Read this article from the BBC website.
I am going to rip this article to shreds, much like I am currently devouring this rather delicious apple.
Basically, this article falls afoul of what I talked about in my blog post here.
The media does not understand causation. In other words, they will look at an outcome, such as in this case a teenage girl dying, and come to a conclusion perhaps a tad too quickly. They jump the gun, as it were - and this can have pretty silly consequences.
Take this hypothetical example. A man is hit by a train after tripping over his shoe laces. The logical conclusion is that he should have simply done his shoe laces up, the medias conclusion would just as likely be "long shoe laces prove fatal" or "govermnent urged to ban (long) shoelaces". In other words, the media would not realise that maybe the person was at fault some how.
Let's put this into context, This girl who died could well have died as a direct result of the jab. But she could just as likely have died due to underlying health problems being exacerbated by the jab, or it could quite possibly have been something causes coincidence. I don't think the media understands the term "coincidence" very well - but that's for another rant on another day.
Anyways, scientific trials for new drugs are nowadays incredibly pedantic. Nothing is kept to chance. Some people jump on the Thalidomide bandwagon and that drugs are never safe, but that drug was before drugs were tested on animals first and before all the rigorous safety guidelines.
Still not convinced?
There have currently been over 1,400,000 doses of the cervical cancer vaccination. Of that just over 4,600 reactions have been logged.
Out of the 1,400,000+ jabs. 1 person has died. By my hasty calculations, that's a piddly 0.0000007%.
Bad jab? Not a chance. Bad batch? Maybe. Bad health of person? Probably.
The media "doing it wrong"? Obviously.
Just another case of the individual not being accountable at all...god damn "injury lawyers 4 you"...
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Discrimination and countering it with...discrimination!
Everyone discriminates, it's in our nature. We are more likely to trust people of our own race and to an extent, gender. Organisations discriminate due to the need to be competitive.
Discrimination is illegal (in the UK anyway).
Today the BBC reported that to counter accusations of ageism...they would actively aim to recruit older people.
In other words, they will counter ageist discrimination with ageist discrimination. Does one put out a fire by pouring fire onto it?
No.
I find it kinda silly that in response to discrimination organisations feel forced to employ a "token system" where they actively discriminate in order to comply with discrimination laws - even though they may have not discriminated in the first place.
Most businesses will employ people based on merit, their CV, if they can do the job better than someone else (ironically, this is technically a kind of discrimination). Unfortunately, the discrimination laws mean that it actually forces businesses and people to discriminate.
Just a thought, but I think our politicians should act with a bit of common sense sometimes. These discrimination laws appear to be causing more discrimination, rather than preventing it. Heck, the Police Service (not force as thats too "aggressive" and politically incorrect now) actively seeks to recruit from ethnic minorities and, for example, lesbians in order to "balance the books."
Who the hell made up this law? Nutters...
Discrimination is illegal (in the UK anyway).
Today the BBC reported that to counter accusations of ageism...they would actively aim to recruit older people.
In other words, they will counter ageist discrimination with ageist discrimination. Does one put out a fire by pouring fire onto it?
No.
I find it kinda silly that in response to discrimination organisations feel forced to employ a "token system" where they actively discriminate in order to comply with discrimination laws - even though they may have not discriminated in the first place.
Most businesses will employ people based on merit, their CV, if they can do the job better than someone else (ironically, this is technically a kind of discrimination). Unfortunately, the discrimination laws mean that it actually forces businesses and people to discriminate.
Just a thought, but I think our politicians should act with a bit of common sense sometimes. These discrimination laws appear to be causing more discrimination, rather than preventing it. Heck, the Police Service (not force as thats too "aggressive" and politically incorrect now) actively seeks to recruit from ethnic minorities and, for example, lesbians in order to "balance the books."
Who the hell made up this law? Nutters...
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Employment and the consequences of acting like a complete wanker
In almost any job in which you have a boss, acting incompetently or breaking/bending the rules will likely get you sacked. Simple as that, it teaches people a valuable lesson on morals. This knowledge that being a bad person with regards to things like expenses and competance and the fact that is has consequences means that there is a good level in honesty.
Except for the public sector. This sector of work covers anyone employed by the government, this includes the military, police, fire, NHS politicians etc.
It is surprisingly difficult to get sacked from a job in the public sector - and for things such as redundancies, public sector employees need only worry in a recession (like now). Public sector organisations do not worry about profit, so incompetent staff generally do not suffer the consequences unless its really very very major (and I mean something like rape or other violent crime).
MP's expenses. That's right, a large number of MP's (who have a base salary or aprox £60k) were getting tens of thousands of pounds every year, many were also switching their "main home" so that they could get extra benefits to refurbish then possibly sell the house. In short, they were bending the rules (ie going against the spirit of them) in order for personal financial gain. An analogy is if a businesses man had a business card for "expenses" and used that cash to secretly finance a little business selling whatever. In the private sector, this businessman would get sacked when discovered.
I'd like to note, that ZERO MPs have been sacked as a result of the benefits scandel - if anything, they seem to think they have been short changed, Alan Duncan recently said while on holiday in some far off expensive island that they were forced "to live on rations." Mr Duncan, kindly shut up you fucking hypocrite. If you watched the episode of "Have I Got News For You" then you will understand my point of calling him a hypocrite. If you dont,
On the program he basically said:
"MP expenses, aren't they great? It's an awesome system! I love having monies for my many houses!"
A few days later, as the scandal started:
"This system is abysmal and must be stopped. It is dishonest and I not believe in it."
Another instance, recently a policeman convicted of rape was allowed to retain some of his police pension.
All this gives me the emotion where I start a revolution and go "rawr".
Except for the public sector. This sector of work covers anyone employed by the government, this includes the military, police, fire, NHS politicians etc.
It is surprisingly difficult to get sacked from a job in the public sector - and for things such as redundancies, public sector employees need only worry in a recession (like now). Public sector organisations do not worry about profit, so incompetent staff generally do not suffer the consequences unless its really very very major (and I mean something like rape or other violent crime).
MP's expenses. That's right, a large number of MP's (who have a base salary or aprox £60k) were getting tens of thousands of pounds every year, many were also switching their "main home" so that they could get extra benefits to refurbish then possibly sell the house. In short, they were bending the rules (ie going against the spirit of them) in order for personal financial gain. An analogy is if a businesses man had a business card for "expenses" and used that cash to secretly finance a little business selling whatever. In the private sector, this businessman would get sacked when discovered.
I'd like to note, that ZERO MPs have been sacked as a result of the benefits scandel - if anything, they seem to think they have been short changed, Alan Duncan recently said while on holiday in some far off expensive island that they were forced "to live on rations." Mr Duncan, kindly shut up you fucking hypocrite. If you watched the episode of "Have I Got News For You" then you will understand my point of calling him a hypocrite. If you dont,
On the program he basically said:
"MP expenses, aren't they great? It's an awesome system! I love having monies for my many houses!"
A few days later, as the scandal started:
"This system is abysmal and must be stopped. It is dishonest and I not believe in it."
Another instance, recently a policeman convicted of rape was allowed to retain some of his police pension.
All this gives me the emotion where I start a revolution and go "rawr".
