INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our
Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
-
Trinoc
- Posts: 239
- Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am
#262
Post
by Trinoc » April 15th, 2010, 2:56 pm
Maria wrote:That's a good point, Trinoc.
I'm assuming my latest blog won't be taken too seriously - it was intended to be facetious.
Of course. It was a welcome relief from ploughing through all of the newspaper reports, many of which just copied the same stuff, often with little regard for accuracy and context.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#263
Post
by getreal » April 15th, 2010, 5:35 pm
Did I hear correctly that the BCA have dropped their case?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#264
Post
by Alan H » April 15th, 2010, 5:53 pm
Yes! And the Guardian have reinstated Simon's original article! See:
Chiropractic Awareness Week 2008-2010
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan C.
- Posts: 10356
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
#266
Post
by Alan C. » April 16th, 2010, 3:08 pm
I see you got a mention in Ben Goldacres' piece in todays' Guardian.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#267
Post
by Alan H » April 16th, 2010, 10:33 pm
While Simon can put his feet up and concentrate on changing nappies...
Blogging:
Zeno's Blog » Bronfort on: Ear Infections
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan C.
- Posts: 10356
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
#268
Post
by Alan C. » April 21st, 2010, 3:50 pm
Got to dash out to work now, but just got this email (something to watch tonight)
Dear friends,
The Libel Reform Campaign is hosting the official Free Speech Hustings of the General Election 2010 tonight at the Free Word Centre, London from 6.30 pm. This is your chance to hear representatives from the 3 main parties answer your questions on libel reform and free speech.
If you want to ask a question to the politicians please twitter it to #libelreform, or email
[email protected].
Details of how to watch the debate via our video or audio stream are here:
http://tinyurl.com/y6lrx53
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
-
grammar king
- Posts: 869
- Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am
#269
Post
by grammar king » April 22nd, 2010, 12:25 am
I watched the debate, although I don't know an awful lot about the topic at hand. The Labour guy was very wishy washy, didn't really say much at all except defend Labour's record on free speech by bringing up the Freedom Of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. The Tory guy seemed very much on the side of the corporations to me, and every time he said something about manifesto pledges it was always language like "we will consult about doing this" or "we will consider doing that". Unsurprisingly, Evan Harris was the star of the night.
Oh, and one of my questions I submitted over twitter got read out
-
Trinoc
- Posts: 239
- Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am
#270
Post
by Trinoc » April 22nd, 2010, 11:37 am
grammar king wrote:Oh, and one of my questions I submitted over twitter got read out
I noticed that ... and the barely-disguised sneer in the voice of the announcer at the fact that you used a pseudonym. Clearly someone used to the ways of the Internet (not).
I'd hoped for at least a token effort from the Labour and Conservative spokesmen, but of course these were people put up by their parties to electioneer. I was much more impressed by the pair who spoke at Westminster Skeptics a week or two ago, but I suspect the waffle and evasion we got last night was a much closer view of what would really happen with either of those parties in power: sweeping it under the carpet as much as possible. It's ironic that both main parties constantly accuse the LDs of fudging.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#271
Post
by Alan H » May 15th, 2010, 6:50 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan C.
- Posts: 10356
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
#273
Post
by Alan C. » May 24th, 2010, 6:13 pm
Good news it today's Times,
Libel must be rebalanced in the scales of justice There's a short video as well as the article.
On Thursday my Private Member’s Defamation Bill will be published to help the Government to review the law. There will, of course, be professional resistance.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
-
Dave B
- Posts: 17809
- Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
#274
Post
by Dave B » May 24th, 2010, 7:28 pm
I certainly hope this goes through. It amazed me to hear that theatre critics and restaurant reviewers were being threatened with libel for giving their, claimed at least, honest opinion. I believe that this was mainly in the US (no surprise there then) but was creeping over here.
Not that I ever give critics much credence anyway.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#275
Post
by Alan H » May 25th, 2010, 12:46 am
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#276
Post
by Alan H » June 7th, 2010, 9:02 pm
Blogging:
Zeno's Blog » The Long and Winding Road
It's a long post, but hopefully interesting! It brings you up yo date on the progress (or otherwise!) of my complaints.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#277
Post
by Alan H » June 26th, 2010, 4:38 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#278
Post
by Alan H » June 28th, 2010, 11:27 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#279
Post
by Alan H » July 11th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Blogging:
Zeno's Blog » The beginning of the end? Part two
...or how the GCC decided that making claims for which there is no evidence is OK by them and how it's bothersome to have to ask what its chiros meant by things they didn't understand.
Oh! And sciatica and RSI.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
grammar king
- Posts: 869
- Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am
#280
Post
by grammar king » July 11th, 2010, 10:59 pm
That's worrying Alan. The GC are clearly not going as far as their remit requires.
-
jdc
- Posts: 516
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm
#281
Post
by jdc » July 12th, 2010, 8:41 pm
grammar king wrote:That's worrying Alan. The GC are clearly not going as far as their remit requires.
Didn't someone once try to find out who to complain to about the GCC?
Alan H?