Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

..and I thought The Sun couldn't get worse

thanx brenda

Fatter, Dumber and more apathetic than ever?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Creationists and Plate Tectonics

This morning  "In our Time"  Melvyn Bragg  and  his guests discussed the geological formation of Britain. You can download the podcast from this link. They inevitably touched on plate tectonics

As I was listening to it, I wondered just what the 40% of Americans who believe in the literal truth of the Bible-"young age creationists"- would make of this. They believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old.

We  have teachers in Britain who believe the same. Nick Cowan is a science teacher at the Bluecoat School in Liverpool.  Watch him in discussion with Richard Dawkins,

 and ask yourself- would you like  Mr Cowan teaching your kids science?

 Back to plate tectonics.

Just how do creationists of the young age variety, like Cowen, work out how the continents turned out as they did?

 They accept the continents have moved over time, but they think it happened during the 40 days and nights during which Noah, his family and all the animals, presumably including dinosaurs and monkeys, were aboard the Arc. Everything must have happened at high speed.

 Richard Dawkins  in his "Greatest Show on Earth" has done the sums for us. South America and Africa sped away from each other faster than a man can swim-for 40 days and nights.

Trafigura-Carter-Rucked

Last night at about 8:30, the Guardian's website published this article by one of  its star investigative reporters, David Leigh.

Leigh's piece contained this.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

By the time the Rambler went to bed, the internet was glowing with this story. Indeed within a couple of hours of the Guardian's publication on of my tweeters had sent me a link to  the Order Paper that Carter-Ruck had injuncted.

It turned out to this question put down by Labour M.P. Paul Farrelly  to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

It was clear what the original Guardian article was about, but less clear why Carter Ruck had acted to prevent its publication.

This morning my Tweetdeck was full of the Trafigura story. Hashtag #carterruck, #trafigura, or #wikileaks, and not only were you provided with Farrelly's question, which in itself would have made Carter-Ruck's application for relief more difficult, but the full text of the damning "Minton Report on Wikileaks.

I'm  sure  Carter-Ruck had foreseen  the internet response to their gagging order and the effect of that on their inter- partes application before the court this afternoon. To ask the court to grant further injunctive relief when the information they want kept secret was already in the very-public domain, would have been a hard ask.

Not surprisingly Carter-Ruck withdrew its opposition to the Guardian's application to publish. You can read Leigh's report here . Trafiguras' behaviour may have had  one large unforeseen result for them. The injunction of the "Minton Report" on the dumping of the toxic waste is now well and truly published. You can see it, and its devastating conclusions here.

It is  important not to forget the wickedly dishonest  behaviour of Trafigura in dumping the toxic waste on the Ivory Coast resulting in so much foreseeable suffering.

Update 15:50.  Wikileaks- Trafigura threats to Norwegian press over Minton Report exposing toxic dumping.

Clifford Longley's Cherry Picking

I don't normally manage to catch "Thought for the Day" but this morning I was awake listening to  "Today" at ten to eight.  Clifford Longley, sounds gentle and soft spoken. You can read the transcript here 

Clifford Longley

He used his slot to inform his audience how the  Bible tells us deal with widows and orphans. He supported his piece with a few biblical quotes both from the old and new Testaments. As if somehow the antiquity of that book alone means something.

It was of course a classic piece of cherry picking. I've no doubt that the Bible has some good advice about widows and orphans. I suspect that Mr Longley believes, as do  most Christians, that the Bible represents the written word of God. That the scriptures are our source of morals.

Richard Dawkins' description of the Bible is beautifully concise.

' To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated,distorted and "improved" by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.'

Back to Longley's cherry picking.

Let's take a couple of examples of Dawkins' weird bits. And they don't get much more weird than the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Before God was to rain fire and brimstone on the poor inhabitants of Gomorrah, he sent two  male angels to tell Lot to leave the city. The men of the town demanded that Lot should hand them over so that they could sodomise them.

'Where are the men that came into thee this night? Bring them out to us so that we may know them'.

