My Pedantic Moans
You can receive the posts of this weblog by email.
I am taking a week's break in France - "Gay Paree" and "Naughty but Nice".
So there will be no more blogs until October 1st at the earliest.
Thank you for your support, particularly over the past few months when 'hits' have often exceeded 400 a day.
Please come back when I come back.
I just wish I could take you all with me for a 'Big Party'!
The city of Amsterdam has struck a deal that will close one-third of the brothels in the Dutch city's famed red light district.
A public housing corporation has sealed a €25 million (£18m) deal to buy 18 buildings in the red light district, leading to the closure of one-third of the district's prostitution windows, though there are other prostitution zones in the city.
With its lingerie-clad prostitutes posing in neon-lit windows and coffee shops oozing the pungent aroma of cannabis, the red light district's seediness has always been part of its draw for tourists.
But city officials have long argued that the area is a magnet for crime and money laundering.
Mayor Job Cohen said the property deal was not a move towards getting rid of prostitution entirely, since it is part of the area's history and a major tourist draw for the city.
"What we do want is to get rid of the underlying criminality," Mr Cohen told local television station AT5.
Amsterdam has been conducting a crackdown on criminality in the city centre for nearly five years, using a 2002 law that forces business operators to disclose detailed accounts in order to have their licenses renewed.
"Fat" Charlie Geerts, the seller in yesterday's deal, was ordered by the city last year to close the windows because officials said he failed to meet standards. But he filed a legal protest and Amsterdam's District Court granted an injunction against closures while he fought the decision.
Last November the city revoked the trading licenses of 33 brothels because they were suspected of criminal activities including money laundering and drug dealing. However, the brothel owners appealed successfully against the decision.
Prostitutes' rights organizations have generally been indifferent to the crackdown, arguing that pimps are the main source of problems, not landlords.
Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands and coffee shops are licensed to sell small amounts of marijuana.
(Sally Peck Daily Telegraph)
MANY PEOPLE 'IMAGINE' FOOD INTOLERANCE
Millions of people in the UK have self-diagnosed a food intolerance and may be avoiding key foods as a result, a poll by a testing firm suggests.
Less than a quarter of the 12m people who claim to be food intolerant have had their condition formally diagnosed.
While many of the nine million who also claim to be intolerant may well be so, it is suggested they may just be fussy.
Nearly 40% of the 1,500 people polled by Yorktest thought it trendy to be intolerant and many blamed celebrities.
Actress Rachel Weisz for instance has a well-publicised wheat intolerance, TV presenter Carol Vorderman a gluten one, and Rod Stewart's former wife, Rachel Hunter, a lactose intolerance.
The range of foods people declared themselves intolerant of was diverse, but grapefruit and sushi were declared by those polled to be key culprits.
Food intolerances are not as severe as food allergies, which in severe cases can prevent people from breathing properly.
But symptoms can nonetheless be uncomfortable, ranging from a stuffy nose to aching joints and nausea.
However the wide variety of complaints which people pin on food intolerances could be related to a number of other conditions.
Nutritionist Tanya Haffner said it was important to seek the advice of a qualified medical practitioner.
"You may be cutting out something you don't need to which might be putting your nutritional health and your longer term health at risk," she says.
I have avoided making any comment about the Northern Rock fiasco, but I believe that this article by Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, deserves a wider audience.
IF WE TAKE AWAY RISK, THEN CAPITALISM IS FINISHED
Just as war is too important to be left to generals, the economy is too important to be left to politicians.
This was blindingly clear from the antics on Monday, when a bank in no danger of failing was underwritten by the Government.
It was underwritten because a thin-skinned Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, had not presided over the economy with the brilliance he claimed, was shamed by the spectacle of a run on a bank being beamed around the world and making an international laughing stock of our financial system.
Taxpayers have now become bankers. At a stroke, the fundamentals of the capitalist creed on which many of us thought our economy was based are compromised. There is no price on risk, except that paid by the state with our money.
Many in the financial world have what we might call a conservative interpretation of the idea of lender of last resort, and so do I.
I think it was shared by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. It was that the Bank will lend at an appropriately stiff interest rate to any solvent financial institution that has a temporary liquidity problem, so it can right itself.
This is roughly what Mr King said, and did, last week, when Northern Rock was given a cash lifeline. The Governor could, or should, have done no more.
He is not a political figure, and it would have been most improper for him to act as one. It would also have been most improper of him to extend the role of lender of last resort to an extreme that imperilled the very notion of capitalism. That is the sort of thing idiot politicians do and, by God, have they gone and done it.
