Is David Davis out of step - or is it Westminster?

Well it seems all the MSM talking heads are following the unelected King Gordon’s line that, UK Shadow Home Secretary David Davis’ resignation in protest over the 42 day detention issue is a stunt and a risible waste of time distracting from much more important things.

Well He would say that wouldn’t he? Being a notoriously just a little shy of submitting himself to the will of the electorate, thus probably blowing the only slim chance he ever had of actually being elected Prime Minister.

Gordon is clearly desperate to prevent any other serious party standing against Davis too and Nick Clegg has obligingly followed his line, as he did in the case of the notorious Lisbon Treaty.

Still there is a former editor of that well known bastion of intelligent moderate informed comment and civil liberties, the Sun, willing to stand up for what one might be forgiven for seeing as the principle of locking dodgy ‘foreign looking’ people up indefinitely without evidence.

Of course Davis’s resignation would not make sense to the majority of New-Labour, sadly quite probably on the majority of MPs .

Based, as it was, on a matter of actual principle, they are clearly incapable of understanding it at all, not being able to easily perceive principles at all. To the MSM reporters subsumed in the Westminster hot house atmosphere it probably makes no more sense.

This may be the case with those who like to see themselves as opinion formers, but it may be, in this case, they are a little out of step with the general population, who see things slightly differently.

Agree with him or not, there is it seems, at least one MP who is an honorable gentleman, who we can actually believe - and trust to stand up for civil rights and what he believes in.

Someone who’s word and promises, unlike Gordon's or Nick's, actually are ‘subject to legitimate expectation’. More power to him.

Booty is in the eye of the beholder…

Now there surely has to be a biological reason why, contrary to fashion magazine hype, the average guy (according anecdotal evidence) actually prefers a girl with a little padding especially on the derriere. I have long assumed that many of the features men find attractive in women are actually reasonably reliable indicators of good health and fertility. Signs they might make a good mate. The reverse is probably also true.

Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.

It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.

The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.

Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."

Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.

UK Tabloid Titillation EXPOSED!!

It is interesting to note that lower end of the UK MSM are at it again.

Not content with secretly filming, distorting and ‘exposing’ the private life of Formula One boss, Max Mosley, they now have their hooks into Lord Laidlaw.

Billed as “A TOP TORY PAYMASTER!” they seem particularly fascinated by the involvement of an allegedly “TRI-LINGUAL BISEXUAL!”, giving the vague impression that being “TRI-LINGUAL!” is some sort of sexual practice, or preference ;-), rather than a sign of intelligence.

In the case of Mosley it seems they distorted the details and falsely reported them to talking heads, who then foolishly give them outraged quotes in return.

In the case of Laidlaw they conveniently tuck the fact that he has also funded inner city academies and youth projects for disadvantaged children way down the story, after the presumably politically motivated, “TORY PAYMASTER!” stuff.

He certainly is a significant donor to the Conservative party, but what has this got to do with the price of fish?

Is it really the business of the Tabloids what someone does in private? As far as I am aware he, like Mosley, has committed no crimes. On the contrary he actually appears to genuinely want to do good. One suspects the press may have sailed far closer to the wind in that respect in their efforts at privacy invasion.

Apart from the fact that unconventional sex was involved Laidlaw has done nothing more than arranging a venue and some professional entertainment. One can see, in this case it might concern his wife, depending on her views of life, but not the rest of us.

Why is it acceptable for the press to trumpet people’s sexual preferences to the world when they are doing no harm? Would they do the same if they had pictures of someone famous on the WC? Quite possibly, one begins to suspect.

These were consenting adults who were presumably enjoying themselves drinking champagne, good wines and in some cases providing a service they were being paid for. Honest value given for honest value received.

BBC Trust to Quiz Director General about 'lapses'

The BBC trust, which represents UK TV Tax (licence) payers, will be meeting the corporation's Director General, Mark Thompson, to discuss BBC1's autumn launch promotion that created the false impression that the Queen had stormed out of a photoshoot by ‘manipulating the chronology’ of the video and their faking a children’s TV competition winner.

One hopes they will discuss more than just this visible tip of the iceberg.

Mr Thompson has said he will lay out his plans to minimise the risk of similar "totally unacceptable incidents ever happening again", despite the controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, saying he was not planning to resign.

