´óÏó´«Ã½

The Furrowed Brow

Comments

1. At 11:38 AM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

   I am seriously worried about one Eric Muir being awake and posting at 5:34am...

2. At 11:50 AM on 11 Jun 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   JG (1) - maybe he was having a bad reaction to whiskey too!
   

3. At 12:30 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

   You could have something there, witchiwoman...I do have this slight suspicion that Eric may be from North of the border...and they do rather have a taste for it...

   A distant friend of mine has a friend from Skye and one evening she allegedly managed an entire bottle of Talisker to herself. I don't know what time she woke up the next morning or in what mood but my friend was slightly distressed as it was his favorite malt and he usually made it last between Christmases!

4. At 12:48 PM on 11 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   I have a serious issue for you. Why are attitudes to alcohol and tobacco so dissimilar? They are both addictive and harmful substances, and yet smoking is now widely frowned on and/or discouraged. But the attitude towards binge drinking seems to me to be entirely unrelated to the attitude towards drinking alcohol in the first place - which is broadly accepting.

   I realise that there is no ‘second hand’ drink, but intoxicated motorists are in fact an even more immediate danger than smokers in your vicinity. Do please put me straight.

   Any Questions last week covered proposed labelling describing the dangers of alcohol, and the impression was that the audience in general was against such a ‘nannying’ idea. I feel that in general people are very opposed to discouragements when related to drink, as opposed to when related to smoking. But I feel that a culture which is generally accepting of alcoholic indulgence has its inevitable consequence in anti-social drunken behaviour. Does anyone agree?

5. At 03:02 PM on 11 Jun 2007, Member of the public... wrote:

   The spectacle of Britain's outgoing Prime Minister racking up air miles on his global farewell tour while the Prime Minister-elect marks out his territory at home has been an undignified one to say the least. This bizarre arrangement has already produced considerable confusion in the workings of Government as witnessed when Gordon Brown published his own anti-terror blueprint just days before the Home Secretary, who is also about to leave office, put new proposals before Parliament.

   Concerning though this is, it is to be hoped that Mr Brown's formal takeover will see some semblance of order restored and this period quickly forgotten. However, the forthcoming European Union summit may see Tony Blair making major commitments for which the British people will have no opportunity to hold him to account at a subsequent election.

   There are growing signs that Mr Blair could sign up Britain to a new EU treaty containing elements of the controversial constitution which was shelved in 2005 following negative referendum results in France and The Netherlands.

   I think it is vital that Mr Brown is closely involved in Britain's discussions at the forthcoming summit as it is he who will be left the task of justifying the Government's support for any treaty to the British public. More importantly, the incoming Prime Minister cannot be allowed to distance himself from potentially unpopular decisions on the grounds they were taken by his predecessor just days before leaving office.
   

6. At 03:04 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

   Hi Doc,

   I agree that there will always be those who cannot keep to moderate consumption of drink, and that this is likely to result in instances of antisocial behaviour, but it is a minority. There is always the likelihood of completely sober folk becoming too aroused at sporting matches or on the highways.

   I have seen the bulk of a German village, as well as a full complement of visiting glass artists, museum curators, etc. get thoroughly drunk without anything more antisocial than the mayor (well under the influence) having a discrete(?) pee in the bushes. I only noticed because I was also availing myself of a nearby bush.

   I think the tendency to aggressive antisocial behaviour has more to do with the culture than the nature of alcohol, but I would say that, wouldn't I? I also enjoy the occasional smoke, but never unadulterated...

   xx
   ed

7. At 03:45 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

   
   Don whimsical costumes, perform impromptu chorus line.
   
   WORLD NEWS
   All Charges Dropped Against Bin Laden's former Chauffeur
   A relieved Salim Ahmed Hamdan says he just wants his old job back.
   Gates Cites Progress in Afghanistan
   Most Taliban fighters now busy with poppy harvest.

   FACTOID
   16,185 Murders, 92,837 Rapes
   in U.S. Last Year
   But no major terrorist attacks.
   www.ironictimes.com/

   xx
   ed

8. At 04:21 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

   English and Welsh siblings,

   Defend your rights!

