I must congratulate Mr Eugenides on penning this moving eulogy for Shambo:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy T-bone,
Silence the tambourines and with muffled drums
Bring out the burger buns, let the ketchup come.

Let cattle trucks circle moaning round the barn
Scribbling in the dirt the message, Shambo Is Dead,
Put mournful garlands round the white necks of the temple monks,
Let the government veterinarians wear black rubber gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My midweek sandwich and my Sunday lunch,
My stir-fry, my fillet, my stock, my chop;
I thought that leftovers would last for ever: I was wrong.

The barbeques are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the mustard and dismantle the grill;
Pour away the gravy and sweep up the wood.
For no meal now will ever be as good.

I understand that Mr E has been contacted by a major Hollywood film studio and invited to write the script for a film version of the story of Shambo’s tragic demise under the working title of ‘Four Barbecues and a Carvery”

I’ve written a couple of articles in the last couple of months on the general theme of the abject state of science/health journalism in the mainstream press - see Why is the Indy Shilling for Big Pharma? and Dumbing Down Dementia- the second of which includes this observation:

“…if one wishes to find good quality source material for a good debunking, then I can heartily recommend that you open any newspaper and scour the news sections for the words ‘health correspondent’.”

Today’s proof of that statement comes from the Guardian, and specifically from the current health correspondent, Polly Curtis, who, so far as one can tell from information in the public domain, appears to possess solid credentials as a generic journalist - runner-up in the feature writer of the year category in the 2000 Guardian Student Media Awards, followed by a steady progression through the ranks at the Guardian from ‘contributor’ and journalist to, first, education correspondent and, now, health correspondent, but exhibits precious little to suggest that she is adequately qualified to correctly evaluate and report accurately on the content of specialist research/journal papers in anything other than a superficial manner.

Now I may, conceivably, be being a little harsh in my evaluation of young Polly’s apparent background where, in truth, she is actually packing a raft of GCSEs, A Levels and a degree in the natural and/or social sciences, some of all of which are relevant to the subject at hand (health) but when set against a benchmark of what science/health journalism looks like when written by a real scientist, of the likes of Ben Goldacre, then it would be fair to say that on the evidence of her efforts today, I have my doubts…

Cannabis use linked to 40% rise in risk of schizophrenia

You knew that was coming, didn’t you? Even if you didn’t see this being trailed on Breakfast TV this morning, you just knew that with cannabis/mental health scare stories being the current flavour of the month, there was going to be a very good chance that this would be the subject of Polly’s article.

Smoking cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia by at least 40% according to research which indicates that there are at least 800 people suffering serious psychosis in the UK after smoking the drug.

Increases the risk of schizophrenia by 40% from what?

What is the risk of developing schizophrenia if you don’t smoke cannabis, and does that risk apply evenly across the whole population or is contingent on other causal or contributory factors that modify the level of base risk according to individual circumstances? Is this 40% figure a measure of the increase in annual risk or lifetime risk?

Without any of that additional information, the assertion that smoking cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia by 40% is entirely meaningless, even if the quoted figure is true. You simply cannot make an informed evaluation of personal risk from such a statement unless you can assess the percentage increase in risk against a known baseline figure.

Mental health groups called on the government last night to issue fresh health warnings and launch an education campaign to advise teenagers that even light consumption of the drug could trigger long-term mental health problems.

Without wishing to sound cynical - well they would, wouldn’t they?

The fact of the matter is that however one views the motives the of the voluntary sector in general, such an education campaign amounts to, at the very least, as sizeable raft of free publicity for these groups to piggyback on - and that’s if the government decides to develop and operate such a campaign in-house. If, on the other hand, its decides to commission in resource materials or outsource delivery then there’s also the prospect of a few nice fat government grants as well.

The findings came after a rush of ministers declared their cannabis-smoking pasts and an order from the prime minister for officials to consider whether the drug should be reclassified amid fears about its more potent “skunk” form. Last night the Home Office said the research would be considered in that review.

And? I suppose that’s a useful bit of filler that describes the political context behind the current moral panic about cannabis use, but it still tells us nothing of real substance.

The study, an analysis published in the Lancet medical journal of previous research into the effects of the drug on tens of thousands of people, provides the most persuasive evidence to date that smoking cannabis can cause mental illness years after people have stopped using it.

Does it?

Let’s see what the Lancet actually has to say, at least in summary (to get the full article requires a subscription or payment of a day rate of $30).

Background

Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

Fair enough.

The starting point for this research is ‘we’re not sure if there is evidence to support a causal link between cannabis and long-term mental health problems, so lets review the current evidence that’s available’.

It’s a meta-analysis study, which a perfectly valid research technique but one not without its potential problems and pitfalls, which is something I, unfortunately, cannot explore in detail without access to the full article, so for the purposes of this article we’ll take it as read that the study has been competently conducted and provides a valid set of outcomes and conclusions.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Proceedings, ZETOC, BIOSIS, LILACS, and MEDCARIB from their inception to September, 2006, searched reference lists of studies selected for inclusion, and contacted experts. Studies were included if longitudinal and population based. 35 studies from 4804 references were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were done independently and in duplicate.

Okay, that’s also very useful is as much as it tells use two very important things.

First, given the scope of the publication databases listed as having been searched for suitable studies, it seems highly likely that the data used in the study in not UK specific. Nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that we may find some statistical discrepancies when comparing the output data in this study with actual data from the UK.

Second, this is research is based on data drawn only from longitudinal population studies. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but what it does tell us is that it’s highly unlikely that the research will be able to provide anything more substantial than indications of any observed correlations between cannabis use and mental health problems - which means that any claims of causation deriving from or attributed to this research need to be regarded sceptically.

