smoking Hot's recording of UK Border Agency staff employing bully-boy tactics towards a British citizen returning from a shopping trip in the EU.

Arrested for trying to exercise his freedom of movement, worried officials then refuse a request for a recorded interview after realising that he fully understands his rights and isn't willing to let himself be trampled on.

Dentists Have No Right To Demand Personal Information, After All

Following my recent piece about dentist enrolment forms - and prompted specifically by the fact that commenters told of being denied treatment for wishing to keep personal details, err, personal - I was intrigued as to policy in this area of NHS care, so made a few enquiries.

The reply to my FOI request on the matter popped up in my inbox yesterday, the relevant highlights being (emphasis mine):

[What is the] official Department of Health guidance to dentists on the procedure for dealing with patients who refuse, or are unwilling to divulge, details of their tobacco consumption and/or weekly alcohol unitary intake?

The Department has not issued any guidance. As stated above, it is not a mandatory requirement but good practice for dentists to collect information on patients’ tobacco consumption and alcohol intake. The dentist will take no further action where the patient declines.

By 'no further action', one assumes that dentists are supposed to respect the patient's decision and carry on regardless.

Which wasn't the experience of Snakey in the comments last month.

I restated that I did not wish to fill the form in. After I had sat down one of the receptionists went off to tell my dentist about my lack of form filling obedience, like the good little drone she was. When she came back she imperiously demanded that I step towards the reception desk. She then told me that my dentist would not treat me unless I filled the form in. I walked out.

I now have no dentist as I still refuse to fill in the form. I don't actually drink but that's beside the point. They have no right to refuse me treatment just because I won't go along with their little game.

Indeed, so why are dentists under the impression that such info is to be treated as mandatory despite the DH saying that it isn't?

The FOI reply pointed to this document [pdf], issued to all dentists last year, which contains chapters on 'Stop smoking guidance' (p.38) and 'Alcohol misuse support' (p.40-41). In the case of smoking, the advice to dentists is:

• All patients should have their smoking status (current, ex-, never smoked) established and checked at regular intervals. This information should be recorded in the patient’s clinical notes.
• All smokers and those chewing tobacco should be advised of the value of stopping and the risks to their health of continuing. The advice should be clear, firm and personalised. It is essential that the message to all smokers is complete cessation
• All smokers should be advised on the value of attending their local NHS Stop Smoking Services for specialised help in stopping. Smokers who are interested and motivated to stop should be referred to these services.

Interestingly, however, there is no mention at all of cataloguing the alcohol intake of dental patients, just the usual rehashing of recommended units which, as we know, are about as scientific as 'think-of-a-number-and-halve-it'.

'Tis true, then. There is nothing in DH guidance that demands dentists take such info before affording treatment. Especially in the case of alcohol where they aren't even advised to record it in the first place.

And nowhere is it even hinted that treatment should be denied entirely.

The British Dental Health Foundation, however, replied to my query on the subject with an attempted explanation as to why dentists do so, albeit one which doesn't hold much water.

If the dentist is unable to access the information he may feel necessary to maintain your oral health and dental care he could decide that he would therefore be unable to treat you.

A trifle melodramatic, doncha think? Considering that the BDHF point out that the data is used by dentists to "look out for any signs for early detection" of oral cancer, one presumes they could check for those signs equally well, with or without knowing the patient's drinking and smoking habits, simply by assuming the worst. Especially since, as VGIF highlighted, oral cancer is a rare occurrence anyway.

A bigger clue presented itself in a reply from a representative of the Dental Professionals Association (the 'sniffy' one), though. Targets.

Dentists have had a number of performance indicators added to their contracts, including smoking cessation targets. We know that manipulation of the contract in this way does give rise to odd side-effects however we have not come across the problem you describe.

Which makes me rather more of an expert on patients being denied treatment than a body employed in the industry itself. Three commenters here pointed to either being refused or being effectively bullied (my experience), yet the DPA have never heard of such a thing. How odd.

In summation, while it is clear that NHS dentists are refusing treatment for patient non-declaration of smoking status and alcohol unitary intake, they aren't mandated to do so under current DH guidelines.

I'll leave the last word on this to Sam Duncan who articulated my thoughts perfectly in the comments to an article here last week.

Sure, if I come along to you proposing a commercial transaction and you don't like the colour of my money you can tell me to sod off for no other reason. It's a fundamental principle of the free market - of freedom - and, as we know, one that's under threat from so-called “rights” that are nothing of the sort.

But if you lay claim to my money, taken from me under threat of force on the pretext that you're providing a vital public service, then the tables are turned, matey. You have a duty to do the job, because I (apparently) have a right to it, and tough luck if I'm a bit uppity and won't answer your irrelevant questions.

Quite.

Something to bear in mind next time an NHS dentist - who you are paying via taxation - threatens a refusal to perform his part of the contract simply because you'd prefer to keep your lifestyle choices private.