CoffeeHousers' Wall, 30 March - 5 April

David Ossitt

The following paragraph is the beginning of a Daily Mail Comment published on Friday March 27th.

“Labour has spent £300 million on trying to reduce teenage pregnancy by the indiscriminate handing out of contraceptives and the morning after pill and the remorseless expansion of sex education. Yet pregnancies among girls under the age of sixteen – of which six in ten end in abortion – are at their highest level in a decade”.

This information is truly shocking but I expect that it is far from being totally or even half way accurate.

If one added in the pre and post-natal medical costs; the abortion costs, the limitless benefit costs, then the true amount that is being paid from our taxes must run into billions not millions.

This does not take into account the human cost; the loss of innocence, the loss of being young and care free, the loss of hopes and aspirations for a future that could and should have been, oh so very different.

My own teen years; were in the 50’s, and things were very different back then.

Teenage pregnancy was rarely heard of; in fact pregnancy in single women was not very common.

In writing this; please do not think that I am criticising in any way those of you who choose to co-habit and have children.

I have come to the opinion that the solution to these serious problems of today; might be found by comparing things as they were back then with how things are today. In doing this I can only look at it from a personal aspect; reflecting on what the differences were for me then with that of a youth of today.

So what was different?

Here is a list that I will expand on: - Education, respect, fear, shame, blame, trust, common sense and money.

Education; mine was a basic County Primary School, the boys and girls were totally separate, boys upstairs with a Head Master and all male teachers, the girls down stairs with a Head Mistress and an entirely female staff.

Our masters had three aims; the first to give us as good an education in all of the basics so as to prepare us to be well rounded adults, second to try to help us to pass the eleven plus and third if they failed in that endeavour, to prepare us to leave school and find work at the age of fifteen.

With the exception of one old sage; these were all men damaged by war who had opted for a teacher training on being demobilised from the armed forces and in the main they did a superb job.

Sex education was not on the curriculum; not in any way shape or form did any master broach the subject; though it was whispered that the girls met with nurse for some reason at a certain age.

But I will venture; that we knew as much, or more about the mechanics of sexual intercourse than the youth of today and sex was never very far from our thoughts but then neither was the knowledge that we would bring shame and disgrace to our families if we were stupid enough to get some young girl into trouble.

We had to be responsible; to accept that we must face the consequences of our actions, there were no morning after pills, no abortion on demand, and there was no second chance.

It might be difficult for those of you who were not yet born back then to realise the code of conduct that we were expected to adhere to; it was very simple, if you were fortunate enough to be allowed to fondle a young ladies bosom from the outside of her clothing this would be taken as a clear signal that it was your intention to go steady, if it was underneath you were definitely courting, anything over and above that and you were engaged to be married.

I kid you not.

Being kept separate has three advantages over mixed classes, the first is that pubescent young men can concentrate all of their efforts on learning without the constant reminder of the female form, second boys who are taught by men develop masculine traits and ideas that better equip them to be well balanced young men and are in my opinion much quicker to mature, thirdly girls kept at a distance maintained an air of mystery and elusive femininity.

Contrast that with today; compare, just the sex education, soon to be compulsory from, is it five, seven or nine and then on going, how long does it take for god’s sake to explain the basics of who does what with who to make a baby, ten minutes half an hour at the most but to go on year after year in mixed classes is so very silly and a total waste of time and money.

Actually it is worse than that because to fill the time it has to cover all aspects of sexual relationships and in the spirit of no ‘shame’ no ‘blame’ two of the words on my list it does not discourage but supports by way of contraception and the morning after pill. And if the worst comes to the worst help is at hand in the obtaining of an abortion; so in essence it actually encourages what it is supposed to be suppressing, namely teenage pregnancy.

It could be construed as a form of grooming children for sex; acting as the paedophile by proxy, as it were.

Money was at the end of my list and it is money or rather the lack of it that will be the solution; and the lack of it, might bring back into fashion the rest of the words on my list, respect, fear, shame, blame, trust and common sense.

There can be only two reasons why young girls (children) get pregnant, either they planned to or they didn’t those who didn’t let us leave for the moment, because it is those who planned it who are the key to solving the problem.

Those who planned it had a purpose, that purpose was to never work for a living, to be paid an income by the state, to be housed and furnished by the council and to look forward to regular pay rises with each subsequent birth,

Hence the seven from five different fathers of that criminal from Dewsbury.