Findings

There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20–1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54–2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.

Now that is very interesting, because what the study is reporting - if we assume that baseline for no increased risk is a pool adjusted odd ratio of 1 - is that the 40% increase in risk cited by Curtis applies to ‘any psychotic outcome’ and not just schizophrenia.

There are actually a wide of conditions, diseases and even situations that can give rise to psychotic episodes and outcomes, ranging from the psychological (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorders, severe clinical depression and/or stress) to the organic (brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, syphilis - in rare cases even influenza and mumps can induce psychotic episodes) to the broadly self-inflicted, which includes cannabis but also covers a wide range of other drugs that can, and do, have psychoactive effects ranging from dear old alcohol through a range of prescription drugs (barbiturates, benzodiazepines, some anti-depressants and anti-epileptics) to the classic range of ’street drugs’ which encompassed pretty much anything that’s cocaine or amphetamine-based plus all the usual hallucinogenics.

It also cites a doubling of the risk of psychosis (a 100% increase) in data relating to long-term use of cannabis and indicates some of the potential shortcomings of the research that the study reviewed. There’s both consistency in outcomes and in efforts to eliminate external factors in studies looks specifically at the incidence of psychosis, much less consistency and effort to account for external factors is studies focussing on depression/anxiety and a substantial confounding effect across all studies that needs to allowed for, statistically, before reaching any valid conclusions.

On the whole, that looks pretty good as research methodologies go, certainly good enough to suggest that this is, indeed, a competent and exacting piece of research and give the study’s conclusions some serious consideration.

Interpretation

The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

So, what the study actually concludes is that there is sufficient statistical evidence to take the issue of risk seriously although not enough to prove a clear causative relationship or accurately define the parameters of that relationship. Indeed the study goes on to indicate that, so far as statistical population studies go, we’ve pretty much hit the wall in terms of what they can actually tell us about the possible relationship between cannabis and mental health, which means that any further answers are going to have to come from those strands of research currently examining this relationship in terms of genetics and biochemistry.

In short, it doesn’t really tell us anything new and it certainly doesn’t establish a clear causal relationship between cannabis use and long term mental health problems, but it does suggest that there’s enough statistical evidence of risk to justify warning young people of the existence of such risks.

All very reasonable and nothing that’s really the stuff of scare stories and moral panics if understood (and presented) properly.

Getting back to Curtis’ article, the good news is that she’s at least taken the time and trouble to actually include some of the research outcomes in a form that can be evaluated.

The overall additional risk to cannabis smokers is small, but measurable. One in 100 of the general population have a chance of developing severe schizophrenia; that rises to 1.4 in 100 for people who have smoked cannabis.

The bad news is that she’s made a complete hash of presenting this information.

Notice the shift in tone - ‘the overall additional risk is small, but measurable’ - which is certainly true, but not what was implied at the start of the article when she was banging on about a 40% increased risk.

She also claims that this increased risk relates specifically to the possibility of developing ’severe schizophrenia’, which is certainly not what the summary given by the Lancet suggests - remember that refers to the increase risk of ‘any psychotic outcome’, not just schizophrenia and certainly not just ’severe schizophrenia’ - unless there is such a specific reference in the full article then it looks very much as if Curtis is over-egging the pudding and misrepresenting the conclusions of the study in terms that suggest that the qualitative elements of risk (i.e. the severity of the condition linked to cannabis use) are significant greater than those indicated by the actual study.

But the risk of developing other psychotic symptoms among people who smoke large quantities or are already prone to mental illness is significant, the researchers say.

People who smoke cannabis daily have a 200% increased risk of psychosis.

Well, yes, the study does indicate an increased risk with regular use and higher dosage, but that risk is a little over double the baseline risk (actually 109% greater) not the 200% that Curtis cites - a basic mathematical error, one would presume, but one that still gives a distorted picture of the actual outcomes of the research.

Moreover, while we’re talking about baseline risks, the 1 in 100 figure cited is the generally quoted figure for schizophrenia in the general population of the US, the actual figure given by the National Statistical Office for the UK is around 1 in 200 for all psychotic disorders, not just schizophrenia. In terms of assessing risk, this is actually rather important as what it does suggest is that even allowing for the degree of increased risk noted in the research study, the actual risk of a regular cannabis user developing a psychotic disorder in UK is only about the same as base risk of schizophrenia in the US.

In fact, if one narrows the scope down just to schizophrenia, then the generally cited rate of prevalence in the UK is only 3 cases per 1000 population with an annual incidence rate of between 0.1 and 0.2 cases per thousand, which makes accounting for the differences between US and UK rates even more important.

What this may well indicate, more than anything else, is marked differences in diagnostic practices between the UK and US that need to be considered and factored into our calculations, and which certainly needs to be accounted or allowed for in assessing the value of this research in terms of public policy.

They estimate that 14% of 15- to 34-year-olds currently suffering schizophrenia are ill because they smoked cannabis, a figure previously thought to be between 8% and 10%.

Because?

How the hell do you get ‘because’ from a study that concludes:-

The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here.

The answer is, ‘you don’t', because, as yet, there is no definitive proof of causation and the most promising line of inquiry at the present time suggests that the risks of developing psychosis as a consequence of cannabis use are likely to be confined to a segment of population that has a genetic predisposition towards mental health problems to begin with.

Where, exactly have those figures come from?

According to the current diagnosis rates about 800 people would have been spared schizophrenia if they had not smoked cannabis.

Ah, now I see - they come from mixing and matching incidence rates (i.e. numbers diagnosed each year) with estimates of risk derived from prevalence rates.