Monday, 21 September 2009
E-coli outbreak: the issue of health and safety
So, in the UK in the last week or two the bacterium e-coli has been discovered at various petting farms - several young children have become ill, some seriously.
Fair enough.
Now "experts" have called for under 5s to not be able to touch the animals at all.
Now that, I have an issue with.
Our immune system works by our bodies basically recognising a bacteria or virus and basically going "aha, i have a cunning plan!" and it makes antibodies to kill the infection blah de blah. Simply, if the body can recognise faintly an infectious bacteria, then it can fight it - it's why the common cold is pretty weak...it's so common that our bodies get really good at recognising the many cold viruses. For our bodies to be able to have an effective immune system in this way, though, we have to become ill at sometime. It is the same principle as vaccines - such as if you are injected with some dead cow pox bacteria then you will become immune to that and the very similar (but much worse) small pox. Genius!
What the experts are suggesting, then, is pretty stupid. Basically it can be put this way...under 5s not touching animals means they won't get e coli, but it also means they wont be able to get any other so called "tummy bugs" and so won't build up an as effective immune system. Meaning the children lose out in the long run. Nice advice, experts.
This "no touching animals if under 5" has other bad consequences too. If you watched "Jamie's School Dinners" on Channel 4 a few years back, you will have observed that many kids on the program did not know for example here their burgers, chips or fruit came from. A big reason for this is that children living in urbanised settings such as a town or a city will rarely see wildlife such as farm animals or orchards or crops etc. In short, this restriction on touching animals will mean even more children will be ignorant about where their food comes from as they will only know the animals from sight and perhaps smell - which in many cases is not as effective in terms of learning as actually doing the learning (ie touching the animals).
A much more sensible course of action would be to wash the kids hands straight after they touch the animals. Sure, they could theoretically get some nasty illness, but this act will mean they learn good basic hygiene at a young age and also learn where their good comes from to boot. Everyones a winner (except the animals which get inevitably slaughtered/abused for food - but who cares? I like my steak and full English breakfast thanks)! If you look at history, improvements of basic hygiene, not limitations on contact with animals, is what saved lives.
I think these "experts" are stupid. I bet they work for the government.
Fair enough.
Now "experts" have called for under 5s to not be able to touch the animals at all.
Now that, I have an issue with.
Our immune system works by our bodies basically recognising a bacteria or virus and basically going "aha, i have a cunning plan!" and it makes antibodies to kill the infection blah de blah. Simply, if the body can recognise faintly an infectious bacteria, then it can fight it - it's why the common cold is pretty weak...it's so common that our bodies get really good at recognising the many cold viruses. For our bodies to be able to have an effective immune system in this way, though, we have to become ill at sometime. It is the same principle as vaccines - such as if you are injected with some dead cow pox bacteria then you will become immune to that and the very similar (but much worse) small pox. Genius!
What the experts are suggesting, then, is pretty stupid. Basically it can be put this way...under 5s not touching animals means they won't get e coli, but it also means they wont be able to get any other so called "tummy bugs" and so won't build up an as effective immune system. Meaning the children lose out in the long run. Nice advice, experts.
This "no touching animals if under 5" has other bad consequences too. If you watched "Jamie's School Dinners" on Channel 4 a few years back, you will have observed that many kids on the program did not know for example here their burgers, chips or fruit came from. A big reason for this is that children living in urbanised settings such as a town or a city will rarely see wildlife such as farm animals or orchards or crops etc. In short, this restriction on touching animals will mean even more children will be ignorant about where their food comes from as they will only know the animals from sight and perhaps smell - which in many cases is not as effective in terms of learning as actually doing the learning (ie touching the animals).
A much more sensible course of action would be to wash the kids hands straight after they touch the animals. Sure, they could theoretically get some nasty illness, but this act will mean they learn good basic hygiene at a young age and also learn where their good comes from to boot. Everyones a winner (except the animals which get inevitably slaughtered/abused for food - but who cares? I like my steak and full English breakfast thanks)! If you look at history, improvements of basic hygiene, not limitations on contact with animals, is what saved lives.
I think these "experts" are stupid. I bet they work for the government.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Irony
Don't you just love irony? Whether subtle or blindingly obvious, it's nonetheless usually hilariously...ironic.
Click on the image to see it properly...
I realised, and I laughed. Hard.
On a more serious note, I fucking hate and wish to inflict harm on those who try to make money for these kind of phony "causes". Seriously, what would they spend it on?
And that is all for today, I'm knackered.
Click on the image to see it properly...
I realised, and I laughed. Hard.
On a more serious note, I fucking hate and wish to inflict harm on those who try to make money for these kind of phony "causes". Seriously, what would they spend it on?
And that is all for today, I'm knackered.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Media reporting on science
Everyday, we view/hear/read reports in all forms of media of scientific or medical things. Surveys tell us that people trust doctors the most and journalists the least.
So why do we believe the scare mongering in medical and science reports written by journalists?
This rant involves some numbers. Beware.
Ok, so basically, there are things called "relative" and "absolute" numbers. If in a media report you see the headline "COCAINE USE BY SCHOOL CHILDREN DOUBLES", then this is (almost certainly) a relative value, by this it means a 100% increase of the original percentage. In this case the use had risen from 1% to 2% - so the relative increase is 100%. Understand? In this case, the absolute number for the increase is 1%.
Note that in this particular real headline, the real statistics were 1.4% and 1.9%, the media got it wrong due to poor research and god damn civil servants rounding figures to make the situation sound bad. Fools!
Anyway, so already you can see how the media can make big (technically legitimate) claims, due to the phenomenon of relative statistics and how they can cause the audience to jump to conclusions. Here's another case.
"IBUPROFEN CAUSES HEART ATTACKS!" Yep, you heard me, this was the claim. It is technically true, but the actual figures were that out of 1,055 people who took the drug, there was an increase of a SINGLE HEART ATTACK. Enough for a front page headline? I shall not dignify that rhetorical question with a proper answer.
Always remember, the business model of the media is to attract our attention. Unfortunately, this often involves scaring us or twisting statistics.
"MMR CAUSES AUTISM!" Now this is the big one. A few years back research was conducted and it found that MMR caused autism. The actual research, quite interestingly, involved children with autism. Of the 12 children in the study, 8 had had the MMR jab. A (tiny) result! This finding was pounced upon by the media and lauded as proof that doctors are nazis who don't care about our well being and that the government is saving money at the expense of our health yada yada yada...
Anyways, research done by scientists in Denmark. Research of nearly 450,000 children, found absolutely NO link between autism and having the MMR jab. A meta analysis of research from three other countries came to the exact same conclusion.
Guess what? The media systematically ignored these major findings, I guess because they were "boring".
As I said, the media survives because they are so efficient at grabbing our attention. I'll also note that most science reports are done by general journalists with no qualification on what they are discussing. Science today is incredibly complicated. Can anyone within 10 metres of you fix a modern car now? Almost certainly not, 50 years ago - cars were so simple that anyone with a spanner could have a decent go. This analogy holds for the science world.
I'd like to add that all research results posted in this rant are real statistics, however shocking they are(n't). Not just figments of my imagination.
I advise reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, it inspired me to rant about this topic and is a great read!