My first proposal is quite simple; pay no benefit of any kind whatsoever to any young woman of school age, that is up to and including eighteen years of age, let the miscreant be a burden to her immediate family only.

By removing the cash; at a stroke you remove the incentive, the ones who plan to get pregnant are not daft or silly they are the ones with sufficient common sense and to a degree; the self respect to realise that without the cash it would not be worth the effort.

Those who did not plan it will be caught in the same lack of finance trap; this might make them realise that what they have done is foolish and should be a deterrent to others who would not wish to bring shame to their families.

My second proposal; charge and if found guilty punish with a minimum gaol sentence of four years, any feckless youth over the age of consent, sixteen years who commits statutory rape on a minor whether he gets that minor pregnant or not .

I have two reasons for recommending this; the first is that currently our laws are flouted and not given sufficient respect and second it is these young men who are the ones impregnating these under age mothers.

My third and final proposal; pay no form of benefit to either sex until that person has been gainfully employed and has been paying income tax for a minimum of one year.

oldrightie

Wow! That's some invitation. May I post Labour are shite? It is the unvarnished truth.

Publius

It would be interesting, sometime, to see a thoughtful analysis of globalisation and its implications.

I myself don't have a hard-and-fast view on the desirability of globalisation, but I must admit that the more I think about it, the more I suspect that a globalised economy will require a globalised government, and that a globalised government will necessarily end up being a tyranny.

In other words, it is a similar line of thinking to the argument about the euro: namely that a common currency requires, or at least builds up irresistible pressures for, a common government.

And it is my view that good government is not infinitely scaleable upwards.

Rhoda Klapp

Publius, I'm entirely with you, nobody has a mandate to sell us into a world government/regulatory regime. They seem, as part of G20, the UN the Obama White House and the EU to think they can do it as a response to a crisis which would solve itself if left alone.

Globalisation used to be good. You can buy anything anywhere, you can travel freely, keep money in overseas accounts and so on. All fine if not taken so far as to make everywhere alike. But this new aspect is not for the good of the people in any way, just a vicious extension of command and control.

Verity

What Publius and Rhoda Klapp said.

Wilhelm

Liberal bias in the media part 974

Why didnt the BBC and Channel 4 news not show Daniel Hannan's speech ?

Let me have a wild guess, just off the top of my head, is it because everyone in the media is liberal like Jon Snow who refuses to wear a red poppy on november 11th and this liberal twit wears pink socks, he's a crazy zany wacky kid, isnt he ?

And who can forget Greg Dyke saying the BBC is horribly white. What a racist remark.
What would have happened if he had said '' The
BBC is horribly black or muslim.''

And before people gush about Danniel Hannan, this guy wants Turkey in the EU. Why not go the whole hog and have Mesopotamia in the
European Union ? That means 80 million Turks
will be allowed to live in Sussex, if that
happens, man the life boats, abandon ship.

Daniel Hannan speech now at 1,700,000 hits. The BBC and Jon Snow too busy gushing over Hamas, sucking up to radical muslim clerics.

Verity

You couldn't make it up ... According to Guido, GMTV invited Iain Dale on, but as they were going to send a car at 4:30 a.m., Iain declined. GMTV cast around and came up with a substitute for Iain. David Cameron.

Max Kaye

My usual weekly question for the Editor: why does Clive Davis's blog not accept comments?

THX1138

John Prescott maker some important points about the blogosphere & manages a rather good rebuttal to Hannan.

http://www.gofourth.co.uk/hold-on-hannan

Go Fourth is a great blog and Prescott is a natural blogger.

Rhoda Klapp

Max Kaye:

Clive explains his policy here:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/3468261/an-explanation.thtml

Basically he doesn't want to bother with the likes of us.

geoff

Slightly left-field, but can I ask what people think about Pickles now?

My sense is, he might be totally fubared by his position on the expenses stuff. If your credibility comes almost completely from a sort of no-nonesense, man-of-the-people approach to politics, then defending the arrogant, self-serving status quo is probably the worst thing yuo can do?

Jamie

I have a suggestion about MPs expenses - more from the 'nudge' end of the political spectrum than any great reform. Why not make local councils responsible for MPs salaries and expenses rather than the House of Commons? The benefits are two fold:
- the costs of being an MP would better reflect geography;
- MPs would become more answerable to local politicians.