Fearing, quite absurdly, a collapse in our banking system, with Weimar-style queues littering our high streets at almost every bank and building society, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to issue his blank cheque to the bankers of Britain.
They now, as I see it, have carte blanche to take the most awesome risks with the money of their depositors, knowing that if they goof badly, the taxpayer will compensate their aggrieved customers.
That Mr Darling, on the express orders of his puppet-master Mr Brown, chose to do this was, of course, nakedly political. We don't want the middle classes, many of whom have loyally voted Labour at the last three elections, thinking that the Government might be presiding over the destruction of our life savings, do we?
What is so ludicrous about this – and this is the war-being-left-to-generals point again – is that it wasn't going to happen.
Panic is usually irrational, and this was no exception. What if Northern Rock, having taken the Bank's line of credit last week, hadn't been able to stop people drawing out their money?
The share price would have gone into double, and possibly even single, figures. Some other bank would then have spotted a bargain and would have bought Northern Rock, liabilities and all. Depositors would have had their money back, had they wanted it. The shareholders might have caught a cold, but that is what shareholders sometimes do. If you don't want to accept that you might lose money at capitalism, then don't play the game.
This ought to be self-evidently true for shareholders – but it applies to depositors, too. All capitalism is about risk. Rewards do not come otherwise. Sometimes risk is high; at others it isn't.
Those who sought a high return bought shares in Northern Rock, fully appreciating, I hope, that they might lose their shirts if the business went bad. Those who wished to have little or no risk put money on deposit there instead.
It has, however, never been the deal that money on deposit is entirely risk-free, and nor should it be. The risk may be tiny, as in this case. But risk oils the wheels of capitalism, and it is certainly not the Government's job to seek to jam them by removing the lubricant. That, though, is precisely what it has done, for the most cynical of reasons, and setting the most unacceptable precedent.
It also shows how, in the end, people simply revert to type.
For all his years of being feted by Alan Greenspan, for all his talk of sound money and prudence, for all his overt encouragement of business through, for example, the corporation tax system, Mr Brown is still a socialist.
Like all socialists, he does not get capitalism. He does not get the indissoluble link between risk and reward. He does not get the vital role capitalism plays in a free society, where people must be allowed to spend their money as they wish, and to take the consequences, whether they be profit or loss. He does not get the point that, from time to time, the devil will take the hindmost. Businesses must be allowed to fail, and people must be allowed to lose money when they do. If not, capitalism is over.
We expect Mr Brown to be blind in this way, and his puppet Chancellor and his other obedient colleagues, too. We might, though, have expected the Conservatives to do better. They have, though, failed us again.
We should have known they no longer even put up a pretence of understanding the economy. They have talked fatuously of having an economic policy that will "share the proceeds of growth". They have talked, with equal ignorance, of tax cuts putting the economy at risk of "instability". The other day, their dolt of a shadow chancellor, George Osborne, chose to defy political and economic logic by pledging his party to comply with Labour's extravagant spending plans for the first three years that they might ever be in office again.
When Northern Rock began to falter, Mr Cameron started to lambast Mr Brown's mishandling of the economy for being a contributory factor. It was. However, Mr Cameron fails still to see the irony of his party's pledging to carry on the most important feature of that mismanagement: the pumping of huge amounts of money into the economy from the public purse. Why was there once sufficient liquidity to allow Northern Rock to lend recklessly? Because Mr Brown created it; and Mr Cameron wants to maintain it.
And so, inevitably, someone called Philip Hammond, who in the swamp that is the present Conservative front bench has risen to the eminence of shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, goes on Newsnight on Monday evening and says he agrees with the Chancellor's indefensible policy.
Why does he agree with it? Does he understand the consequences for capitalism of agreeing with it? Does he grasp what a precedent it has set? Why don't the Conservatives just go the whole hog and call for the nationalisation of the banks in their next manifesto? It would be no more barking than some of the idiotic and sub-intellectual things they now stand for.
The market would have sorted out Northern Rock. That it was not allowed to do so has dealt a blow to capitalism, a creed on which we all rely for such prosperity as we have, from which we shall take a long time to recover.
If only we had a serious opposition party to embrace, champion and uphold the vital values of capitalism, the cure might come far faster, and be far more durable.
Some refer to the smell of fruit, hay and ripe apricots. Others to horse blankets, barnyard funk, pencil shavings and leather, just to name a few of the more peculiar descriptions of the odour of wine.