So why do we believe the scare mongering in medical and science reports written by journalists?
This rant involves some numbers. Beware.
Ok, so basically, there are things called "relative" and "absolute" numbers. If in a media report you see the headline "COCAINE USE BY SCHOOL CHILDREN DOUBLES", then this is (almost certainly) a relative value, by this it means a 100% increase of the original percentage. In this case the use had risen from 1% to 2% - so the relative increase is 100%. Understand? In this case, the absolute number for the increase is 1%.
Note that in this particular real headline, the real statistics were 1.4% and 1.9%, the media got it wrong due to poor research and god damn civil servants rounding figures to make the situation sound bad. Fools!
Anyway, so already you can see how the media can make big (technically legitimate) claims, due to the phenomenon of relative statistics and how they can cause the audience to jump to conclusions. Here's another case.
"IBUPROFEN CAUSES HEART ATTACKS!" Yep, you heard me, this was the claim. It is technically true, but the actual figures were that out of 1,055 people who took the drug, there was an increase of a SINGLE HEART ATTACK. Enough for a front page headline? I shall not dignify that rhetorical question with a proper answer.
Always remember, the business model of the media is to attract our attention. Unfortunately, this often involves scaring us or twisting statistics.
"MMR CAUSES AUTISM!" Now this is the big one. A few years back research was conducted and it found that MMR caused autism. The actual research, quite interestingly, involved children with autism. Of the 12 children in the study, 8 had had the MMR jab. A (tiny) result! This finding was pounced upon by the media and lauded as proof that doctors are nazis who don't care about our well being and that the government is saving money at the expense of our health yada yada yada...
Anyways, research done by scientists in Denmark. Research of nearly 450,000 children, found absolutely NO link between autism and having the MMR jab. A meta analysis of research from three other countries came to the exact same conclusion.
Guess what? The media systematically ignored these major findings, I guess because they were "boring".
As I said, the media survives because they are so efficient at grabbing our attention. I'll also note that most science reports are done by general journalists with no qualification on what they are discussing. Science today is incredibly complicated. Can anyone within 10 metres of you fix a modern car now? Almost certainly not, 50 years ago - cars were so simple that anyone with a spanner could have a decent go. This analogy holds for the science world.
I'd like to add that all research results posted in this rant are real statistics, however shocking they are(n't). Not just figments of my imagination.
I advise reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, it inspired me to rant about this topic and is a great read!
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Prescription "heroin" - on the other hand...
Please read the rant before this one before reading this. Thank you.
Let's look at why the government would offer substitutes for heroin free to addicts - at first glance it seems a bit counter intuitive and well, stupid...but is it just a rather cunning plan?
Let's look at why the government would offer substitutes for heroin free to addicts - at first glance it seems a bit counter intuitive and well, stupid...but is it just a rather cunning plan?
Drugs is a complicated issue, and always will be, with concerns to disrupting its supply. On one hand, you can try to stop the addicts themselves, but that involves dealing with hundreds of thousands of individuals - very expensive. On the other hand, you can try to deal with the drug lords and the producers, means less individuals but a whole lot more effort as it can require military action (such as what is happening in South America regarding the fighting of drug cartels).
Prescription drugs, though, kind of deals with both at the same time - and some would say at the fraction of the cost. With that, let's look at some numbers!
Prescription drugs would cost the government (and the taxpayer) £15,000 a year each. However, think about it, this money would stay in the country and not get shipped off to someplace like Afghanistan (where 80-90% of opium is grown) and thus there would be less money fueling the insurgency. Result! So this idea does have a double benefit, one being that it boosts our own economy as the money is kept within the country, the other being that it severely weakens the drug lords and terrorists financially - they simply cannot compete with free drugs.
Also, there is of course the 66% reduction in crime committed by the addicts themselves.
In short, this project would reduce drug addict crime by 66%, boost the UK economy by a tidy margin, and weaken terrorists/gangs/drug lords. Yay!
But you know, as its government run, it's just gonna go shit wrong somewhere along the line...
Thanks to Mr D and Mr H (you know who you are) for helping me explore the other side of this subject. Cheers.
Prescription drugs, though, kind of deals with both at the same time - and some would say at the fraction of the cost. With that, let's look at some numbers!
Prescription drugs would cost the government (and the taxpayer) £15,000 a year each. However, think about it, this money would stay in the country and not get shipped off to someplace like Afghanistan (where 80-90% of opium is grown) and thus there would be less money fueling the insurgency. Result! So this idea does have a double benefit, one being that it boosts our own economy as the money is kept within the country, the other being that it severely weakens the drug lords and terrorists financially - they simply cannot compete with free drugs.
Also, there is of course the 66% reduction in crime committed by the addicts themselves.
In short, this project would reduce drug addict crime by 66%, boost the UK economy by a tidy margin, and weaken terrorists/gangs/drug lords. Yay!
But you know, as its government run, it's just gonna go shit wrong somewhere along the line...
Thanks to Mr D and Mr H (you know who you are) for helping me explore the other side of this subject. Cheers.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Prescription "heroin" a success!
So, today it was reported on the news that in three cities in the UK a trial scheme has revolved around supplying heroin addicts with the drug methadone (substitute of heroin) for free, for hopes of reducing drug related crime.
What.
The.
Fuck.
We are in a recession, so we are all conscious about money (and the apparent lack of it), if this trial was ever made nation wide and the norm - then thats just silly. Firstly, the research indicated that giving the drug addicts their fixes for free reduced the amount of crimes they (admitted to doing!) by 66%. This was labeled a success, and this success is that I have a problem with. Think about it, this program is paid by the tax payer. The drugs and the staff of the clinics are mean't to be there so that the drug addicts commit no crime in order to get their fix - but 33% of the original amount of stealing is still occurring.
So in short, the government pays £15,000 a year on drugs per addict to solve the crime issue, while 33% of said robberies still occur. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
I mean has anyone wondered about the notion that many of the addicts are getting the free drugs, then stealing to get more drugs? Really, it's not rocket science - why can't our government actually do something with a small teeny weeny bit of the mythical term "common sense" for a change? Yes, thats right, I'm looking at you Health and Safety too - no, ties don't strangle pupils. Idiot.
Basically, it's us the public loosing out, the druggy's winning by getting free drugs, and the government looking good by creating jobs and thus reducing unemployment.
Yeah, way to get us out of recession and lower the amounts of drug dealers - of course it makes sense to make the public pay for the drugs in a "non crime" fashion and of course this will encourage the addicts to give up drugs. Yeah.
What.
The.
Fuck.
We are in a recession, so we are all conscious about money (and the apparent lack of it), if this trial was ever made nation wide and the norm - then thats just silly. Firstly, the research indicated that giving the drug addicts their fixes for free reduced the amount of crimes they (admitted to doing!) by 66%. This was labeled a success, and this success is that I have a problem with. Think about it, this program is paid by the tax payer. The drugs and the staff of the clinics are mean't to be there so that the drug addicts commit no crime in order to get their fix - but 33% of the original amount of stealing is still occurring.