And it gets worse. Lot refuses, and then-

' I prey you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now my two daughters which have not known man; let me, I prey you, bring them out unto you, and do ye with them as is good in your eyes: only unto these man do nothing; for therefore came under the shadow of my roof '

(Genesis 19:7-8)

And if you are starting to think, unlike Longley, that  the Bible is not much of a moral guide, flick through to the Book of Numbers.

Here we read  that Moses is told by God to have a go at the Midianites. All the Midianite men were slaughtered and their cities burned. But the Midianite women and children were not killed. I can hear a sigh of relief. But no, Moses gave orders that all the boy children and all the women who were not virgins, should be killed . And what happened to the virgins? Well, they didn't escape Moses' wrath.

' But all the women children, that  have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves'

(Numbers 31:18)

So there we have genocide and  child abuse on an industrial scale.

This is the problem with the Longley argument. I think we should look after widows and orphans, but not because on anything in scripture. After all, I don't suppose he would be recommending we hand over our daughters to strangers to be raped.

Well done Rubens

Universal healthcare is terrorist recruitment tool

hat tip Bad Science

The Madeleine Fund- an update

It's some time since I've posted anything about  Team McCann, but in the last few days the hunt for Madeleine got even  more bizarre.

The Team,  fortified by a couple of ex-detectives, David Edgar and Arthur Cowley, are on the trail of a Posh Spice lookalike. The mention of Mrs Beckham and Madeleine McCann was certain to reach the headlines.  What I'm pretty certain about is that both these policemen are familiar with the problems of identification.  It's difficult enough to be certain about who you saw in good daylight when you've had a long  look, but to recall a face you saw over two years ago  when in drink would have been rejected, as unreliable, by most coppers I knew.

 But both these police officers  must be aware of the identification rules they would have used before they retired. And this Barcelona identification breaks just about all of them. It's hardly surprising that it leads to what appears to be   another dead end.

What is clear is that the Madeleine Fund is financing the  operation.

I've  been able  look at the first year's accounts of the Madeleine Fund. For a couple of quid you can download them from Companies House.

The full title is- Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

Company Number: 06248215

The accounts were ruled off at the end of March last year. Then the fund had a surplus of just over 1 million pounds-£1,052,027.00 to be exact. It's not clear from the accounts, but I suspect that figure might well include the damages paid by the Express Group to the McCanns as the result of their libel settlement. The total fund income from the date it was established was £1,846,178.00. In other words in the first year the directors have authorised nearly a million pound of expenditure. That includes the fruitless payment to Metodo 3, the Spanish private investigators, who made absolutely no progress.

 Page 2 of the accounts, The Director's Report , dated 11th November 2008, and signed by John J McCann, contained this

" As expected, the level of donations [to the fund] has fallen over time, although we have a number of loyal donors continuing their support. Income in the new financial year is currently significantly lower than at the same time last year. However our expenses are ongoing  are likely to increase."

And this report suggests that the financial situation is now  perhaps more difficult than in November 2008.

The next accounts will be filed in about ten months time.

It will be interesting to see just how challenging the financial situation will be then.  I suspect that unlike  between March 2007 and 2008,  they will not contain these items.

Campaign Management       £123, 573.00

Awareness                                 £81,504.00

Legal Fees and Expenses        £111,522.00

Search Fees                                £250,000.00

Fund Legal Fees                       £68,799.00

Fund Professional Fees          £36,070.00 

I'm surprised no one has asked the McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, just what these expenses paid for. Over a third of a million quid spent on professional and management fees!

News of the World and Phone Hacking - Why are we surprised?

The allegations of illegal  mobile phone  hacking by the News of the World should have shocked no one.

In July last year, I commented Max Mosley's privacy action against the News of the World.

In a little publicised section of the judgement Counsel for Mosley, James Price Q.C.,was cross examining Colin Myler, the  paper's editor.

You can still read the judgement here, (pdf). The importance of paragraphs 82 -87  seem to have been missed.
There's no need to go over the facts of Mosley's case, but at this part of the judgement, Price is interested in how the witnesses to Mosley's sex sessions were persuaded to cooperate with the paper. He, Price, suggests that they were blackmailed.