But now there is scientific evidence to suggest that wine buffs may just be talking rubbish, or at least that they greatly overestimate their own ability to pin down a wine's particular aroma.
A US team has published hard evidence that people smell the world differently because of their genes.
The findings suggest that those who claim to pick up rich aromas from fine wines may owe more to genetics than to any great expertise.
The basis of the research, by scientists at Rockefeller University in New York and published today in the journal Nature, is a study of how 400 people reacted to more than 60 smells.
It reveals that small changes in a single gene – identified as OR7D4 – can cause a person to perceive a key ingredient of male body odour and urine as smelling like urine or, most remarkably, vanilla.
Although it has long been suspected that the sensing of body odour is genetically determined, this study is the first to identify variations in a single gene that account for a large part of why people perceive it so differently.
The Telegraph's wine buff, Jonathan Ray, commented: "Shock horror! So there is scientific proof that wine lovers talk rubbish. Doesn't everyone after a glass or two?
"How does one describe what scrambled eggs tastes like, or smoke smells like, without comparing them to something else? So it is that we wine lovers might describe a wine as tasting of truffles, leather, game and rotting veg. Well, dammit, that's what old red burgundy often resembles. It certainly doesn't taste of grapes."
After 17 years, Royal Mail is to stop all Sunday and Bank Holiday collections from October 28, blaming soaring losses.
Stickers will be placed on all of the 18,000 boxes that provide Sunday collections stating that the service is about to end.
About 1,500 postal workers will now get Sundays off.
But even after the Sunday pick-ups have stopped, letter boxes will be monitored to ensure that letters do not spill out on to the pavement.
'If we find any boxes that are overflowing, we will empty them,' said a Royal Mail spokesman.
The vast majority of Royal Mail's 115,000 letter boxes have never had a Sunday collection, which is estimated to account for less than one per cent of all the mail posted each week. The small volumes mean it costs four times as much to handle this post than items collected on other days.
The spokesman said half the mail was sent second class and was not for next-day delivery.
Regulator Postcomm said that Royal Mail was not obliged to empty boxes on Sundays. 'Sunday and Bank Holiday collections are not part of Royal Mail's universal service obligation,' it said.
Perhaps this is what we need:
Despite your best intentions to eat healthier meals, exercise regularly, drink pure water, and use key supplements, something scary could be preventing you from achieving your peak wellness.
And it lurks in your kitchen cabinets ...
Yes, it is your cookware - pots and pans.
Did you know that Teflon-coated saucepans and frying pans are potentially dangerous to your health? They are being phased out in America.
Teflon is a trademark of the DuPont Company, but similar non-stick coatings are used by many other manufacturers. However, in recent years they have become very controversial because of possible health risks.
Teflon-coated aluminum contains perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a synthetic chemical used in its production, creating its soap-like slipperiness and non-stick finish.
* In April of 2006, multiple class action lawsuits were filed against DuPont representing consumers in twenty states and the District of Columbia. DuPont was charged with exposing millions of Americans to health risks from pans containing PFOA. (And that DuPont knew of the risks but failed to disclose them.)
* In May 2006, DuPont said it received a subpoena from the U.S. Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section to turn over documents about PFOA safety. This came just a month after DuPont settled a lawsuit -- with a fine of $10.25 million -- by the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that DuPont hid health data about PFOA for twenty years.
* In March 2006, a scientific advisory panel to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advised that PFOA be labeled a "likely carcinogen". Manufacturers are to phase out 95 percent of production by 2010, and totally by 2015. It is important to note that this is a voluntary reduction by manufacturers.
In studies of heated non-stick pans on conventional stovetops commissioned by the consumer watchdog organization Environmental Working Group, it only took 2-5 minutes to reach temperatures producing dangerous toxins. The coating begins to break down and release toxins into the air at only 446 degrees.
At 680 degrees (3 to 5 minutes), non-stick pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants and MFA, a chemical deadly to humans at low doses. The vapors from using these pans with high heat also caused instant death to pet birds.
Even after you purge your kitchen of Teflon, you may still be harbouring danger -- this time in the form of aluminium or stainless steel.
I would not recommend aluminium pans for cooking if you want to enjoy your golden years. Aluminium is a strongly suspected causal factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). AD is dreaded by people more than cancer and heart disease, for good reason.
Aluminum is considered a "reactive" metal, meaning that it reacts with salty or acidic foods to release itself into the food. You can also be exposed to aluminum when Teflon chips off a coated aluminum pan.