Having done a bit of scouting around to see if I could find any reported studies where a comparison of outcomes between them and this new study might give the figures cited by Curtis, arriving eventually at this report, which appears to fit the bill.

If cannabis causes schizophrenia - and that remains in question - then by 2010 up to 25 per cent of new cases of schizophrenia in the UK may be due to cannabis, according to a new study by Dr Matthew Hickman of the University of Bristol and colleagues, published in Addiction journal.

Note, once again, the big ‘if’.

Not only that, but if we look at this study’s reported methodology, we find:

The research study matches historic trends in cannabis use and exposure from a national population survey against estimates of new occurrences of schizophrenia in three English cities (Nottingham, Bristol and the London Borough of Southwark). The researchers assess what might happen to schizophrenia cases if we assume a causal link between cannabis use and onset of psychotic symptoms, an association widely recognised by some psychiatrists and researchers and considered recently by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Now there is a potential problem with that methodology and that is:-

Ethnic minority groups are at increased risk for all psychotic illnesses but African-Caribbeans and Black Africans appear to be at especially high risk for both schizophrenia and mania. These findings suggest that (a) either additional risk factors are operating in African-Caribbeans and Black Africans or that these factors are particularly prevalent in these groups, and that (b) such factors increase risk for schizophrenia and mania in these groups. (source)

In terms of demographics, the Black population of Southwark amounts to 25.9% of the total population of the borough; for Nottingham its 4.34% and for Bristol its 2.32%.

For the UK as a whole, the Black population amounts to 1% of the total population, so the Bristol study is taking its data from areas in which a ethnic minority population that is known to be at increased risk of developing psychotic disorders is over-represented in comparison to the national population by anything from 2 to 25 times.

Not to mention that the study, itself, works from a premise that assumes that a causal relationship between long-term mental health problems and cannabis use will be established.

And is all that were not enough…

The researchers said the evidence was the strongest yet to show that cannabis caused psychotic mental illnesses, and not just that people who were ill smoked more. Dr Stanley Zammit, of Cardiff University, said: “We think the evidence is such that we need a new official warning about the risk.”

At the risk of repetition, the summary in the Lancet explicitly states:

The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here.

And you’ll notice that the apparent claim of causality attributed to the researchers is not an actual quotation, in fact the only direct quotation given calls for the a warning about the apparent risks, which is supported by the conclusions of the research study but only the context of statistical correlations and not proof of causation.

Paul Corry, director of public affairs at the mental health charity Rethink, echoed calls for more warnings but said it was not evidence in itself that cannabis should be reclassified. “Rather than focusing its attention on the reclassification debate, the government would do well to crack on with the more important job of informing the public about the health implications,” he said.

Well yes, quite…

But then before doing that, should we not be just a little more exacting in how those are expressed, in terms of giving an accurate assessment of the evidence of risk provided by these studies and by not claiming causation when there is still no definitive evidence to support such claims?

There is rather more to this than just a blogger venting off a bit of steam about yet another piece of shoddy health journalism. In matters of public health education, particularly with young people and especially if what one is trying to achieve amounts to behaviour modification, there is nothing more important than trust - and there is nothing more certain to undermine trust than the misreporting and misrepresentation of evidence.

If you want young people to take on board the evidence of possible risks arising from the use of cannabis you have to be upfront in giving them accurate information, because no soon as you are caught cheating and overplaying your hand then that’s it, you’ve blown it and they won’t listen to you.

Moral panics might be good for selling newspapers, but they’re a lousy way of going about public health education.

UPDATE

Having worked your way through all that, this is the Daily Mail’s take on the story…

A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.

The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category.

I suppose the only saving grace is that neither of the journalists bylined on the story - Fiona Macrae and Emily Andrews - appears to be billed a ‘health correspondent’, although its questionable as to whether they should even be billed as journalists.

It has long been accepted by the vast majority of the British people, whatever their views on immigration in general, that service to Queen and Country counts for something; that regardless of the different rules on immigration and residency that may or may not be in force at any particular time, any man or woman who, for whatever reason, places their life at risk in service of the realm has earned for themselves and , at least, their immediate family, the moral right to enjoy the very best of protections this country can offer, that of residency in this country.

One sees this view displayed most clearly in regards to the Gurkhas, whose moral claim to have earned, through service,the right to reside on these shores goes almost undisputed, even by members of the British National Party.

There is another group of foreign nationals who, at the present time, are no less deserving of consideration than the Gurhkas and to whom we have no less as a moral obligation to provide adequately for their personal safety, and the safety of their families.

They are not soldiers, although for the last four years they have worked alongside British forces in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, putting their lives at risk merely for doing their job… oh what the hell, just read what Justin has to say and you’ll get the picture:

———————————————————————-

Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra.

The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all of whom have already worked for our country.

The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four News, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops ‘register with the UN refugee agency’. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces. (See here and here.)

Marie Colvin’s report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers stating that they are at risk from jihadi violence: and yet we are still refusing to admit them to the United Kingdom.

If you feel that this is unacceptable and that Britain should prevent Iraqis from being murdered for the ‘crime’ of working for British troops, could you please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for action. You can use the excellent website ‘Write to Them‘ or post a letter yourself.

Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your letter could contain the following points:

• It is morally unacceptable that Britain should abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.
• This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the ‘crime’ of having supported UK forces.
• Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.
• There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq kill the families of those they consider ‘enemies’: for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who worked for us.
• It is entirely practical for this country’s troops in Iraq, and its embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for us and fly them to the UK. Indeed, there is already considerable anger among British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.
• This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees. Denmark has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis who worked for its smaller occupying force.
• It does not matter what your MP’s views (or what your views) are on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. People who risked their lives for this country’s soldiers are now being abandoned by the British Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the right of asylum in this country.
• This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon: applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.