Pete Hoskin

Many thanks to Susy Edyvean for the photo and caption above. Keep the pictures coming!

THX1138

Cool Picture

Rhoda Klapp

Jamie, imagine a labour council doing salary and expenses for a tory MP. Or vice versa. Not too great. They could use the power to cripple an elected representative. There are plenty of places where the council is in the opposite camp to the MP.

And I don't want them accountable to local politicians, I want them accountable to voters.

PayDirt

Sinister plot by Brown et al to cut pension costs by limiting the life expectancy of the population?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10271940-details/Patients+forced+to+wait+two+years+for+MRI+scan/article.do

Manipulation of the NHS waiting list so that if your doctor refers you for a test, you have to wait to be put on the schedule, it is no doubt the schedule which is monitored as the official “waiting list”. These days our Socialist leaders are making us wait before we get our name on the waiting list. If I could figure the system out maybe I could make arrangements with doctor to have test done abroad, or is that not allowed by our hard-pressed NHS?

Dr. Benjamin Twist

The Daily telegraph carries a story -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5055720/Schools-to-be-graded-on-classroom-discipline.html

- outlining a government plan to rank schools' performance in terms of class (in-)discipline (amongst other things).

This will not help.

On top of all the other things that make effective teaching difficult/impossible, teachers will now be under pressure to overlook bad behaviour to make the stats look better. Targets will no doubt be introduced, too, along with penalties for not getting the right sort of numbers.

The inevitable outcome of such a scheme will also be to give disruptive pupils an incentive to play up even more, because they *will* know that they can make their teachers look bad by so doing.

The fixed figures will then allow a minister to get up and say that things are improving, when in fact the very reverse will be the case, just as in every other part of the public sector that the government has vandalised and corrupted.

Verity

Pay Dirt - I have argued before for the abolition of the NHS. Not only is it inefficient and grossly overstaffed with management apparachiks, and patient care run with criminal carelessness, but it is rod to beat the backs of the population and keep them under control.

Sailing under the flag of being careful guardians of the public purse, it inches its way in to every part of the lives of the citizenry. We have to stop smoking. We have to stop drinking. We can't allow the population to eat fatty foods. We can't allow them to eat cholesterol laden puddings. Otherwise, the contributors may become a burden on public funds. Manufacturers please take note of our diktats as we will be giving you new guidelines for what you can sell to the people.

It's a loathesome organisation. I would like to see it destroyed completely, but at worst, I would argue for allowing the salary earners to nominate a private health care company of their choice to receive their NI contributions. Some people may even be silly enough to nominate the NHS, but nevertheless, such a plan would destroy its power overnight.

And the private sector would thrive.

Wilhelm

I wish in the name of God, harpy Annie Lennox would just stop squeeeeling about Africa for once in her God damn, sad pathetic, egotistical life.

Is that too much to ask ?

Max Kaye

Rhoda Klapp - thanks for directing me to his post which I'd not read.

I'd still like the Speccie's Editor(s) to explain why they accept such prima donna-ish behaviour. It's not as if Davis is good value, or anything...

David Ossitt

THX1138
March 30th, 2009 5:10pm

"John Prescott maker some important points about the blogosphere & manages a rather good rebuttal to Hannan".

I have a very serious problem with this man; of all the labour people, with the possible exception of Cherie Booth QC, I think that I loathe him the most.

I have a number of reasons; I am convinced that the likes of, Peter Benjamin Mandelson, James Gordon Brown and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair all have a deep loathing of him as well, but they put that to one side, gave him high office (where he was totally incompetent in each and every job he held) just so they could have him sell the lie that is and was New Labour to the real labour party.

He did this in order to be in power; then once in power he misused that power, imagine for just one moment, with people in the outer office him behind his office door leaning against the wall with his flies open being fellated by his diary secretary.

Such style; such sophistication
but what does one expect from a ships porter who did a bit of bar work on the side who pretends he was a ship's steward.

The Bellman

Did anyone else think St Paul's Cathedral a highly unsuitable venue for McSnotty's latest miserable string of self-justification, woolly platitudes and evasions?

It's not as if he's lacking a platform for this twaddle: whenever I turn on the news, he's hunched at a podium, gurning in a desperate simulacrum of relaxation, and blethering at stultifying length about how he predicted everything that until very recently he denied flatly was happening.