Next to Teflon, the most common cookware alternative is stainless steel, accounting for one-third of U.S. cookware sales. And some cooks prefer the "clad" or "three-ply" varieties that have an aluminum or copper base sandwiched between layers of stainless steel.
Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel may not be an inert metal either. All stainless steel has alloys containing nickel, chromium, molybdenum, carbon and various other metals.
In a study done on heart patients receiving stainless steel stents, restenosis occurred in 50% of patients. Allergies to the nickel and molybdenum in the stainless steel were suspected as a causal factor.
Copper is an alternative with even heat distribution. However, it should not have direct contact with food, due to the possibility of copper poisoning. Therefore, most copper pans come lined with other metals, creating the same concerns noted above. Copper pans are also extremely costly.
Once you realize that Teflon may be deadly, stainless steel is reactive, and copper is no good either, where do you turn?
The suggestion is Enamelled Cast Iron Cookware - very much like the pans your grandmother used.
They could be a much better bet for good health, but they are heavy and fracture easily if dropped. The top brands, such as "Le Creuset", are very expensive, but cheaper alternatives are available.
So, ditch the Teflon, aluminium and stainless steel and get out there and buy enamelled ware.
(From an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola' http://www.mercola.com/)
Are you getting enough? (Sunshine)
The dangers of sun exposure have been greatly exaggerated, and the benefits highly underestimated. Sun exposure is not the major reason people develop skin cancer. I know many of you might be surprised by this, but this is simply not the truth, and buying into this lie will most assuredly deprive you of the vital benefits the sun can provide.
And one of the major benefits is lowering your risk of getting cancer -- the number one cause of death. A groundbreaking American study has found that 600,000 cases of cancer could be prevented every year just by increasing your levels of vitamin D, and without question, the best way to obtain your vitamin D is by UVB sunlight falling on unexposed skin in doses that do not cause sunburn.
Even beyond cancer, the researchers pointed out that increasing levels of vitamin D3 could prevent diseases that claim nearly 1 million lives throughout the world each year!
David Cameron has jumped on the "Green" and "Global Warming" bandwagon in an attempt to gain votes for the Conservatives.
I personally think that he should devote more of his efforts to the issues that really concern us: The Economy, The NHS, Pensions, Education, the Elderly, Child Welfare and Obesity.
I have not been convinced by the campaigns to "Save The Planet" and "Green Issues".
There are too many financial interests involved and the general public, spurred on by the media, are so gullible!
I was interested, therefore, to read yesterday this report in yesterday's 'Daily Telegraph'.
GLOBAL WARMING 'IS GOOD AND IS NOT OUR FAULT'
Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers.
Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.
Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists.
They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells.
Mr Avery, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, an independent US think-tank, said: "Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people.
"It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine, plagues and disease."
In contrast, they say there is evidence that wildlife is flourishing in the current warming cycle with corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies adapting well.
In addition, sea-levels are not rising dramatically and storms and droughts have actually been less severe and frequent.
The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today.
They claim to show strong historical evidence of an entirely natural cycle based on data of floods on the Nile going back 5,000 years.
Evidence is citing showing records of Roman wine production in Britain in the first century AD.
Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: "We have a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it, except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events.
"The models only reflect the warming, not its cause."
They also say that natural temperature change can be caused by fluctuations in the sun.
The authors spent months analysing scientific reports and papers for their book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Their aim was to undermine claims made by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, in his film An Inconvenient Truth, that shows the extent of man-made global warming.
Also refer to this website:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/11/20/global_warming_and_climate_change.htm
'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change':
Are mass media reporting true scientific acts or are they spinning a panic wheel again to favour a hidden economic agenda?
Could it be that information is being deliberately filtered to create a climate of fear, sneak in new taxes, ensure the longevity of cheap third world labour and increase government control of citizens' rights?
Only one in 40 11-year-olds meets the national target of an hour of physical exercise a day, say researchers.
A University of Bath study of 5,595 children found that 95% of boys and 99.6% of girls fell short of this time.
The Archives of Disease in Childhood study follows a warning that the NHS must do more to counter obesity.
The report paints a bleaker picture than the last Health Survey of England, in 2002, which claimed that many more children were meeting the standard.
This suggests, it's asking a lot to expect children to do an hour of moderate or vigorous exercise a day'
The study centred on a group of children from the Avon area monitored since birth by scientists seeking to unravel links between lifestyle and illness.
In this study, 5,595 boys and girls were fitted with an "accelerometer" - which measures precisely how they move, and can detect moderate or strenuous exercise - for seven days.