—————————————————————-

There is also a petition you can sign at the Downing Street website - go on, you know you should.

As the suggestion has been made that we should tag other bloggers with this, I’m going to be really cheeky and tag Tom Watson.

There is no escape…

On the steps of the presidential offices in Kigali, sheltered by a pergola from the burning midday sun, David Cameron turned to face a Rwandan television reporter. First, she wanted to know about his efforts to out-trump Labour on international development, and then she asked: “What do you have to say about continuing with your visit to Rwanda when part of your constituency is currently devastated by floods?”

Even the journos in Rwanda have started taking the piss.

Water Taxi for Cameron, anyone?

Getting a little caught up in the political knockabout surrounding last week’s by-elections meant that there were one or two things I’d intended to blog that fell by the wayside, at least until Justin reminded me of what I’d intended to write with these observations.

The other day, I wrote a ‘joke’ that, at the end of the new Harry Potter book, Hogwarts is closed after a poor OFSTED report only to be reopened as a City Academy specialising in training call centre workers. Whoops, a bit of satire there.

Of course, it’s rubbish, isn’t it? An absurd extrapolation of the notion that schools now only exist to produce economically-optimised drones. Bollocks, in other words.

But then…

A secondary school which has opened an on-site call centre where pupils can practise selling mobile phone contracts and answering customer complaints has been criticised for lowering children’s expectations.

Christ. I feel sick.

Me too.

I turned forty last year and, as is apparently obligatory on such occasions, took a little time to mull over my present situation and consider what, if anything, I might still like to achieve in the years remaining to me before advancing age and a life of dissolute pleasures rob me of all sensibilities.

Should I, perhaps, take up the ‘Way of the Clarkson’ and buy a sports car and several hundred pairs of ill-fitting jeans at the recommended two sizes too small for my waistline?

Or perhaps I should set as my personal goal that of becoming one of those dessicated health obsessives whose declining years are spent in ruthless pursuit of the goal of living to be a ripe old burden on their offspring and a world renowned expert on the correct size, shape, colour, consistency and odour of the perfect poo?

No, thought I. Popularly as both options seem to be these days, neither holds much appeal so far as I’m concerned.

So, after a little thought, I settled on a goal much more in keeping with my temperament and interests and decided that I’d quite like to take a crack at becoming a bit of a polymath. A ‘Renaissance Man’ aka ‘Homo Universalis’. I mean I’ve been a bit of a smart arse, so why not spend the next few years usefully employed in the task of doing the job properly, I thought.

Now I’m not saying that I’m definitely going to be any good at it, but I’ve always rather admired those like Da Vinci, Newton, Franklin and Gallileo who did manage to carry off the whole polymath thing pretty well and, in any case, whether or not I succeed in such a goal seems rather less important that the enjoyment one gets from trying.

And so, over the last year or so, any time not spent working, doing family things or blogging has been usefully taken up with reading anything and everything that takes my fancy, which means mostly non-fiction spanning everything from history, politics and philosophy right through to cosmology, quantum mechanics and chaos theory - none of which is the slightest bit of use to my current employer or to the economy in general, I dare say, but I enjoy it and that’s ultimately the only thing that counts.

That’s my personal take on the purpose and value of education and, particularly, on the notion of ‘lifelong learning’, which is, and has been, the favourite buzzword amongst education policy wonks over the last few years, although that’s not quite how the buzzword fetishists see it.

And that brings me neatly to Matthew Taylor, formerly the Director of IPPR and head the Downing Street Policy Unit, under Tony Blair, and now the Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manfactures and Commerce, and to an article published on his blog in regards to a recent speech he gave to the Training and Development Agency for Schools entitled ‘The Future Task of Schooling‘, which he describes as:-

…trying to link some of my ideas about pro-social behaviour and how we create the citizens of the future with questions about the future of teaching.

There is, to my mind, something intrinsically creepy about that particularly statement, creepy as in Aldous Huxley meets The Jetsons; a feeling that Taylor’s first line of argument does nothing whatsoever to dispell:-

1. The future task of schooling must be about building children’s capabilities (as we do with the RSA Opening Minds curriculum).

This means developing children who, as well as the basics, have attributes like self-confidence, the ability to solve problems and show initiative, team working and communication.

Above all the aim of schooling is that every child leaves school with the desire and the ability to continue learning throughout life.

Its that second paragraph that I find, well, rather dislikeable. Assuming that by ‘the basics’ what Taylor means is the ‘3Rs’ - reading, [w]riting and [a]rithmatic - what follows in terms of Taylor’s view of desirable attributes seems to amount to little more than the same kind of boilerplate bullshit one writes as a matter of routine in reply the ‘any other relevant information’ question on application forms, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is putting the same thing, before getting on with the business of explaining what actual skills, knowledge and experience you have to offer.

Seriously, does anyone ever claim that they have anything but that they have good (or maybe even excellent) communication and problem solving skills and that they can work under their own initiative and be a ‘good team player’. I’ve been on the other side of fence, so to speak, in taking part in recruitment short-listing and interviewing and, to be frank, I pay absolutely no attention to any claims of this kind on application forms precisely because I know that the vast majority of applicants will lay claim to all those ‘attributes’ simply because they believe, or have been told, that that’s what employers expect these days.

What’s rather more disturbing, however, is what this reveals about the underlying ethos of Taylor, and other like him, when it comes to their views on the future role and purpose of education, which seems to amount to nothing more than a production line churning out an endless stream of worker ants ready to take the appointed place in front of bank after bank of telephony-enabled PCs.