So in short, the government pays £15,000 a year on drugs per addict to solve the crime issue, while 33% of said robberies still occur. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
I mean has anyone wondered about the notion that many of the addicts are getting the free drugs, then stealing to get more drugs? Really, it's not rocket science - why can't our government actually do something with a small teeny weeny bit of the mythical term "common sense" for a change? Yes, thats right, I'm looking at you Health and Safety too - no, ties don't strangle pupils. Idiot.
Basically, it's us the public loosing out, the druggy's winning by getting free drugs, and the government looking good by creating jobs and thus reducing unemployment.
Yeah, way to get us out of recession and lower the amounts of drug dealers - of course it makes sense to make the public pay for the drugs in a "non crime" fashion and of course this will encourage the addicts to give up drugs. Yeah.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Health Foods: claims and lies
Do you eat cod liver oil pills to enhance your intellect? Do you take multivitamin supplements like vitamin C because it cures every illness known to man? If so, I regret to form you...
It's all lies.
Well, not exactly, pharmaceutical companies would get in a spot of trouble if they did lie to you - maybe a better term would be misleading. For example, let's look at a study in an English secondary school that looked into the effects of "essential fatty acids" on intellect and behaviour (essential in this sense means the chemical cannot be made by the body). The research found that supplements such as omega-3 increased intellect and behaviour. Wow.
Let's take a closer look at this.
The research I am referring to, which took part in the Durham area, did not include a control group. Already, anybody with GCSE experience will have alarm bells ringing, what use is research data if there is nothing to compare the results to? Lack of a control group also meant that increases due to the placebo effect could not be subtracted from the results - the research was widely followed by the lively British media and the school itself was being invested in heavily by the government anyway (the school was failing). The result of the research? The children's results were improved by roughly 5% by an 80p a day pill supplement (for comparison, the government spends 60p a day per pupil on school meals). Add this to the fact that before the trial the researchers (a phamaceutical company) stated they strongly expected positive results implies that there was quite a bit of conflict of interest. This is a classic case of research by phamaceutical companies missing crucial parts like a control group - so that their research cannot be properly analysed for legitimacy of the effects nor 100% disproved without further research (which is usually very expensive).
Let's look at this whole issue from another perspective. Friendly bacteria, you know those drinks that put "friendly bacteria" into your digestive system? What is the point of said digestive system? To digest stuff, your brain isn't going to say "oh noes, it's good for me, better leave it be" - it's going to put the enzymes apart and tear that bacteria apart as best it can.
On a lot of other products the packaging will include some quite true comments, such as "collogen is an important part of tissue" this is completely true. Unfortunately, smearing cream containing collogen won't mean it will be magically absorbed into your skin. Think about it, the job of the skin organ is to keep stuff out of the body, it's really quite impermeable - you are only take stuff orally. From another perspective, does sitting in a bath of baked beans make you fat? Does your body physically absorb the baked beans into your skin there and then? No. These kind of "true but false" claims are in many expensive moisturiser products, which I like to add are usually no more good than cheap stuff like Vaseline or other stuff you can buy by the gallon without needing a re mortgage.
Another topic are the copious headlines such as "drinking wine causes lower heart disease rates".
Sounds good, but most of these headlines are conclusions drawn by journalists - as in people who usually are without proper science qualifications. Their conclusions often don't take in other factors, they simply assume that wine causes less heart disease. The body doesn't work like that, it's far more complex. Think about it, who drinks the most wine? The middle class and women. Women have lower heart disease anyway, and the middle classes are more likely to be healthier due to more money for better quality foods and healthier stuff too (like fruits and vegetables), also they are more likely to have more leisure time and thus more exercise. All these factors can lessen the chance of getting heart disease.
In conclusion, be skeptical of all claims you read on health products, remember that the body isn't as simple as phamaceutical companies claim. Furthermore, a lot of research findings are cherry picked, don't always believe research by organisations that could include a conflict of interests - pharmaceutical companies are there to make billions of £s, not reduce the amount of wrinkles on your face!
Oh, and the answer/cure to everything under the sun is definitely not usually contained within a tiny white pill. Or vitamin C/D/E.
I advise reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, it inspired me to rant about this topic and is a great read!
It's all lies.
Well, not exactly, pharmaceutical companies would get in a spot of trouble if they did lie to you - maybe a better term would be misleading. For example, let's look at a study in an English secondary school that looked into the effects of "essential fatty acids" on intellect and behaviour (essential in this sense means the chemical cannot be made by the body). The research found that supplements such as omega-3 increased intellect and behaviour. Wow.
Let's take a closer look at this.
The research I am referring to, which took part in the Durham area, did not include a control group. Already, anybody with GCSE experience will have alarm bells ringing, what use is research data if there is nothing to compare the results to? Lack of a control group also meant that increases due to the placebo effect could not be subtracted from the results - the research was widely followed by the lively British media and the school itself was being invested in heavily by the government anyway (the school was failing). The result of the research? The children's results were improved by roughly 5% by an 80p a day pill supplement (for comparison, the government spends 60p a day per pupil on school meals). Add this to the fact that before the trial the researchers (a phamaceutical company) stated they strongly expected positive results implies that there was quite a bit of conflict of interest. This is a classic case of research by phamaceutical companies missing crucial parts like a control group - so that their research cannot be properly analysed for legitimacy of the effects nor 100% disproved without further research (which is usually very expensive).
Let's look at this whole issue from another perspective. Friendly bacteria, you know those drinks that put "friendly bacteria" into your digestive system? What is the point of said digestive system? To digest stuff, your brain isn't going to say "oh noes, it's good for me, better leave it be" - it's going to put the enzymes apart and tear that bacteria apart as best it can.
On a lot of other products the packaging will include some quite true comments, such as "collogen is an important part of tissue" this is completely true. Unfortunately, smearing cream containing collogen won't mean it will be magically absorbed into your skin. Think about it, the job of the skin organ is to keep stuff out of the body, it's really quite impermeable - you are only take stuff orally. From another perspective, does sitting in a bath of baked beans make you fat? Does your body physically absorb the baked beans into your skin there and then? No. These kind of "true but false" claims are in many expensive moisturiser products, which I like to add are usually no more good than cheap stuff like Vaseline or other stuff you can buy by the gallon without needing a re mortgage.
Another topic are the copious headlines such as "drinking wine causes lower heart disease rates".
Sounds good, but most of these headlines are conclusions drawn by journalists - as in people who usually are without proper science qualifications. Their conclusions often don't take in other factors, they simply assume that wine causes less heart disease. The body doesn't work like that, it's far more complex. Think about it, who drinks the most wine? The middle class and women. Women have lower heart disease anyway, and the middle classes are more likely to be healthier due to more money for better quality foods and healthier stuff too (like fruits and vegetables), also they are more likely to have more leisure time and thus more exercise. All these factors can lessen the chance of getting heart disease.
In conclusion, be skeptical of all claims you read on health products, remember that the body isn't as simple as phamaceutical companies claim. Furthermore, a lot of research findings are cherry picked, don't always believe research by organisations that could include a conflict of interests - pharmaceutical companies are there to make billions of £s, not reduce the amount of wrinkles on your face!
Oh, and the answer/cure to everything under the sun is definitely not usually contained within a tiny white pill. Or vitamin C/D/E.