It revealed that children averaged just 17 minutes of moderate exercise, and two minutes of "vigorous" exercise a day.
Dr Calum Mattocks, one of the researchers, said they were "surprised" to find so few children managing an hour of physical activity over the course of a day.
He said that even though the hour target was the result of expert consensus, it was possible that it was too ambitious
When you think about playtime, getting to and from school, running around at home, it's quite possible to have an hour's exercise
"This suggests it's asking a lot to expect children to do an hour of moderate or vigorous exercise a day."
He added: "We should remember that, even though it does not appear that children are doing much exercise, they are still doing, on average, twice as much as adults."
The research paints a far bleaker picture of children's exercise rates compared with the official figures within the Health Survey for England.
The most recent survey, in 2002, suggested that 77% of boys and 64% of girls were meeting the standard at the age of 11.
Too little exercise in childhood has been linked to an increased risk of obesity in adulthood, which in turn raises the risk of serious diseases such as heart disease or cancer.
This week, a report commissioned by the King's Fund suggested that the rising rate of obesity, and the associated extra costs of healthcare for those affected, posed a greater risk to the future of the NHS than had been previously suggested.
We are all becoming expert at engineering physical activity out of our daily lives
Sir Derek Wanless, who wrote the report, said: "Nobody knows how big the bills are going to be but they look quite frightening."
Dr Richard Winsley, from the Children's Health and Exercise Research Centre at Exeter University, said that evidence from other studies suggested that even more than an hour's exercise might be needed by children to protect their future health.
He said: "When you think about playtime, getting to and from school, running around at home, it's quite possible to have an hour's exercise at this age.
"Young children love to run around, and if you give them a safe place to do it, they will do it."
Steve Shaffelberg, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "We are all becoming expert at engineering physical activity out of our daily lives.
"In the last 20 years school car journeys have more than doubled, with less than 50% walking and just 1% cycling.
"The killer combination of far too little physical activity together blended with a diet heavy with soft drinks and snacks is driving rising rates of obesity among British children, and threatening their health."
A government spokesman said tackling obesity was a top priority, and a new strategy would be published in the autumn.
He said: "There are no overnight, easy solutions to creating a culture where every child has a healthy life, actively supported by their parents.
"We absolutely recognise that we must go further and faster."
No - not the potato variety, but these:
Verichip implant
Be careful if you have one implanted in your pet (or yourself) as there is a scare story that they may cause cancer.
Shares of Applied Digital Solutions and of its publicly traded subsidiary VeriChip, which makes an implanted microchip for identifying people, fell sharply yesterday as investors reacted to a report this weekend linking the tiny radio device to cancer.
The report, by The Associated Press, suggested that VeriChip and federal regulators had ignored or overlooked animal studies raising questions about whether the chip or the process of injecting it might cause cancer in dogs and laboratory rodents.
VeriChip said that it had not been aware of the studies cited in the report, according to the article, but both the company and federal regulators said yesterday that animal data had been considered in the review of the application to implant the chips in humans.
They said that there were no controlled scientific studies linking the chips to cancer in dogs or cats and that lab rodents were more prone than humans or other animals to developing tumors from all types of injections.
But VeriChip shares fell more than 11 percent, to close at $5. Applied Digital, which has other businesses but has called VeriChip its main engine for future growth, fell nearly 10 percent, to $1.09.
The report has created concern among veterinarians and operators of animal shelters that pet owners would resist the practice, now widespread, of putting similar chips in pets to make it easier to return lost animals to their owners.
“If there are any cancers from the chips, they are so rare that losing pets is far more serious,” said Dr. Lawrence D. McGill, a veterinary pathologist at Animal Reference Pathology, a veterinary laboratory in Salt Lake City.
The radio identification device for which VeriChip is named is a glass-encased chip the size of a grain of rice. The device, which carries an encrypted number, is injected in the upper arm.
In medical applications, the chip is linked to medical records stored at hospitals or with a primary-care physician. A low-powered transmitter in the chip emits the identification number when queried at close range by a VeriChip scanner.
VeriChip has demonstrated that the same chip could also be linked to other databases. For example, nightclubs have used it to recognize regular visitors and Mexican police have used it to control access to a high-security office.
In its news release disputing suggestions that the implant could be linked to cancer, VeriChip said yesterday, “We will retain independent scientists and researchers to review the content, veracity and credibility of the studies alluded to in the article.”
MEN WHO BUY SEX COULD FACE PROSECUTION
Ministers are considering proposals to prosecute men for buying sex in a new effort to curb the demand for prostitution.