And for a self-styled and endlessly re-asserted 'son of the manse', his knowledge and understanding of Scripture is pretty limited. You get more Biblical allusion in the average episode of The Simpsons than in this sorry effort.

THX1138

David O- All as maybe but he's a great blogger.

N

Barack Obama forces GM's Chairman out of his job, and tells Chrysler they HAVE to merge with FIAT.....but that doesn't mean he's a socialist (does it?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/30auto.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=rick%20wagoner&st=cse

Tiberius

David O:

"...who did a bit of bar work on the side who pretends he was a ship's steward".

Surely you meant, "... who did a bit of fast work on the side and who is a bar steward".

Rhoda Klapp

A word about what we are all doing here. We, coffee housers and journalists alike, are participating in what is pretty much a new medium. It's called blogging, but it goes beyond the weblog when it is an adjunct to a media organ. The blog as practiced here and elsewhere is (or should be) almost real-time, interactive and dynamic. It's advantage over the print media is that it includes the perspective of the commenters. I was going to write the audience, but we are not that. We are a part of the medium. We are not anything like the newspaper letter to the editor. When it works, when moderation is light or non-existent and the commenters behave, it can be a very effective medium in its own right. It is no longer, if it ever was, just a print medium maintaining a web presence to sell magazines. It is far more immediate, and more ephemeral, for better or worse.

But there's a problem. Some of the bloggers here, those people over on the right hand side of the page, don't seem to get it. They seem to be writing columns. To be read and appreciated by the passive audience. The only acknowledgement of the web seems to be the practice of linking other web articles, or pasting in quotes, with a little editorial to set the context. And then nothing. No interaction, no exposition of a point, just on to the next entry.

It really won't do. In fact many of those posts attract few or no comments, and that is not the point of blogging. Most peter out without ever reaching double figures. This ain't print. You can't just throw the item over your shoulder and go on to the next.
Develop your arguments. Engage those who disagree. Encourage those who are on your side. Explain the points where you didn't have space in the first entry.

Give us a blog, not a diary. You know who you are.

Alf Tupper

Rhoda Klapp.

I think you have a strong case there.
BTW, is the term 'blogee' in use? If not, why?

Anyway, these posters I keep seeing this past week or so: this 'we are under attack from terrorists (but don't worry we've got it covered)' campaign.

I thought we were supposed to be living harmoniously, reaping the benefits (isn't language ace?) of our rich diversity of heritages?

Verity

What the HELL is Michelle Obama wearing now? It looks like a dress with a seat belt.

Well, at least she's moved on from the curtains and upholstery department.

Archbishop Cranmer

Mr Bellman,

His Grace agrees with you about the Prime Minister using St Paul's to pontificate, and has said so:

In his sermon he spoke of the evils of the Credit Church Crunch, and how during the storms of the nation’s turbulent history, St Paul’s has been ‘a rock of faith at the centre of our national life’.

No, Prime Minister. Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you cannot see. St Paul’s is a building; the rock (if His Grace’s Roman Catholic communicants will permit him a little latitude) is Jesus.

The Prime Minister spoke interminably of hope and faith, enduring values and virtues, timeless truths, family lives, neighbourhoods and communities. And what conquers fear of the future is faith in the future – ‘Faith in who we are and what we believe, in what we are today and what we can become: Faith most of all in what together we can achieve.

It must have bored God to the point of contemplating the virtues of mortality.

And on the day the Messiah President of the United States lands in the UK, Mr Brown unsubtly invoked the spirits of Dr Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – President Obama’s two inspirations (as if he would have been tuning in on Air Force One). The Prime Minister said he was prioritising four urgent global concerns:

Financial instability in a world of global capital flows
Environmental degradation in a world of changing energy need
Violent extremism in a world of mass communications and increased mobility
Extreme poverty in a world of growing inequalities

And so he talked of the need to have ‘faith in globalisation’, for the world to ‘come together’ to agree ‘global rules’ informed by ‘shared global values’.

Of course, the Prime Minister never articulated what these are. But he does note that the globalisation which lifted millions out of poverty has also ‘unleashed forces that have totally overwhelmed the old national rules and systems of financial oversight’.

Therein lies a plea not for the international co-operation of sovereign nation states but for new continental or global rules for the post-democratic, post-national era.