I advise reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, it inspired me to rant about this topic and is a great read!
Friday, 11 September 2009
Torture
Torture is a touchy suspect (pun not intended), some view it as a moral way of information extraction, others don't. It's as simple as that. What I'm going to briefly explore, is when it is morally right (if ever).
First you should know that with concerns to morals, I am relativist and slightly utilitarian.
For example, let's say if you torture someone so that you may know where a bomb is on an airliner, then fair enough. Injuring someone briefly so that several hundred people may be saved is an excellent trade off in my opinion. Unfortunately, this assumes that torture will yield the required results.
Can torture do this, though?
With concerns to confessions, it's pretty much a fact that tortured people will eventually confess to stuff they have never done - look at all those witch trials a while back, most were simply old women with a knowledge of herbs or something. This implies that other information from torture can be inaccurate. So again we hit another moral barrier with more bad consequences, the person could give inaccurate information that could itself potentially endanger more lives due to its inaccuracy.
On the flip side, the information gained from torture can be hugely beneficial. Basically, it's just a gamble on the tortured will and pain tolerance - and don't forget the tortured might not even have any information at all.
Would you risk serious injury (or even death) on a possible innocent individual for a chance to gain some valuable information?
And that's done for today, as I am tired!
First you should know that with concerns to morals, I am relativist and slightly utilitarian.
For example, let's say if you torture someone so that you may know where a bomb is on an airliner, then fair enough. Injuring someone briefly so that several hundred people may be saved is an excellent trade off in my opinion. Unfortunately, this assumes that torture will yield the required results.
Can torture do this, though?
With concerns to confessions, it's pretty much a fact that tortured people will eventually confess to stuff they have never done - look at all those witch trials a while back, most were simply old women with a knowledge of herbs or something. This implies that other information from torture can be inaccurate. So again we hit another moral barrier with more bad consequences, the person could give inaccurate information that could itself potentially endanger more lives due to its inaccuracy.
On the flip side, the information gained from torture can be hugely beneficial. Basically, it's just a gamble on the tortured will and pain tolerance - and don't forget the tortured might not even have any information at all.
Would you risk serious injury (or even death) on a possible innocent individual for a chance to gain some valuable information?
And that's done for today, as I am tired!
Thursday, 10 September 2009
DNA database?
25 years ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys discovered (by accident) that DNA could be used to identify individuals, much like fingerprinting. Since that day, DNA has been used by various law enforcement agencies, in cases of "who's the father" the world over, along with a few other contraversial uses (designer babies etc) - but is it time to take it to the next step, and introduce a database where everyone in the UK has a sample of DNA present - and also, is it even needed?
Ethical issues of a DNA database are pretty well documented, for starters DNA is owned by us, and us alone. So why should the government take into ownership a sample of this? What gives them the right? Personally, I think its far easier to look at it from the other perspective, why shouldn't the government have access to what is effectively a means of tracing where we have been and in some cases what we have done.
As with most things, it isn't so simple as that.
As well as using our DNA to solve crimes, the government could also potentially sell this information to insurance companies - which would be incredibly detrimental to us. For example someone with a gene linked with heart disease (remember genes do not cause diseases) or some other serious illness would experience much higher rates for health insurance. You may claim this would never happen due to it being discrimination (which is illegal in the UK), but that line of thought is in something of a grey area, not just because genes are never definite about anything - there are always environmental factors. Look at job interviews for example, they are for, basically, discriminating between applicants with concerns to aptitude for the job and communication skills - but there is some research which suggests that genes play a substantial role in behaviour. So in other words, our DNA being public could affect our prospects at getting jobs, too.
So, now we have established that a DNA database, if made public (which a bastardly money hungry UK government would undoubtedly do eventually), would increase descrimination, but based on comparitevely very little understood grounds and chance. Not very fair.
On the other side of the arguement, a DNA database would make crime fighting much more efficient, people could be linked to crime scenes by simple testing a sample and watching a profile of a person flash up on the screen. This is what is currently done with the DNA database of people who are involved with the police in a business end manner (ie arrested).
Great, criminals would be caught more and easier. Also the conviction rate of rapists (currently about a tiddly 3%) would hopefully rocket if everyone was on the database. Success!
But with regards to all other kinds of crime, is it really needed?
"Bloody murder!" you might cry. Oh? A huge majority of murder victims knew they murderers - and since people linked with a victim are usually tested anyway if no culprit/motive is found, a database will do little benefit in the long run.
With aspects to all other crime, roughly 90% of crime is committed by about 10% of criminals. A lot of the time the police know their area so well that they can guess who did the deed.`
So, to summarise. A compulsory DNA database would mean a rise in criminal convictions, but if the database became public, millions of us would suffer higher insurance rates and discrimination. I personally favour a database, as long as an immutable law is set up to limit access to the database for the purposes of crime solving ONLY.
Ethical issues of a DNA database are pretty well documented, for starters DNA is owned by us, and us alone. So why should the government take into ownership a sample of this? What gives them the right? Personally, I think its far easier to look at it from the other perspective, why shouldn't the government have access to what is effectively a means of tracing where we have been and in some cases what we have done.
As with most things, it isn't so simple as that.
As well as using our DNA to solve crimes, the government could also potentially sell this information to insurance companies - which would be incredibly detrimental to us. For example someone with a gene linked with heart disease (remember genes do not cause diseases) or some other serious illness would experience much higher rates for health insurance. You may claim this would never happen due to it being discrimination (which is illegal in the UK), but that line of thought is in something of a grey area, not just because genes are never definite about anything - there are always environmental factors. Look at job interviews for example, they are for, basically, discriminating between applicants with concerns to aptitude for the job and communication skills - but there is some research which suggests that genes play a substantial role in behaviour. So in other words, our DNA being public could affect our prospects at getting jobs, too.
So, now we have established that a DNA database, if made public (which a bastardly money hungry UK government would undoubtedly do eventually), would increase descrimination, but based on comparitevely very little understood grounds and chance. Not very fair.
On the other side of the arguement, a DNA database would make crime fighting much more efficient, people could be linked to crime scenes by simple testing a sample and watching a profile of a person flash up on the screen. This is what is currently done with the DNA database of people who are involved with the police in a business end manner (ie arrested).
Great, criminals would be caught more and easier. Also the conviction rate of rapists (currently about a tiddly 3%) would hopefully rocket if everyone was on the database. Success!
But with regards to all other kinds of crime, is it really needed?
"Bloody murder!" you might cry. Oh? A huge majority of murder victims knew they murderers - and since people linked with a victim are usually tested anyway if no culprit/motive is found, a database will do little benefit in the long run.
With aspects to all other crime, roughly 90% of crime is committed by about 10% of criminals. A lot of the time the police know their area so well that they can guess who did the deed.`
So, to summarise. A compulsory DNA database would mean a rise in criminal convictions, but if the database became public, millions of us would suffer higher insurance rates and discrimination. I personally favour a database, as long as an immutable law is set up to limit access to the database for the purposes of crime solving ONLY.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
BNP accuses Muslims of "colonisation via the cradle"
Reading the below article (however it may insult you) will help you understand my post today.