Senior members of the government are discussing whether to criminalise the purchase, rather than sale, of sex - as Sweden did eight years ago - in part because of the growth in sex trafficking.
According to the government, 85% of women in brothels come from outside the UK.
Men have been convicted for trafficking women into Britain, but none has been prosecuted for paying for sex with women or girls forced into the sex trade.
One minister acknowledged the move would be "quite a dramatic step", but added: "There's no doubt whatsoever it's being talked about. There is increasing awareness among senior ministers, particularly women, that demand for prostitution is an area which needs to be tackled seriously and hasn't been."
A number of senior women in government - including Jacqui Smith, the home secretary; Patricia Scotland, the attorney general; Vera Baird, solicitor general; and Harriet Harman, leader of the house - are thought to be sympathetic to the calls.
Other proposals being considered include large-scale programmes to name and shame men caught kerbcrawling, which is already illegal.
But campaigners believe that only by criminalising clients can they help women working in brothels as well as on the streets and send out a signal that paying for sex is not acceptable.
Fiona Mactaggart MP, who as a home office minister was in charge of tackling prostitution until last year, said: "The criminal justice bill that comes back on the first day [after the parliamentary recess] includes changes to the prostitution strategy. It would be possible to put into it some amendment which deals with this issue of men who pay for sex," she said.
She dismissed arguments that prostitution was an inevitable part of society, adding: "We have always had murder - that doesn't make it right. The price of prostitution is enormously high for women...[And] the more vulnerable the woman is, the cheaper the price is for men."
Denis MacShane MP, a former minister and campaigner against sex trafficking, added: "Until you have the Wilberforce moment when you say those who buy [sex] are just as guilty as those who are selling [women], it will continue to grow. It's not until there is a regular flow of men before the courts because they have paid for sex with illegally trafficked sex slaves that we will see a change in culture."
Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.
(From the Guardian)
The royal coat of arms may be
removed from the UK passport
References to the Queen could be taken out of British passports in a bid to make them more European, it has emerged.
The new documents, which could be in place as early as 2010, would bear reference to the EU constitution in order to remind UK citizens that they are part of Europe.
The first page of the British passport has historically featured the royal coat of arms with a message from the Queen beginning: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State".
The words go on to outline that the citizen has a right to travel freely and has the right to protection and assistance.
Under new changes, however, it has been suggested that the coat of arms are scrapped and replaced by the EU emblem of 12 stars with the message underneath reading: "Every citizen of the Union".
The new version has been taken from Article 20 of the EU Constitution, the treaty that was discredited two years ago after it was rejected by member states including France and the Netherlands.
This particular section of the treaty reminded citizens that they were part of Europe and had rights as an EU citizen.
A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: "The changes relate to Article 20 of the EU Treaty which proposes EU language to be inserted into British passports.
"It's still under consideration and no decision has been taken yet."
The proposals were criticised by the Tories as yet another example of the EU gaining more power over British citizens.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "People want to be proud to be British and their passports should have a clear association with that. There is no good reason to change the traditional presentation of our passports.
"These proposals are yet another illustration of how the British people must be given their say in a referendum before any new powers are signed over to the EU under a proposed new treaty."
The British passports have born reference to the monarch since 1915 when the first blue hardback booklets were handed out to citizens.
They remained the same until 20 years ago when they were replaced by smaller burgundy booklets with the words European Union printed across the cover.
Now, the new versions of the passport would state that Britain is obliged to look after the citizens of other EU countries on the same basis as its own nationals.
Article 20 of the treaty, on which the revised wording would be based, states that if an EU citizen does not have his own government to look after him he can expect assistance from any other EU state he chooses.
Do you remember the Toucan ads saying "Guinness is good for you"?
They were withdrawn when the healthy benefits became debatable.
Now researchers are saying a pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks.
Drinking lager does not yield the same benefits, experts from University of Wisconsin told a conference in the US.
Guinness were told to stop using the slogan decades ago - and the firm still makes no health claims for the drink.
The Wisconsin team tested the health-giving properties of stout against lager by giving it to dogs who had narrowed arteries similar to those in heart disease.
They found that those given the Guinness had reduced clotting activity in their blood, but not those given lager.
Clotting is important for patients who are at risk of a heart attack because they have hardened arteries.
A heart attack is triggered when a clot lodges in one of these arteries supplying the heart.
Many patients are prescribed low-dose aspirin as this cuts the ability of the blood to form these dangerous clots.