That’s the so-called ‘knowledge economy’ for you, a society in which the knowledge requirements for employment amount to a matter of the ability to read and on-screen script and type the answers given by the person on the other end of the phone into the right boxes in a bespoke database application. Rather ironic, don’t you think? A ‘knowledge economy’ in which malleability and the minimum possible knowledge required to push the right buttons on a PC quickly enough to be profitable is the primary requirement and that towards which eleven years of formal education is to be directed.

One can hardly wait for Matthew to turn his intellectual faculties towards trying to link his ideas about ‘pro-social behaviour and how we create the citizens of the future’ with questions about the future of transport and the environment, an exercise that’s likely to lead to the suggestion that we can readily cut carbon emissions in the shipping industry by bringing back the trireme and replacing school gyms and sports fields with banks of rowing machines.

Reading some of the material relating to the ‘Open Minds’ curriculum that Taylor refers to, particularly the report entitled ‘Opening Minds: Education for the 21st Century‘, one cannot help but be disturbed by the ‘vision’ of the future it sets out.

The practical challenges faced by education are not simply economic. In many countries, Britain among them, rising prosperity has been accompanied by substantial social change, some of it problematical: family breakdown, changing attitudes to personal relationships, social exclusion. More generally, young people face an increasingly complex world where many old certainties have disappeared. The effects of these developments are very quickly felt in schools. They are places which often seem to bring together and focus the challenges posed by economic and social change. But the ability of schools to cope with the impact of these changes beyond their boundaries is in question. This is true in both the economic sphere – as expressed by the rising number of employers engaged in what they openly refer to as ‘remedial education’ of their new recruits fresh from school or university – and the social, as expressed in the view that schools are failing to educate young people to function in democratic society.

Halifax plc has defined a set of 10 core competences relevant to all grades within the organisation. This framework defines the key ‘attributes, characteristics, behaviours and knowledge exhibited by successful performers’. Their competences are in 3 categories: people, personal and process.

People:direction setting, developing self and others, communication, and working with others.

Personal:achievement orientation, customer orientation, and change orientation.

Process:forward thinking, judgement, and quality focus.

Halifax plc has also created a structured and rigorous assessment process.

Each competence has 5 levels, each describing a different type of behaviour. These levels are progressive, becoming increasingly complex and demanding. In addition to assessing current progress and achievement the system is transparent, enabling participants to set goals for the future thereby providing motivation.

These problems will not go away. They are inseparable from the growth of the consumer society and the knowledge economy, rooted in the spread of technology which can shift economic activity round the globe almost at will and hence act as a destabilising force. They must, therefore, be addressed – at the right level. The problems faced by education in the coming decades have little to do with, for example the failings, real or assumed, of teachers. They are problems of strategy and purpose, and they are not peculiar to the UK. Across the industrialised world people are struggling to engage with the questions ‘what should the system look like in twenty years’ time? how should it be preparing young people for their adult lives?’

You see? Consumer capitalism has won the day. Its the end of history as we know it and all that’s left to do is turn our schools into corporate-sponsored social engineering factories churning out painstakingly indoctrinated workers fit only to be directed by the corporate hive minds.

Never mind education, understanding and real knowledge.

Think nothing of individuality and - gasp - the public heresy of thinking for yourself.

Forget qualifications and examinations, in Taylor’s Brave New World everything you’ll need to can be accommodated on a plastic badge with space for five tin stars.

Humanity? Dear old Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Doesn’t really exist any more - he’s/she’s just another resource.

How bitterly ironic is all this?

Marx predicted that the government of men would be ultimately replaced by the administration of things, and it seems he was right on the button, although who would have thought this would come about not by means of a communist revolution and the eventual withering away of the state but by way of corporate capitalism simply redefining people as things to be administered? Not Marx, certainly…

What of the Fascist thinkers of the 1930’s? Would they be gratified to see their vision of a unified Europe in which whole populations were ordered, organised and transferred around to meet the demands of efficient production, seemingly coming to fruition, or merely disappointed at the lack of patience shown by their political leaders in seeking to create such a New World Order by force, violence and war, when they could simply have played the waiting game and let big business do the job for them…

And what of Freidrich Hayek, whose ideas, one can argue, more than any other helped unleash the forces to which Taylor so obsequiously and ostentatiously kow-tows? Surely he would have hated the vision of the future set out in the report cited above even in acknowledging the role his economic and political ideas have had in making such a future a distinct possibility.

But then again, if Taylor and his ilk have their way then who’ll be left to even consider, let alone care what Marx or Hayek might have made of the future being laid out for our children, but for those few of us ageing bloggers who might still aspire, however imperfectly, to heights of Homo Universalis? What competencies can there be in the new educational order that demand a knowledge of political philosophy?

Certainly nothing that would interest Taylor’s new breed of humans, Homo Servitus.

Title Quotation - “Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity.” Aristotle

Watching Guido trying to salvage a few meagre shreds of reputation as the blogosphere premier ‘Sleazefinder General’ is, I must admit, rather entertaining.

Do You Believe there is No Connection Between Cash and Honours?

Tony Blair created 292 peers. Millions were raised from the recipients of those honours…

Does anyone - or should I say anyone expressing an honest and unbiased opinion - really believe that a full audit of Tory Party finances and donations covering the Thatcher/Major government, which created 341 peers between them, would not show much the same kind of correlation?

And what about the £6 million in loans that the Tories paid off to ensure that the identities of their backers remained out of the public domain?

Ah, can you hear that folks? That’s the sound of silence…

Still, I guess all this does save Guido the time and trouble of trying to finish off writing ‘The Trial of  Lord Levy’ - unless Levy decides to sue him for libel and defamation, of course…

Anyone up for starting work on the Trial of Paul Staines Guido Fawkes?