And Mr Brown then declared: ‘And as I have always said I take full responsibility for all of my actions.’

Cranmer falls off his chair laughing.

Gordon Brown has consistently refused to apologise for anything. He has ducked and dived, swiveled and swerved to avoid taking responsibility for any of the damaging actions and appalling decisions he has taken over the past 12 years. Has he ever apologised for purloining billions from private pension reserves? For gambling away even more billions when he exchanged the nation's gold for euros? For over-spending during the years of plenty? For engorging the state with a million new public sector non-jobs? For tampering with the supervisory responsibilities of the Bank of England? For lying about 'prudence' and 'the end of boom and bust'?

The Prime Minister blames ‘unsupervised globalisation’ for crossing ‘moral boundaries’. He said: “Most people want a market that is free, but never values-free; a society that is fair but not laissez faire.” And he talked of the need to fulfill the promise of Adam Smith (‘who came from my home town Kirkcaldy’) that ‘individual gain leads to collective gain, that even when people are pursuing their private wishes they can nonetheless deliver public good’.

He continued: “Christians do not say that people should be reduced merely to what they can produce or what they can buy - that we should let the weak go under and only the strong survive. No, we say do to others what you would have them do unto you.”

His father would have been proud.

But then the sermon became multi-faith and all-inclusive when he referred to ‘each of our heritages, our traditions and faiths’:

“And when Judaism says love your neighbour as yourself. When Muslims say no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. When Buddhists say hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. When Sikhs say treat others as you would be treated yourself. When Hindus say the sum of duty is do not unto others which would cause pain if done to you, they each and all reflect a sense that we all share the pain of others, and a sense that we believe in something bigger than ourselves - that we cannot be truly content while others face despair, cannot be completely at ease while others live in fear, cannot be satisfied while others are in sorrow We all feel, regardless of the source of our philosophy, the same deep moral sense that each of us is our brother and sisters’ keeper.”

Once again, he omitted the Jedi Knights, who (according the last census) outnumber in their adherents both the Jews and Sikhs.

And he referred to a letter he received ‘from the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, reminding us that “positive faith in the human person, and above all faith in the poorest men and women - of Africa and other regions of the world affected by extreme poverty - is what is needed if we are truly to come through the crisis”.’

Why would a Scottish Presbyterian call Pope Benedict XVI ‘the Holy Father’? It rather reminds Cranmer of when Jack Straw ended a television interview with ‘Inshallah’. It was a little shocking that a British non-Muslim Home Secretary would be so ingratiating as to inculturate himself with what is so manifestly foreign and alien to him. Of course one should show respect, but Gordon Brown is no more Roman Catholic than Jack Straw is fluent in Arabic. It is an embarrassing hypocrisy to pretend to be what one is not; to subscribe to a false reverence; to attempt to dupe those who sincerely refer to the Pope by that title.

Unless, of course, one is trying to win their votes.

Incidentally, throughout the entire sermon, there was not one mention of God.

The Church of England might at least have ensured a prayer of repentance and forgiveness for permitting Gordon Brown to speak this vapid tosh. With all the talk of global trade, banks, money supplies and debt, one wonders if Jesus might not have turned over a few tables.

Archibald Percival Wavell

Will someone please explain just what Rhoda Klapp is going on about.

I have read her post three times now without really understanding what it is that she wants or does not want.

Possibly she could pick one comment a day that has offended her and then explain in clear precise detail how it should have been written or why it should not have been written in the first place.

I am sure that those who do not have her breadth of knowledge of blogs and blogging would appreciate a daily tutorial.

Rhoda Klapp

General, or is it Viceroy, I like items which invite comments, and go on to develop into a discussion. Anything which gets beyond double figures of comments. Contrast Mel Phillips, where everything goes to 70plus, with Martin or Alex where they blog something, there are a couple of comments, and nothing. Or Clive Davis, where intentionally there are no comments. I like to participate. If there is no discussion, it might as well be print. I don't think blogging is print, and the difference is interaction. Having said what I am looking for, I do not mean to claim a magic formula. There is a place for just a picture of Alex's hills, or the occasional link to something interesting elsewhere without comment, but the meat of this place ought to be interaction. In my ever so humble opinion.

PS Do you remember my dad? He worked in your HQ in 1943.