The researchers told a meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, that the most benefit they saw was from 24 fluid ounces of Guinness - just over a pint - taken at mealtimes.
We already know that most of the clotting effects are due to the alcohol itself, rather than any other ingredients
They believe that "antioxidant compounds" in the Guinness, similar to those found in certain fruits and vegetables, are responsible for the health benefits because they slow down the deposit of harmful cholesterol on the artery walls.
The company that manufactures Guinness say: "We never make any medical claims for our drinks."
A spokesman for Brewing Research International, which conducts research for the industry, said she would be "wary" of placing the health benefits of any alcohol brand above another.
She said: "We already know that most of the clotting effects are due to the alcohol itself, rather than any other ingredients.
"It is possible that there is an extra effect due to the antioxidants in Guinness - but I would like to see this research repeated."
She said that reviving the old adverts for Guinness might be problematic - at least in the EU.
Draft legislation could outlaw any health claims in adverts for alcohol in Europe, she said.
The original campaign in the 1920s stemmed from market research - when people told the company that they felt good after their pint, the slogan was born.
In England, post-operative patients used to be given Guinness, as were blood donors, because of its high iron content.
Pregnant women and nursing mothers were at one stage advised to drink Guinness - the present advice is against this.
The UK is still the largest market in the world for Guinness, although the drink does not feature in the UK's top ten beer brands according to the latest research.
I am continuing my theme from yesterday's "Gay's The Word"
A couple of months ago, I had a week's coach holiday in Holland and sitting beside me was a very bright lady in her 80s.
We were staying in Bergen-op-Zoom and the previous week there had been a "Gay Pride" parade. The streets were still decorated with rainbow flags.
My travel companion commented that she could not understand how anyone could say that they felt proud to be gay. I suggested that yes, perhaps it would be better for them to say that they were 'not ashamed' to be gay.
However, "Unashamedly Gay" seems much worse than "Proud".
What do you think? Is there an alternative?
I suppose it depends whether you believe that homosexuality is a voluntarily adopted lifestyle, or something that is inherent at birth.
Whatever the cause, I do not think it should be celebrated by flag-waving and parades which, in my opinion are divisive. If gays are to be accepted into society they should seek to be integrated, not separated and set apart as something different.
On a related subject, this week I attended a lecture on the poetry of Oscar Wilde.
He was presented as a "womaniser", with much emphasis on his marriage, affairs with women and visits to prostitutes in London and Paris. The word 'homosexual' was only used once.
Even his trial and dispatch to Reading Gaol, where he spent six hours a day on the treadmill, was misrepresented. The lecturer said that Wilde lost his libel case against the Marquess of Queensberry, who had accused him of being a sodomite, and was consequently sent to gaol for two years' hard labour.
The facts are that Wilde did NOT lose his libel case but, on the advice of his lawyers, he withdrew the charges against Queensberry.
However, the defence had produced in court incriminating evidence of Wilde's association with numerous young men and this was sufficient for the police to apply for a warrant for his arrest on a charge of gross indecency.
The warrant was served on him at the Cadogan Hotel, Knightsbridge.
That moment was immortalised by Sir John Betjeman in a poem which I posted on www.poemsandprose.blog.co.uk on 10th August.
GAYS 'COULD USE NEW LAWS TO SUE CHRISTIANS FOR HARRASMENT'
Church leaders expressed fears last night that Christians could be sued under proposed new laws to protect gays from harassment.
The Government is proposing to introduce the laws to protect individuals from hostile or humiliating “environments” as part of an overhaul of discrimination legislation.
But Christian lawyers and the Church of England warned that Christians could face legal action if they offended gays by expressing the traditional teaching that homosexual sex was immoral.
The row follows the bitter battle last year over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which many Christians fear will erode religious freedom and are part of a growing secularisation of society.
The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship said that the new proposals, which may be included in a Single Equality Bill, could allow gays to sue if they heard a sermon that condemned homosexuality.
It added that while a church could “gently refuse membership” to an unrepentant, practising homosexual, “that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating position’, could sue the Church.”
The Fellowship also warned that suggestions that local authorities should have a duty to promote gay equality could be “taken too far” and result in state funding being removed from Christian projects.
The Church of England, in its official submission to the Government’s consultation on the Bill, said the proposed harassment laws were unnecessary.
If such legislation was introduced, however, it would be “crucial” to ensure that a religion’s followers, and not just clergy, could continue “to express the views of their faith about homosexual conduct, including challenging people to lead lives consistent with the teaching of the Church.