BNP: Islamic Colonisation via the Cradle: 7,576 Mohammeds versus 8,007 Jacks
Ok so, reading the article, it does sound a bit like there were a lot of babies with variations of the name "Mohammed" born in the UK in 2008. From this we can infer that at least 7,576 babies were boys and Muslims in their religious beliefs. This is logical, fair enough.
Let's just put this in proportion.
700,000+ babies were born in the UK in 2008. With simple maths, we can learn that just over 1% of babies were called Mohammed. Now, if we factor in that not all Muslim babies are called "Mohammad", and that about 50% will be female - even with that factored in, I can't really see more than 4% absolute tops of babies being Muslim (remember, only about 3% of the population is Muslim). Even then, it's a tiny number - and by no means proper colonisation (apart from the fact the BNP has misunderstood the term colonisation, look it up in a dictionary, are Muslims setting up their own towns?).
It's completely hypocritical for the BNP, therefore Englishmen and women, to take insult at us being "colonised" by foreigners who happen to be of a different religion. We used to be in control of the largest empire in the world, at its height we controlled 25% of the land, including a massive chunk of the middle east (and thus a huge amount of land that muslims lived in). So, to be frank - we shouldn't be complaining.
Now, apart from the above, intersting to note that the BNP focussed on the Muslim religious name, and didn't mention any other large numbers of foreign names.
Fucking racists.
BNP: Islamic Colonisation via the Cradle: 7,576 Mohammeds versus 8,007 Jacks
Ok so, reading the article, it does sound a bit like there were a lot of babies with variations of the name "Mohammed" born in the UK in 2008. From this we can infer that at least 7,576 babies were boys and Muslims in their religious beliefs. This is logical, fair enough.
Let's just put this in proportion.
700,000+ babies were born in the UK in 2008. With simple maths, we can learn that just over 1% of babies were called Mohammed. Now, if we factor in that not all Muslim babies are called "Mohammad", and that about 50% will be female - even with that factored in, I can't really see more than 4% absolute tops of babies being Muslim (remember, only about 3% of the population is Muslim). Even then, it's a tiny number - and by no means proper colonisation (apart from the fact the BNP has misunderstood the term colonisation, look it up in a dictionary, are Muslims setting up their own towns?).
It's completely hypocritical for the BNP, therefore Englishmen and women, to take insult at us being "colonised" by foreigners who happen to be of a different religion. We used to be in control of the largest empire in the world, at its height we controlled 25% of the land, including a massive chunk of the middle east (and thus a huge amount of land that muslims lived in). So, to be frank - we shouldn't be complaining.
Now, apart from the above, intersting to note that the BNP focussed on the Muslim religious name, and didn't mention any other large numbers of foreign names.
Fucking racists.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
9/11...who was the terrorist?
On, September 11th 2001, 3,017 people were killed (including hijackers and 24 missing-presumed dead) in one of the largest acts of terror in history.
But who did it?
Blame quickly fell on al-Qaeda, a terrorist organisation which has a primary aim of harming the USA for their own reasons.
I'm going have a look at the conspiracy theory of the event, specifically the evidence that heavily suggests the US government not only knew about the plots, and let them happen - or even actively plotted the attacks for their own gains.
To keep it simple, I am going to bullet point the main inconsistencies of what happened that day, you can draw your own conclusions and say it is all coincidence and circumstancial...but such probabilities can really only go so far.
Anyways, away we go!
The other theory, the much darker one, is that the US government actively plotted the attacks for an excuse to after al-Qaeda. Think about it, it not only meant they had the excuse to attack an enemy (with international support), but it also meant they could sweeten the deal with things such as the building insurance and the creation of jobs and increased trade due to the increased requirement of military equipment for the war.
But who did it?
Blame quickly fell on al-Qaeda, a terrorist organisation which has a primary aim of harming the USA for their own reasons.
I'm going have a look at the conspiracy theory of the event, specifically the evidence that heavily suggests the US government not only knew about the plots, and let them happen - or even actively plotted the attacks for their own gains.
To keep it simple, I am going to bullet point the main inconsistencies of what happened that day, you can draw your own conclusions and say it is all coincidence and circumstancial...but such probabilities can really only go so far.
Anyways, away we go!
- Prior to the attacks, both the World Trade Center towers were insured for several hundred million dollars.
- On the day of the attacks, Condoleezza Rice (the then national security advisor) cancelled all her appointments in the towers - several senators also cancelled their appointments in the towers.
- The part of the US Air Force concerned with counter terrorism (including shooting down passenger jets in the event of hijacking) was stood down a few days before the attacks took place.
- When the planes impacted on the tower, the fireball that formed thereafter was likened to the heat inside the sun - logic would say then that everything such as people, belongings in the plane would be vaporised by such intense heat, and anything particularly hard destroyed when the towers collapsed. However, the terrorist's passports were found, lightly singed, after the towers collapsed. Seriously, what are the chances of a number of passports surviving a furnace of a few thousand degrees and then being found among the rubble?
- The towers were designed structurally to be able to withstand the intense heat in the event of a fireball for whatever reason, yet they still collapsed. Though this theory has been disproved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
- A small skyscraper near the towers was also demolished on the same day, in comparison its controlled collapse looked remarkably similar to the collapse of the other towers.
- The unidentified plane sighted circling the area at the time of the attacks has never been traced, even though it could have been vital to the invertigation.
- No footage of the plane impacting on the Pentagon has ever been released, several experts have noted the damage to the building was not consistent with impact by a passenger airliner. Furthermore, eye witness reports state that they thought the plane was a missile.
- The responsibility for these attacks was completely and utterly denied by Osama Bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda. This is unprecedented.
This isn't all the dodegy stuff linked to the attack, but I really think the US government must have had some part of it. Why else ham string themselves with concern to the Air Force and all politicians conveniently cancel their appointments there? It's too suspicious I think.
Why, though? Why on earth would a government allow an attack to happen?
The theory is that they simply lacked the resources/knowledge to stop the attacks. As in perhaps they only knew a small chunk of the plot - so took the steps they could without announcing it publicly and perhaps putting more lives at risk due to wide spread panic and the attacks occurring at different areas instead. Makes sense, in the wider scheme of things, so save those you can without alerting the terrorists to your knowledge.
The other theory, the much darker one, is that the US government actively plotted the attacks for an excuse to after al-Qaeda. Think about it, it not only meant they had the excuse to attack an enemy (with international support), but it also meant they could sweeten the deal with things such as the building insurance and the creation of jobs and increased trade due to the increased requirement of military equipment for the war.
Take another look at the bullet points I listed, doesn't quite add up, does it? It's pretty clear to me the US government had some big part in it, but by how much we may never know...
Monday, 7 September 2009
Medicine and the media
The media loves "advising" us on how to look, what to do, why we should do it - especially in terms of medicine. I mean medicine in its broadest sense of course, I doubt even 0.001% of journalists have any meaningful medical qualifications, even the special medical correspondants perhaps only having basic knowledge about what they are actually talking about. Anyway, basically, this makes room for some dangerous stuff to happen. For example, the media has widely stated that being fat is bad, this is not completely the case. Research has shown that some fat is good and can, for example make babies more intelligent or reduce heart disease.