Even more amusing, however, is the sight of the blogosphere’s premier Guido wannabe, Praguetory, appearing to admit to having withheld information from the Police in regards to criminal offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925:

it’s very hard to believe that the 6,300 documents prepared by the police over the course of about a year and passed to the CPS 3 (!) months ago were insufficient for a case to come to court. Not only is the evidence of wrongdoing clear, but I have been told by a number of sources close to specific lenders that they admit that they were trying to buy a lordship.

First things first - about this claim that ‘the evidence of wrongdoing is clear’, Praguetory…

Are you claiming to have seen the evidence submitted by the police to the CPS for consideration, or are you simply trying to pass off an extremely unqualified personal opinion as a matter of fact?

And in either case, in what sense do you consider yourself qualified to judge the strength of the evidence presented to the CPS by the Metropolitan Police. Are you a solicitor or barrister? Do you have a degree in law?

No of course you aren’t and you don’t, you’re just a loudmouth Tory blogger with a bloated sense of your own self-importance and a desperate craving for attention.

Moving on swiftly to Praguetory’s other claim…

I have been told by a number of sources close to specific lenders that they admit that they were trying to buy a lordship.

Well if that’s true, why have you not forwarded that information to the Metropolitan Police? Do you not realise that not only is the sale of honours a criminal offence under section 1 of the 1925 Act but also the solicitation of honours, which is covered by section 2…

(2) If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

Notwithstanding your patently transparent political motives, Praguetory, if you are aware of any individuals who may have offered loans or donations to any political party in the hope of obtaining a peerage or other honour for themselves of for third party then you are surely under a moral and ethical obligation to disclose their identity and/or the identity of your claimed sources together with any other relevant information appertaining to these alleged ‘admissions’ to the Metropolitan Police for further investigation.

After all, the solicitation of honours carries the same penalty as their sale - up to two years imprisonment on indictment or three months on summary conviction - as specified by the third and final section of the Act:

(3) Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty.

There is, of course, another possible (and many would argue likely) explanation for Praguetory’s remarks, which is simply that he’s bullshitting and that these ’sources close to specific lenders’ are no more than figments of his ego and his desperation to be seen as a big wheel in the discreditable, and increasingly discredited, histrionic wing of the Tory blogosphere.

(Despite surface appearances to the contrary, which stem primarily from the relentless media whoring and playing to the troll gallery of the likes of Guido and Iain Dale, there are actually some very good Tory bloggers out there, of whom I can happily recommend Mr Eugenides, Bel and Matt Wardman as being well worth a read if, like me, you prefer your political opponents to be honest, authentic and intelligent.)

Based on his comments, of which I’ve naturally taken a screenshot (see below) it seems to me that Praguetory has painted himself into a corner in which he has left himself only three options.

1) He can demonstrate the veracity of his claim to have been told by ’sources close to specific lenders’ of these alleged attempts to solicit honours in breach of section 2 of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, by forwarding the information he purports to have to the Metropolitan Police, thereby initiating further inquiries.

2) He can publish the identities of the specific lenders named by his claimed sources, secure in the knowledge that his ’sword of truth’ will prevail when he gets whacked with the inevitable libel action that would result from such a course of action, or

3) He can respond to the above challenge with his usual mix of bullshit and bluster and then waffle on about the importance of protecting sources and put up whatever other excuses for inaction he can think of - thereby reinforcing the impression that many will already have of him, that of his being a congenital bullshitter who will say pretty much anything in his unbounded desperation to climb the slippery pole of the Tory blogosphere to the lip of the gutter currently occupied by Guido.

Or he could just libel Bob Piper again in the hope that that might deflect attention away from the embarrassment of his made a complete cunt of himself, yet again.

Right, I’ll be liveblogging this for the next hour or so until both results are in:

00:15 Sedgefield result estimated to be in about 30-40 minutes.

00:20 Looks a little tight in Ealing Southall but its starting to look like a Labour hold, Lib Dems second and a bit of a disaster for the Tories - sorry, I mean David Cameron’s Conservatives - after everything they’ve thrown at the seat. ETA about an hour.

00:25 The tables apparently have it up in Sedgefield - Tories and the LDs allocated two tables for the count, Labour give four… low turnout reported, estimated at around 38%.

00:27 And the excuses are starting up North, with the Tories talking up tactical voting amongst their supporters and bitching about the Lib Dems.

00:34 A little classic comedy while you wait…

00:38 Blanket coverage of the ‘no charges in cash for honours’ story - that’s Guido’s remaining shreds of credibility down the shitter.

00:46 Quick shot of the tables at Sedgefield. Looks to be about the double the number of vote bundles in red than in yellow. Tory table looks alarmingly bare… well it does if you’re a Tory, but from where I’m sitting it looks just fine.

00:48 Golf on News 24… yawn! Might have to dig out another video in a bit - any suggestions? Ah fuck it - how about Guido making an arse of himself on Newsnight…

00:51 Thank fuck for that, we’re back to the politics and they’re rounding up the candidates for the declaration… As far as results go, I’ll stick to the big three parties unless anything unusual happens. Meanwhile, have a bit of Blackadder:

00:55 Lib Dems predicting Labour 46%, LD’s 24%, Tories 13% and BNP in fourth in Sedgefield.

00:58 BNP looking cheerful - may well have kept their deposit.

01:00 Right, we’re on…

Labour - 12,525

Lib Dem - 5,572

Tories - 4,082

BNP - 2,494

1:05 Labour Majority 6,969, Lib Dems nearly 1,500 ahead of the Tories and the BNP behaving like a bunch of cunts as usual. No change there…

1:08 Wonder when Greg Stone will start Labour Watch up again? Usual BS from Stone - reckons he’s struck a blow for Lib Dem kind… by gaining all of 637 votes over their result in 2005.