James Forsyth

Rhoda, I agree with you that inetraction is a good thing. But it is a two way street. Many of your comments are hardly conversation starters. Best, James

Archibald Percival Wavell

I would prefer Field Marshal, I was awarded that in the January of 43, don't you know. I am so sorry I do not remember your father things get a bit confusing these days, you see I will be 126 years old come May and the old memory is not what it once was.

Rhoda thank you so much for your reply to my earlier post, in it you make very clear what it was that I had previously found difficult to understand.

Bless you.

Kevyn Bodman

I agree with Rhoda and don't agree with James. His comment looks like a bit of a dig, and it's not justified.

I come here 2 or 3 times most days and, if I'm short of time, I skim read the article and spend more time on the comments.
These pages attract the best commenters on any blog I have yet found, 5 of whom I look for any thread.

I like Alex Massie because of range of topics he writes about.
And I don't visit Melanie Phillips as much as I used to because her range seems to have narrowed.
Neither of them respond much,or at all, but I remember discussing literary theory and hearing the view that, once the final full stop has been put in place then what he/she wrote is no longer any business of the author.
Susan Hill might have a view on that? I don't really have a strong opinion on it, but it would mean that even if the bloggers say nothing the commenters' debate is just as valid.

So, if the journos don't respond we can still keep going.

Rhoda Klapp

James, I will try to do better. Maybe cut out the abuse and cheap quips. (Won't leave much, I hear you mutter).

However, since you're here, how about that climate debate? The post produced much comment, from many new commenters. 70 last time I looked, but now it's a couple of pages back. It didn't, couldn't produce a result, positions are too entrenched. That's why a debate by an authoritative neutral magazine might not only inform the public but be a real step on the way to, well, not resolution, but at least understanding the arguments.

James Forsyth

Rhoda, The debate idea is a good one. Who would you suggest for speakers and how much emphasis should be on the science, whetehr it's actually happening and how much on what should--if anything--be done?

Rhoda Klapp

James, the question to me is whether AGW carries a real threat of catastrophe. So that's whether it is happening, and you'd find few to completely discount it even among sceptic ranks, and how much, which is the crux of the matter. To me, just to get away from 'the debate is over', which as I posted is an IPPR tacitc, to 'the debate is on' would be a result. I think questions of policy follow on from that, and can be handled separately. It suits many to go from hypothesis to policy without due diligence.

I don't think that you can go too deeply into actual science without losing the audience. I don't know if we are choosing from the whole world, or you'd rather keep it in the UK. If one was actually planning a physical debate, there would be budgetary issues, no doubt. OTOH the Spectator has the cred to do it big time.

I can't presume to pick any of the pro-AGW speakers. Gore wouldn't turn up, Hansen might, Monbiot I personally wouldn't want to see, too much baggage. There must be plenty of others, perhaps from the Met Office or the Royal Society, or the IPCC itself.

For the sceptics, Lord Monckton of course, David Bellamy maybe, Anthony Watts, Pielke Sr. and most of all Lindzen. Depending on budget, of course.

I don't know how you solve the moderator question, but formal debate is not my thing. I'd be concerned that the AGW tactics might include ad homs against the qualifications of my side, rather than the science itself. The other side may have equivalent concerns. I'd want all those debating tricks shut down immediately, this is not the OU, this is serious.

When it comes to policy, and this could be debate two of a series, you'd want to feed the result of debate one into it and forecast likely outcomes from the various options. Lomborg and Stern should be in this one. Those who advocate taxes/carbon trading should come with figures so an independent panel could reality-check them.

If you are thinking of going further and don't want to jam up bandwidth here, email me.

Forlornehope

I suspect that you could debate the science for a week without coming to any conclusion. The actual science is quite complex. The contra AGW arguments all have to be put as any one, if it holds up, is sufficient to bring down the whole AGW edifice. I'm not even sure how you would come to a conclusion. To follow the arguments requires a fair knowledge of the physics. It is also going to be very difficult to find a neutral moderator who knows anything about the subject. They are all committed to one side or the other.

There is much more scope for debate on the possible responses. This is really a political and economic issue that is much more within the competence of the Spectator. At the moment the right seems to be leaving all this to the Monbiot green-facists. There is no need for a low carbon economy to impinge on personal freedom to any greater extent than the economy that we have now. But if the right don't get into the argument, we will quite likely end up with something thoroughly undesirable. Peter Lilley has been making waves on the government's response. There is an interesting post on Iain Dale. He seems to have the kind of balance that would make a good chair for a debate on this subject.