So, not only can media make wide generalisations about medical matters, but this can make people feel peer pressured by the same media to drastically change their lifestyle to fit the so-called norm...which really isn't normal at all. The media likes to take things to the extremes and this doesn't go well with the theme of health.
If you don't understand the thing called science (specifically, psychoneuroimmunology), or find it the least interesting, then skip the next paragraph. Instead you can be ignorant of the fact that EMOTIONS CAN KILL YOU.
See what I did there? Catching your attention with a contraversial phrase, pretty much the aim of the media in order to get money. Remember, the media exists to make money, not inform you (the exception being nationalised media like the BBC).
Anyways, the science goes like this:
Stress --> cortisol hormone released.
Cortisol --> less white blood cells.
Less white blood cells --> suppressed immune system.
Which mean's you can become ill more easily than before, by that I don't just mean things like a cold, I also mean things like cancer and heart disease.
Not believing me? Ok, research shows that people at the bottom of a hierarchy (thus, the ones under most stress due to lack of life control) have much higher instances of heart disease. This effect is even greater then the effect of obesity and other illnesses known to be a cause of heart disease. Another bit of research showed that after a nuclear disaster, cancer rates in the area shot up - but there was no raise at all of radiation. That's right, ironically enough, people got cancer because they were stressed about getting cancer.
So, the long and short of it is...media stressing people out can make them ill, and contribute to fatal conditions.
Ok, enough of this depressing stuff, let's look at an instance where media advised people (mistakenly) to eat deadly mushrooms! Horray for research!
A few weeks back, a major Finnish newspaper had an article about picking and eating mushrooms, and the article mistakenly advised readers to pick and eat the Destroying Angel - which is (as it's name implies) not too good for ones body. The long and short of it is, four people ended up in a serious condition in hospital and one of those four is urgently requiring a liver transplant as a direct result of eating one of those mushrooms.
Sucks, doesn't it? But this just shows how the media can be so unqualified, not to mention have a lack of good research and common sense (Destroying Angel? Come on, what edible food would be called that?!) can lead to illness - and in the case of the person needing a transplant, waiting lists are so long I wouldn't be surprised if they died after a few years of painful agony.
Kids, don't believe everything you read. Adults, you should know anyway - though if you have no common sense then there really is no hope for you really, especially if your main source of information is dubiously researched information from unqualified typists and spin doctors.
This rant is inspired by me reading the book called Genome. It's interesting and cheap!
So, not only can media make wide generalisations about medical matters, but this can make people feel peer pressured by the same media to drastically change their lifestyle to fit the so-called norm...which really isn't normal at all. The media likes to take things to the extremes and this doesn't go well with the theme of health.
If you don't understand the thing called science (specifically, psychoneuroimmunology), or find it the least interesting, then skip the next paragraph. Instead you can be ignorant of the fact that EMOTIONS CAN KILL YOU.
See what I did there? Catching your attention with a contraversial phrase, pretty much the aim of the media in order to get money. Remember, the media exists to make money, not inform you (the exception being nationalised media like the BBC).
Anyways, the science goes like this:
Stress --> cortisol hormone released.
Cortisol --> less white blood cells.
Less white blood cells --> suppressed immune system.
Which mean's you can become ill more easily than before, by that I don't just mean things like a cold, I also mean things like cancer and heart disease.
Not believing me? Ok, research shows that people at the bottom of a hierarchy (thus, the ones under most stress due to lack of life control) have much higher instances of heart disease. This effect is even greater then the effect of obesity and other illnesses known to be a cause of heart disease. Another bit of research showed that after a nuclear disaster, cancer rates in the area shot up - but there was no raise at all of radiation. That's right, ironically enough, people got cancer because they were stressed about getting cancer.
So, the long and short of it is...media stressing people out can make them ill, and contribute to fatal conditions.
Ok, enough of this depressing stuff, let's look at an instance where media advised people (mistakenly) to eat deadly mushrooms! Horray for research!
A few weeks back, a major Finnish newspaper had an article about picking and eating mushrooms, and the article mistakenly advised readers to pick and eat the Destroying Angel - which is (as it's name implies) not too good for ones body. The long and short of it is, four people ended up in a serious condition in hospital and one of those four is urgently requiring a liver transplant as a direct result of eating one of those mushrooms.
Sucks, doesn't it? But this just shows how the media can be so unqualified, not to mention have a lack of good research and common sense (Destroying Angel? Come on, what edible food would be called that?!) can lead to illness - and in the case of the person needing a transplant, waiting lists are so long I wouldn't be surprised if they died after a few years of painful agony.
Kids, don't believe everything you read. Adults, you should know anyway - though if you have no common sense then there really is no hope for you really, especially if your main source of information is dubiously researched information from unqualified typists and spin doctors.
This rant is inspired by me reading the book called Genome. It's interesting and cheap!
Sunday, 6 September 2009
BNP invited to "Question Time"
Reading this BBC news article about the BNP will help you understand this article:
Linky!
If you have read the article, or at least comprehended the title, you will understand that the chief-nazi of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has been invited to the BBC show Question Time.
On first thoughts, you might think that this is a bad idea as it's not like the sane among us want the BNP to be mentioned in the media. You might think it will give them more support from the population if they are given a structured session of questions and a chance in which to properly answer these questions without being given a court order for being racist scum bags or being bottled and shouted at.
If you think about it, though, if anything this is a good idea. Ironically enough, the sometimes annoying rules about the BBC being neutral mean it sees it as its duty to show the BNP on the TV (as they got elected to the EU parliament) - this means more people will realise how fucked up they really are. Think about it, the BNP has no real answers to the accusations of racism...because they really are racist. For example, a few months ago Nick Griffin said to a BBC reporter (and to the camera) that he thought boats full of immigrants should be sunk. No, really - I'm not joking.
Furthermore, the less potty political parties will once again (as minor BNP members have been on the show before) join together to verbally beat down the common foe, the fascists. This will finally and, hopefully, once and for all show to the public that actually can be bothered to listen to UK politics that the BNP is crazy and should not be supported...because they are nazis. Nay, you may say, the BNP aren't nazis because the nazis killed people...the BNP want to sink entire boats of immigrants - and it wouldn't make sense to sink the boats then send the coastguard to save them. Think about it, the BNP wants to kill immigrants.
So, to summarise, Nick Griffin being on Question Time will prove how crazy they are and thus reduce their popularity, not increase it.
And with that, would be another victory for freedom.
Linky!
If you have read the article, or at least comprehended the title, you will understand that the chief-nazi of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has been invited to the BBC show Question Time.
On first thoughts, you might think that this is a bad idea as it's not like the sane among us want the BNP to be mentioned in the media. You might think it will give them more support from the population if they are given a structured session of questions and a chance in which to properly answer these questions without being given a court order for being racist scum bags or being bottled and shouted at.
If you think about it, though, if anything this is a good idea. Ironically enough, the sometimes annoying rules about the BBC being neutral mean it sees it as its duty to show the BNP on the TV (as they got elected to the EU parliament) - this means more people will realise how fucked up they really are. Think about it, the BNP has no real answers to the accusations of racism...because they really are racist. For example, a few months ago Nick Griffin said to a BBC reporter (and to the camera) that he thought boats full of immigrants should be sunk. No, really - I'm not joking.