1:12 Tory vote down over 2005 by 1890… that’s a sickener for Cameron.

1:14 Thank fuck that twat from the BNP has shut up, for a minute I thought he was going to start on this…

1:20 Tories talking up their share of the vote as what matters - still lost nearly 1900 votes. Good old bitch about the LD’s negative campaigning - fuck knows what they’ll be saying down in Ealing. Fair play to the Tory for laying into the BNP.

1:22 Anyone else listening to the Tory whinging about the LDs and thinking ‘Shapps’…

1:23 Stone on now - usual ‘coming second here’ waffle and reckons the Tories will come in third in Ealing Southall.

1:28 Over to Ealing Southall. Journos not allowed in the count due to lack of space.

1:29 BBC calling it a Labour hold, LDs second and the Tories rolling in third - with Cameron having hung his hat on this one by parachuting in a chosen man, if that’s correct it’ll be a sickener. 43% turn out estimated.

1:35 Shapps on now - talking up having increased their vote and how the third party always gets squeezed. They’re fucked…

1:37 What a twat - the plus for the Tories is gaining the five councillors. Mwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

1:39 That’s the third or fourth time he’s mentioned the third party getting the squeeze - loo-oooser…

1:42 Just a reminder, last time out the results went…

Labour - 22,937 (48.8%)
Liberal Democrats - Nigel Bakhai 11,497 (24.4%)
Conservative - 10,147 (21.6%)

Tony Lit just arriving - nice of him to show up…

1:45 Christ, another 15 minutes - any thoughts on a another vid to pass the time?

1:47 Tell you what, let’s have a bit of Beck for Tony, Grant and Dave…

1:54 Back on the Blair story - re-running the interview with Sir Alistair Graham…

Time for another classic video - ‘and the vegetables?’

2:00 Results coming up - and I’ve settled on a vid to go with it…

2:05 FFS turn the mikes on… come on…

2:07 Still waiting - now talking another 10 minutes to the result…

2:11 Just thought of a cracking vid for Tony…

2:15 FFS - come on… Beeb keep going on about Ming Campbell visiting on eight occasions - ain’t those bus passes just peachy…

More comedy - Peter Cook this time…

2:20 Jeebus, that political researcher guy’s back on again… come back Peter Snow please…

2:23 Oh do come on - I’m going to run out of fags at this rate…

2:25 At fucking last… Lit’s on the stage - wonder if anyone’s asked him who he is… (Tom, behave yourself)

Labour - 15,188

LD - 10,118 (pretty good on a low turnout)

Tory - 8,230

Majority - About 5,000

43% turnout, down from 57% last time out…

And now the video…

2:33 5,000 majority was at the top end of expectations for us. Lib Dems got their vote out well and a drop of nearly 2000 votes for the Tories with Cameron’s name all over the campaign is a sickener…

Tom’s done a bloody good job down there to pull that majority out of the bag…

2:45 Off to bed in a bit but before I go, here’s the percentages…

Labour - 41.5%

Lib Dem - 27.6%

Tory -  22.5%

All the effort the Tories put in and they managed less than a 1% pick-up. Cameron is going to be toast on the Tory blogs…

Night all…

My, my…

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, today became the most senior member of the cabinet to admit he had smoked cannabis “occasionally in my youth”.

The shock admission, from the minister best known as a “safe pair of hands”, came after the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, revealed that she had dabbled with the drug during her university days.

The disclosure - made while Ms Smith discussed the prime minister’s announcement yesterday of a review into whether marijuana should be reclassified back to class B after it was downgraded to class C three years ago - prompted an avalanche of similar admissions from her cabinet colleagues.

Look I know that with a Ministerial post comes a measure of collective responsibility, nevertheless who would expected this turn in the Labour’s “I’m Spartacus” moment.

More to point:

To the astonishment of colleagues, the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, also admitted today that she had smoked the drug as an undergraduate.

Ruth Kelly’s office confirmed that she had smoked cannabis “in her youth”. A spokeswoman said: “She recognises that it was foolish and a silly thing to do, and she stopped.”

No, I can’t quite picture Ruth skinning up on the cover of an album of Gregorian chants either, but then frankly who cares.

Yes, there’s a stench of hypocrisy around this - talk to most ordinary people who’ve toked in the past and even if they have given it up, most will happily admit to enjoying it and that the worst side-effect they ever encountered was waking up the following morning to an empty fridge.

Much more important, in terms of misinformation and propaganda is that the paragraphs that follow these less-than-stunning revelations:

The home secretary is due to formally announce the review next week as part of a wide-ranging drugs inquiry that in part reflects concern about skunk, a stronger form of cannabis being blamed for an increase in mental health disorders.

Now, I will dig out something I can post in full, but having taken a look at several research papers on the subject of cannabis and mental health, the most striking think about these statements in the press is the wholesale absence of two very important words that appear routinely in the research literature:-

Pre-existing Liability.

Every single research paper I’ve read that examines cannabis use in the context of claims that increases the risk of serious mental health problems such as schizophrenia and psychotic disorders notes that the increased risks that have been identified are found only in those with a pre-existing liability towards those disorders, a predisposition that researchers strongly suspect has genetic origins.

Got that? The current state of play in the research is that there is an increased risk of mental health problems arising out of cannabis use in individuals who possess a genetic predisposition toward experiencing such problems.