           Q This was a naked threat, wasn’t it, Mr Myler?

A I think it could be interpreted as a threat. I’m not so sure …

Q Come on, Mr Myler, please.

A Well, clearly it could be interpreted as a threat, but I think by this time the girls who took part would have known that the News of the World had the photographs anyway.

Q What’s it called when you threaten to reveal publicly the identity of somebody who has done something embarrassing which they do not wish to become public unless they cooperate with you? What’s it called?

A I think you know what it’s called. You’re talking about the potential use of blackmail.

Q I am.

Later, Price cross examines the paper's chief reporter,Neville Thurlbeck. This time the wretched Thurlbeck was at the end of a devastating intervention by  Mr Justice Eady.

Q Let’s be direct about this. There is a clear threat here that if they don’t cooperate they will expose them in the News of the World?

A No, I don’t accept that. I think there was a clear choice here but there was no attempt to threaten them.

Q Let’s get this straight. If the blackmailer says to the victim, ‘Either you pay up or I’ll put your picture in the newspaper’ he’s offering him a very fair choice?

A No.

Q There’s no threat?

A No, because I’m asking for something here. Your example states that I’m asking for something in return for issuing a threat.

Q Yes, indeed you are.

A No, I’m offering to give them something. I’m offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. I’m offering to pay them, not to take anything from them, so in that sense I’m not blackmailing them at all. That thought never crossed my mind. I’m offering them a choice.”

Q Let’s be direct about this. There is a clear threat here that if they don’t cooperate they will expose them in the News of the World?

A No, I don’t accept that. I think there was a clear choice here but there was no attempt to threaten them.

Q Let’s get this straight. If the blackmailer says to the victim, ‘Either you pay up or I’ll put your picture in the newspaper’ he’s offering him a very fair choice?

A No.

Q There’s no threat?

A No, because I’m asking for something here. Your example states that I’m asking for something in return for issuing a threat.

Q Yes, indeed you are.

A No, I’m offering to give them something. I’m offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. I’m offering to pay them, not to take anything from them, so in that sense I’m not blackmailing them at all. That thought never crossed my mind. I’m offering them a choice.”

 Mr Justice Eady.

"It seems that Mr Thurlbeck genuinely did not see the point. Yet it is elementary that blackmail can be committed by the threat to do something which would not, in itself, be unlawful."

 And that was precisely what the News of the World had done!

The most interesting part of today's Guardian allegations is just why our prosecuting authorities dropped a prima facie case of  criminal activity by the News of the World.
 But it's equally difficult to understand why the allegations of blackmail made against the paper's editor and chief reporter were not followed through!

C4 and more WiFi scaremongering

This sort of thing gets me mad.

 Today, C4''s website recycles a P.A piece about WiFi technology in schools. This is not a new piece of quackery. But here we have those employed in teaching our kids coming out with this drivel.

"Wireless technology should be removed from schools because of fears it could cause cancer or make pupils sterile later in life, teachers have warned.The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) called for the Government to carry out an investigation taking into consideration the biological and thermal effects of "wi-fi".

 Fears of cancer and sterility? Y0u can read the rest of the nonsense on C4's site  here.

This is news only in the sense that repeating rubbish is news.

In fact the scaremongering began with a Panorama programme  back in 2007. As usual, Ben Goldacre spotted the nonsense. You can read his piece here.

Then it was the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) who are deliberately misreading the evidence. Now it's the ATL.

 I've no idea who this Colin Kenney is, or what qualifications he posesses,  but there's not a scintilla  of evidence supporting his  suggestion that WiFi causes the damage claimed. 

I'm sure his wired computer will enable him to read Goldacre's letter to the PAT back in June 2007. The link is here.

It's really easy to understand Mr Kenney, isn't it?

But really it's C4 who are to blame here. Nonsense pops up on the newswires all the time. But there should be someone at C4 looking for the drivel.  I'm sure they wouldn't  copy a piece telling parents not to have their kids inoculated with the MMR vaccine. Would they?