Of course, if you simply reject AGW as a con, there is no need for a response.

(My earlier post seems to have gone AWOL. If it appears, accept my apologies for duplication)

David Ossitt

Forlornehope

"Of course, if you simply reject AGW as a con, there is no need for a response".

Forlorne, there are a great many of us that think that it is a con.

David Ossitt

Now for something completely different.

I use the gymnasium at the local council owned Leisure Centre and Swimming pool complex three times a week.

It has seen better days and some things such as the sauna; that is adjacent to the gym is now no longer usable, this means that we can't use the sauna showers and have to use those in the swimming pools men's changing rooms.

Up until today the five available showers were set in line along a wall without any form of screening.

Often school classes of boys and youths are supervised going to and from the pool without problem other than the huge amount of noise they make.

And often dad's are taking kids through of both sexes.

Today there was a screen erected
between each shower but leaving them totally open at the front.

When some of us asked the staff why these had been erected we were told that complaints had been made, when we asked what was the complaint and who had made it.

We were told three fathers of girls objected to their daughters seeing naked men.

Now it has been my experience that toddlers of both sexes are not aware, their attention being on their own parent.

The school boys are oblivious to almost everything.

So I probed deeper, and I was amazed to be told that fathers could bring in daughters up to eight years of age.

Forlornehope

David, Quite, and in that case there is absolutely no point in having a debate! However, James and Rhoda do seem to think that a debate is worth having. You obviously will not be buying a ticket.

Wily Trout

David Ossit, yes eight years old is the age above which children are usually asked to use same sex changing rooms. Below that the sharing of facilities is judged not to cause embarrassment. I think this started with mothers being allowed to bring all young children into their changing rooms but it has been spread to dads and daughters in the interests of gender equality. It is one of those areas where two of the fashionable topics, Gender Equality and Child Protection, seem to rub up against each other to the detriment of each. If you forced younger children into same sex changing rooms without an accompanying parent then someone would express concern for their safety. The ideal solution will be to spend funds creating 'transgender diversity, child-protection and gender equality areas' where everyone can muck in together and leave the rest of us in peace. Have I just committed a thought crime?

Forlornehope

The Germans are much more relaxed about this. Everybody in the altogether together.

David Ossitt

Wily Trout.

"Have I just committed a thought crime?"

Probably; but do not let it worry you, I commit so many each day that I must be a hardened criminal by now but "they" will never know unless I turn myself in.

Forlornehope.

Have you ever noticed that if you are ever quietly passing by one of those nudist areas it is always the German's who stand up just as you go by, exhibitionists the lot of them.

Aidan

There is an astonishing story on the BBC website that the Ministry of Defence is going to start selling toys. Can this be true or is it a late April Fool? Do they really have nothing better to do? http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7978848.stm

Alf Tupper

For the last forty or so years, I have been puzzled as to what my barber means when asking me if I want a square neck or tapered. I've tried both to see if it makes a difference.

I wish I had more taste in such things.

Forlornehope

Video of Stalin v The Martians, a Russian computer game. See the generallisimo bopping:

http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/30/mars_attacks_stalin_reacts

Worth a laugh.

Verity

I see fat Jacqui is now revealed to have also claimed for a patio heater for her garden, and a bathmat and a toothbrush holder.

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the expenses claimed by Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who she had the effrontery to ban from our shores because "Lord" Ahmad threatened to bring round 10,000 Muslim boys if she allowed Mr Wilders to honour his invitation to show his short film, "FITNA" at the invitation of Lord Pearson.

It might be instructive for the voters in her constituency to be apprised of any other examples of outstandingly appalling judgement on the part of this fat, ugly, venal and crude individual. PS - Her dress sense is appalling, but then, if you have to shop in the Hefty Gal Department, there probably isn't a lot of choice.

Verity

Admittedly, Jacqui, being as important as she is, can't go out for a walk like a normal MP, and opportunities t lose weight pacing around your sister's box room are probably limited. Or she could go out like her fat co-drip Harriet Harman, clad in Kelvar and accompanied by a police guard. Perhaps Fathers4Justice could camp out on her sister's roof! The neighbours, who don't seem to like Jacqui very much, given that they grassed her, could applaud and fete them!