The precise genetic and biochemical factors that come into play and the prevalence of such pre-existing liabilities in the general population are both, as yet, unknown, although researchers have identified at least two promising lines of enquiry on the causative factors, both of which require more research before anything definitive can be said.

So far as I can see from the published literature, our current understanding of the precise relationship between cannabis use and mental health problems amounts to a couple of promising hypotheses which suggest that an as yet unquantified segment of the general population might be at greater risk of developing certain psychological disorders for which they have a genetic predisposition if they toke on a regular basis, especially while an adolescent.

If that’s the medical argument for reclassifying cannabis upwards, then one might just as easily justify classifying peanuts as a class A substance on grounds of the increasing prevalence of of peanut allergies in recent years on much the same basis but on the back of considerable more solid research evidence.

Politicians toking during their university days - who cares anymore.

Propaganda and misinformation on the real scale and understanding of the risks involved in cannabis use - that’s the real scandal here.

Time for a video… (NSFW)

Following hot on the heels of the Jonathan Isaby’s gaff in publishing what he claimed were unofficial vote tallies taken by a member of the Tory Campaign team in Ealing Southall during the verification of postal ballots, a second national newspaper appears to have repeated Isaby’s gaff.

Visit in the Independent on-line this morning, and you’ll find its lead by-election story for Ealing Southall is the on-going police investigation into Isaby’s blog post, which appeared on the Telegraph’s website at 6pm yesterday evening.

Ealing Southall: Police to investigate Tories over leaked postal by-election results

By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Published: 19 July 2007

The Conservative Party found itself at the centre of a police investigation last night after allegations a “Tory source” had leaked results of a postal ballot of today’s Ealing Southall by-election.

Scotland Yard confirmed it was looking into the case and a police spokesman, when asked about the claims, said: “We’ve received allegations of possible electoral offences in relation to the Ealing Southall by-election. We take it very seriously and appropriate action will be taken.” The spokesman declined to be drawn on who had made the allegations or how the Conservatives had reacted.

The Daily Telegraph diarist Jonathan Isaby, known for his connections with the Conservative party, posted details of the postal ballot on his blog last night. He wrote: “[A] source inside the Tory campaign [in Ealing] reports that it was looking incredibly close, with them calculating the main parties’ tallies as follows: …”

The blog then listed the early results. Soon afterwards, the posting was removed from the website.

Before going on to note that:

By law, political parties are allowed representatives to oversee the validation process, however any release of an indication of how the vote is going is strictly prohibited on the grounds that it could influence subsequent votes. The offence is punishable by up to six months in prison.

However, pick up the print edition of this morning’s Independent and turn to page 10 and you’ll find a article entitled ‘Divided electorate attracts party heavyweights for last ditch appeal’, also bylined as the work of political correspondent, Ben Russell, in which it states the following:

“Postal voting returns presented to Mr Cameron yesterday were said to show Labour with XX percent of the vote … XX per cent for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on XX per cent”

The actual figures given by Russell have, for obvious reasons, been redacted.

As this screen shot from Google’s News Search shows, the article by Russell in which he sites postal ballot figures as having been ‘presented to David Cameron’ was posted to the Indy’s website last night - and the link returned by Google is identical to that of this morning’s story about the Telegraph’s gaff, which shows the the Indy have attempted to cover their tracks by overwriting their original story on the same URL.

There seem to be be possible explanations for Russell’s print edition story. Either these figures were being circulated more widely to and amongst journalists than was first thought, which may hint that there may be some truth to Isaby’s claim to have been given the numbers by a source in the Tory Party, or Russell has lifted the numbers from Isaby’s blog post and filed the first story while unaware of Isaby’s alleged breach of electoral law.

While the Telegraph may be in a position to draw some small crumbs of comfort from their gaff having taken place only on Isaby’s blog, the Indy have gone the whole hog and placed this information into print, which is an altogether more difficult thing to worm your way out of.

UPDATE

There appears to be a discrepancy between the figures cited by Isaby and those given by Russell, so its not at all clear where he sourced his figures from. There was a fair bit of chatter last night on Political Betting and few other sites, with several different sets of figures being floated once posts repeating Isaby’s figures had been removed as news of the police investigation spread.

With everything else that’s gone on around the Ealing Southall by-election and mere hours before the polls open, you’d think there was nothing left to be said until the result is announced tomorrow night.

And you’d be wrong, because just when you thought you’d seen every last twist and turn, Jonathan Isaby pops up at the Telegraph and manages to drop himself and the Tory Party right in the shit with a blog post (now hastily removed) that appears to contain a criminal breach of the Representation of the People Act:

Before anyone asks, the incriminating bit - which purports to show the postal vote tallies for the three main parties - has been blurred out for legal reasons, specifically those listed in Schedule 6, Section 66A of the 2000 amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983, to whit:

“66A. - (1) No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed-

(a) any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or

(b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given.

(2) This section applies to-

(a) any parliamentary election; and

(b) any local government election in England or Wales.

(3) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.”

Got that? Up to six months in the Jeffrey Archer Suite at Belmarsh for publishing even the results of an exit poll before the polls close, never mind publishing the tallies that parties shouldn’t really be taking, from the verification of postal votes and Isaby manages to finger a ’source inside the Tory Campaign’ as having provided the information.

And lets not forget, of course, that should Her Maj’s Constabulary take a bit of a gander at this, then Isaby is going to come under pressure to identify his source within the Tory campaign and, should he refuse, could face the prospect of playing chicken with a judge over the relative importance of protecting one’s source vs contempt of court, a game in, so I am reliably informed, the judge always wins.

Not much else to say at the moment apart from cheers to PP for the heads up and to dedicate this next couple of songs are Jonathan and his, as yet, unnamed source:

And now for a little Magic Sam…