Mr Thompson informed BBC staff that: "We cannot allow even a small number of lapses, whether intentional or as a result of sloppiness, to undermine our reputation and the confidence of the public."

Too late Mr Thompson – You already did.

It's the truth Jim - But not as we know it.

How the media (in this case the BBC) misdirect, even as they present the facts. The main 6 pm UK BBC News on Monday the 16th ran the story of Dr Andrew Wakefield who raised questions over the safety of the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

He is in trouble with the UK General Medical Council (GMC) over the matter and is up on charges brought by them of acting ‘unethically and dishonestly’. Something he and his colleagues strenuously deny.

The background is: He, together with two colleagues, published a research paper in the Lancet in 1998 that raised the possibility that the new MMR vaccine was linked to both autism and the bowel disorder Crohn's disease.

The Government and medical establishment have repeatedly rejected the suggestion that there was any increased risk to the new vaccine.

Now regardless, of the merits, or not, of the current case, for the moment let’s look at the BBC reporting of it. Really look at the way it was put together.

The BBC report showed a graph indicating the drop in the take up of the MMR vaccine against an increase in the incidence of measles and explained it in these terms, the strong implication being that Dr Wakefield and his colleagues had been responsible for what amounted to almost a measles epidemic and a child had died. Practically a mass murderer then…

I shall not go into the careful phrasing of the propaganda report, that suggested that there could be no question the vaccine was not safe as houses and had a certain hint of ‘scientific consensus’ about it in a massive body of evidence.

They even trotted out a Mother (and indeed, who should know better?) who told us all that her G.P. (General Practitioner, or Dr) had ‘assured her the MMR vaccine was perfectly safe’. Much more convincing than all those parents who had turned out demonstrating in Dr Wakefield’s favour.

It may be the BBC were only repeating what they had been told. In that case the researcher in this case may also be interested in purchasing some attractively fancy looking shares in a Bolivian gold mine I can make available to them at short notice - as soon as the ink has dried.

The fact is those who had concerns about the new joint vaccine had wanted to ensure that the previous single vaccines continued to be available for parents to request, precisely in order to avoid any risk of epidemic.

It was actually the Government and the medical establishment that made it almost impossibly difficult to obtain the single vaccines and effectively forced parents to choose between the new MMR vaccine, or no vaccine at all.

Despite strong campaigning from parents to be able to choose, in August 1999, the government de-licensed the single measles vaccine and banned the widespread importation of the vaccine into the UK. Such a fine example of patient choice and the free market in action. Some parents who could afford it even took their children abroad to be vaccinated using the single jab.

After that, the old vaccine was and may still be, available in this country - but only if parents were able to persuade a doctor to organise importation "for personal use", then administer it, even if newly unlicensed, in the face of massive official disapproval.

In 2001, the heavy guns of the World Health Organization (WHO) waded in, issuing a fatwa statement, "strongly supporting the use of MMR vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy."

It may, or may not, be relevant that a significant number of members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, two Department of Health committees responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine, are reported to have had links with companies that manufacture it including some as actual as share holders.

One could also be forgiven for thinking that if the authorities had ever really been concerned about the possibility of an increase in the number of cases of Measles they would have allowed parental choice between the original viable alternative and the MMR vaccine, rather than trying to bully them with an all, or nothing, choice.

So, that rise the BBC mentioned in the number of measles cases, can be squarely laid at the door of the government and the medical establishment for effectively banning any alternative to MMR.

That is what the BBC failed to mention and by doing so is effectively actually covering up. A work of art using only actual facts, Jo Goebbels would have been proud.

Talk about show trials and rewriting history to suit. It all has a certain worrying familiarity,

Blier launches an attack on the UK media

During a speech to Reuters Tony Blair has attacked the UK media, saying the modern media now hunted "in a pack" and that it was: "a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits".

Maybe if politicians didn’t twist the truth, pick good days to bury bad news and to all intents and purposes lie then they would not get called on it.

Now on the European constitution he said not long ago: “Let the people have the final say.". Yet he is now trying to sneak it in disguised as a ‘treaty’. Most of us don’t chop the truth so finely. Most of us would say he is going back on his word.

He went on to complain that non-traditional media outlets (I think he means us, bloggers) were making matters worse, not better:

"It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon.
"New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media.
"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."

He does mean bloggers doesn’t he? Maybe we need to be regulated for the public good…