"To deny Christians (and followers of other faiths which take a similar view) such a right would amount to an unjustified interference with the right to manifest religious belief.”
The Church added that the proposals “should not prevent church schools from continuing to teach in accordance with such a school’s religious ethos.”
Are the proposed new laws fair and forward-looking? Or do they go too far in their attempt to establish equality?
Why is there this conflict between Gays and the established Church? Cannot someone be Gay and a Christian?
Surely there are many gay clergy in the Church of England? Are they all "non-practising?
I smell hypocrisy somewhere!
The well-being or quality of life of a population is an important concern in economics and political science.
It is measured by many social and economic factors.
A large part is standard of living, the amount of money and access to goods and services that a person has; these numbers are fairly easily measured. Others like freedom, happiness, art, environmental health, and innovation are far harder to measure.
Britain may have the fifth biggest economy in the world but it is ranked only 17th for quality of life.
According to a study that compares the economies of 183 countries, Britain does not even make the top 40 in the list of hospital beds per 1,000 people.
Norway tops the "human development" - or quality of life - index, followed by Iceland and Australia.
Things are even worse for British children, who come 21st in the "child well-being" index, which is headed by Holland.
However, the news is not all bleak. The country is world leader for attracting investment from foreign countries and the figure for carbon emissions per person is less than half that of America.
Pocket World in Figures 2008, published by The Economist, takes an annual look at 200 economic markers as diverse as contraception use, children's well-being and murders and executions.
There are some surprises. Despite British house prices rocketing 196 per cent between 1997 and 2006, the inflation rate lags behind South Africa (351 per cent) and Ireland (253 per cent).
Looking at property price rises year on year, the UK is ninth in the table. London, however, still has the highest office rents of any city on the planet. British music lovers spend more per head on recordings and downloads than anyone else - about £18 per year, although this may be because they are more expensive than elsewhere.
Britons are also the sixth most regular cinema-goers.
The country also has more mobile phones than people - averaging 109.8 handsets for every 100 of the population.
Despite 98.3 televisions for every 100 households, the UK is only joint 13th in a table where Belgium is top. It also has the third highest ownership of CD players and 12th highest for computers.
With 78.7 vehicles for every kilometre of road, Britain has the 15th most crowded roads.
Stephen Brough, the editor of the book, said: "The -surprising finds this year are that there are two countries where house prices have gone up by more than us over the past decade; and that we spend the most per head on music.
"In other categories we are not as badly off as people think. Despite concerns over binge drinking, we are not, per head, among the world's biggest beer-drinking nations."
Life expectancy in the UK is predicted to be 79.4 years per person up to 2010 but this is only the 22nd highest in the world, alongside Germany, Malta and Belgium. Andorra's 83.5 is highest.
British women are second only to the Chinese in the use of modern methods of contraception. The country is absent from the top 40 index of hospital beds per 1,000 people - although Slovakia, Cuba and Belarus all make the list.
Top 20 countries for quality of life:
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Japan
8. USA
9.= Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland
12. Belgium, Luxembourg
14. Austria
15. Denmark
16. France
17.= Italy, United Kingdom
19. Spain
20. New Zealand
Once the damage is done it is better to remain overweight
'DON'T LOSE WEIGHT AFTER HEART ATTACK'
Obese patients who have had a heart attack should not lose try to lose weight, a doctor said yesterday.
The idea is set to divide the medical community because heart patients are routinely told to lose weight and lead a healthier lifestyle to prevent further attacks.
Prof Stefan Anker, of the Royal Brompton Hospital in London, said ''once the damage is done'' it is better to remain overweight because the extra calories protect the body.
Addressing the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in Vienna, he stressed his findings relate only to patients who have already got heart disease and younger patients should prevent damage by remaining a healthy weight.
''There is no indication that after the onset of heart disease, in old and ill people, that you improve hospitalisation rates or improve survival when patients lose weight."
He said doctors had simply extrapolated the advice from the ''young and the fit'' to relate to the ''old and ill''.
Prof Anker said a doctor would never ask a cancer patient or an Aids patient to lose weight and ''it should equally never happen in patients with heart failure''.
"Among patients with cardiovascular illness, the finding that obese patients fare prognostically better than non-obese patients is not restricted to patients with chronic heart failure.
Indeed, in other chronic illnesses like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, renal failure, or liver cirrhosis, obese patients show better survival. Obesity must be a marker of something positive if it is not itself of benefit."
''It seems time to comprehensively revisit our thinking about obesity, especially in the context of chronic illnesses."