Furthermore, the less potty political parties will once again (as minor BNP members have been on the show before) join together to verbally beat down the common foe, the fascists. This will finally and, hopefully, once and for all show to the public that actually can be bothered to listen to UK politics that the BNP is crazy and should not be supported...because they are nazis. Nay, you may say, the BNP aren't nazis because the nazis killed people...the BNP want to sink entire boats of immigrants - and it wouldn't make sense to sink the boats then send the coastguard to save them. Think about it, the BNP wants to kill immigrants.
So, to summarise, Nick Griffin being on Question Time will prove how crazy they are and thus reduce their popularity, not increase it.
And with that, would be another victory for freedom.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
Customer Relations...and an introduction
Ok, first rant of my new blog - I could link you to my old blog...but that would involve divulging my real name and I felt that having a blog with my name stamped on it somewhat limited me on what I could actually rant about as I could suffer...repercussions or something like that. That's right, I too don't want some flaming lunatic from the BNP bearing down on me - I'm sure you understand.
Introductions over, now to the blog!
Customer relations, they can be the reason between buying something from a shop, or leaving in protest. Seriously, one of the reasons you bought that computer screen you're now looking at could well be because you walked into PC World and some friendly chap said, "hello there good sir, need a spot of help?" Well ok, maybe not in that kinda English, but you get my drift - a bit of politeness goes a long way for businesses. Some businesses even have entire departments for making their staff act like they care about the customer (come on, shop staff never care about the customer really, they just want our money!). In the perfect world, all shop staff would be nice and polite.
Amazingly, the world isn't perfect.
Yep, that's right, even in this day and age we do know a little bit about how body language and how to be polite - even though many people are devoid of any politeness whatsoever, eg chavs. But I digress, this particular rant isn't about the rather irritating social habits of the chav population, it's about those fucking bastards who run businesses and don't be nice. Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, even with the knowledge the human race now possesses many businesses still just don't cut it. I have a prime example; today I went scouting for a place in which to hire canoes from....
Just so you know, I know nothing about hiring canoes.
The first place looked pretty nice, the staff weren't exactly bad - they just seemed a little stoned or deaf...maybe both. Basically, the conversation went like this:
"Hello there, can I hire some canoes?"
"Errm...no."
"Why not?"
"...fully booked."
Just so you know, the ellipsis' in that dialigue represent mumbling. That's right, the staff member didn't know what the fuck he was talking about really, and didn't even great me. Fair enough, he looked about the same age as me, maybe even younger...maybe he lacks training (or maybe he was stoned and/or deaf). Either way, those excuses are not on. Actually, I think the lack of communication by the business to the consumer was rather paradoxical to the fact that the place was fully booked. How can a business with such low communication skills get some many damn customers? I think maybe this staff member was new and was thus inexperienced...but then why leave him on his own to supervise the premises while everyone else is collecting canoes? Stupid!
I left after the brief dialogue and went to the other canoe hire place nearby, just upstream. Here was a much better display of communication skills, I got greeted at the door and after inquiring as to hiring a canoe, politely informed that no hiring was on today due to the high river (they were the only company that thought it too dangerous, ah well). All good. Even though I was irritated as to the businesses stupid policy on dangerous water levels, I too wouldn't want the river rapids to run with blood from the mangled corpses of newbie canoeists - it would spoil the see-through water. Anyway, so my experience was all well and good, until I got back to the car. On the way out, I passed the parking ticket to a new arrival as I had been on site for only a few minutes.
Guess what happened?
Yep, that's right. Some stuck up too-big-for-his-boots son of a bitch staff member came out of the hut (I hadn't seen this guy previously) and proclaimed:
"No sharing tickets, we aren't no bloody charity here!"
Fucking hell mate. Apart from the rather awful use of grammer, we are in something called a recession, so paying £3 for a parking place in a muddy field prone to flooding is a bit steep I say, and being so rude about enforcing your overpriced parking rules isn't going to do the business any good in the customer relations department, you fool.
I'm never hiring from that business.
So there you have it. Business' can even in this day and age be insanely dumb about their customer relations. Twats.
Introductions over, now to the blog!
Customer relations, they can be the reason between buying something from a shop, or leaving in protest. Seriously, one of the reasons you bought that computer screen you're now looking at could well be because you walked into PC World and some friendly chap said, "hello there good sir, need a spot of help?" Well ok, maybe not in that kinda English, but you get my drift - a bit of politeness goes a long way for businesses. Some businesses even have entire departments for making their staff act like they care about the customer (come on, shop staff never care about the customer really, they just want our money!). In the perfect world, all shop staff would be nice and polite.
Amazingly, the world isn't perfect.
Yep, that's right, even in this day and age we do know a little bit about how body language and how to be polite - even though many people are devoid of any politeness whatsoever, eg chavs. But I digress, this particular rant isn't about the rather irritating social habits of the chav population, it's about those fucking bastards who run businesses and don't be nice. Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, even with the knowledge the human race now possesses many businesses still just don't cut it. I have a prime example; today I went scouting for a place in which to hire canoes from....
Just so you know, I know nothing about hiring canoes.
The first place looked pretty nice, the staff weren't exactly bad - they just seemed a little stoned or deaf...maybe both. Basically, the conversation went like this:
"Hello there, can I hire some canoes?"
"Errm...no."
"Why not?"
"...fully booked."
Just so you know, the ellipsis' in that dialigue represent mumbling. That's right, the staff member didn't know what the fuck he was talking about really, and didn't even great me. Fair enough, he looked about the same age as me, maybe even younger...maybe he lacks training (or maybe he was stoned and/or deaf). Either way, those excuses are not on. Actually, I think the lack of communication by the business to the consumer was rather paradoxical to the fact that the place was fully booked. How can a business with such low communication skills get some many damn customers? I think maybe this staff member was new and was thus inexperienced...but then why leave him on his own to supervise the premises while everyone else is collecting canoes? Stupid!
I left after the brief dialogue and went to the other canoe hire place nearby, just upstream. Here was a much better display of communication skills, I got greeted at the door and after inquiring as to hiring a canoe, politely informed that no hiring was on today due to the high river (they were the only company that thought it too dangerous, ah well). All good. Even though I was irritated as to the businesses stupid policy on dangerous water levels, I too wouldn't want the river rapids to run with blood from the mangled corpses of newbie canoeists - it would spoil the see-through water. Anyway, so my experience was all well and good, until I got back to the car. On the way out, I passed the parking ticket to a new arrival as I had been on site for only a few minutes.
Guess what happened?
Yep, that's right. Some stuck up too-big-for-his-boots son of a bitch staff member came out of the hut (I hadn't seen this guy previously) and proclaimed:
"No sharing tickets, we aren't no bloody charity here!"
Fucking hell mate. Apart from the rather awful use of grammer, we are in something called a recession, so paying £3 for a parking place in a muddy field prone to flooding is a bit steep I say, and being so rude about enforcing your overpriced parking rules isn't going to do the business any good in the customer relations department, you fool.
I'm never hiring from that business.
So there you have it. Business' can even in this day and age be insanely dumb about their customer relations. Twats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