   Major new developments including nuclear power stations and airport runways could be forced through as part of a major overhaul of planning.

   The Government's new Planning White Paper will give pre-approval to major developments and stop you from having a say. Protect your rights and local voice in planning. Information and background at:
   www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/press_for_change/planning_white_paper/index.html
   and you can participate in the ''
   The Government invites your comments. Please send your response no
   later than 17 August 2007.

   Email responses are preferred. If you are replying by email please
   include the words consultation response in the subject or title.
   These and any queries can be sent to
   planningreformconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

   Your Northern sibling,
   ed

9. At 05:09 PM on 11 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   Thanks for the response, Ed. I’m disappointed that nobody else has joined this debate.

10. At 05:13 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

    @ Dr Hackenbush. It is a bit of a stretch to link binge drinking levels directly with drunk driving. From what I can see, there is real evidence of a designated driver culture developing.
    

11. At 05:38 PM on 11 Jun 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Dr. H: I'm with you on this one.

    Listening to something on the radio recently, which was discussing why the British have the relationship they do with alcohol was quite illuminating, although I don't think it entirely answered the question. But it is undoubtedly true that this isn't a new phenomenum, which may be why it is so hard to shift the attitude away from 'binge' towards 'responsible' drinking.

    As to there being no secondary victims, that isn't true either, as no doubt you'd agree. Think of the battered spouses/partners, abused children, not to mention people killed in road accidents by drivers whose reactions have been impaired - or worse - by the effects of alcohol. Then, too, there is the secondary effect when, as an addiction, it can lead to people losing their jobs, etc. And all this without the effect that alcohol has upon the drinker's health.

    No, Dr. H, you are not alone in your thoughts. However, how we get to change the British relationship with alcohol I know not - Perhaps another temperance movement? I say this with a smile, but there may be something to it!

12. At 05:59 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

    John (10),

    The 'designated driver' movement is an excellent example of successful social pressure at work where legislation has had only limited success. I think there has also been some success at exposing those who engage in excessive drinking to the truth of how stupid they look via 'public information' TV pieces.

    I will always prefer social pressure to legislation. It's simply far more likely to be effective. The danger is that 'the public' can be sometimes be stampeded by certain elements of the meedja. The same danger exists in the case of legislation in a majority-dominated legislature.

    Another reason I'm so pleased with the (hopefully permanent) disappearance of majorities in Scotland.

    ³§±ôá¾±²Ô³Ù±ð
    ed

13. At 09:20 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Re Dr H -

    I have to say I am against the labelling of alcoholic drinks. It is another example of 'nannying'.

    The problem is with the culture of the country - parenting, other factors.

    Briefly - on another tac, I have just heard a report that George Michael is thinking of purchasing Damien Hursts diamond skull for £50 million.

    I just found the whole idea nauseating. So much money - so many good used it could be put to, (I'm thinking 3rd world investment) - then he could be so proud.

14. At 11:27 PM on 11 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Just a thought to toss around in the 'brow:

    While I don't wish to compromise safety, why is it that we believe we can keep nuclear waste safe for thousands of years, but we can't build a generating station which can safely last half a century?

    Any ideas?
    xx
    ed

    Another round? Mine's a Liffey, thanks.

15. At 08:41 AM on 12 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Hmmm, quite a few thoughts on the Brow this week...

    Dr H, re the alcohol, I seem to remember there was a piece on the radio a week or so back(?) where our "way" of drinking was explained historically in that we in the North of Europe didn't have the climate to grow grapes (& hence produce wine). Instead, we had beer. Beer is a drink that isn't made for storing long term. So, the early drinkers would drink the available beer rather than just let it go to waste. Also, given that water supplies were not always free from contamination, beer was sometimes more healthy than the alternative. So, it's ingrained into our society over the course of hundreds of generations. The Southern Europeans, however, could grow wine, which stores well for long peiods of time, so there wasn't the "drive" to consume it all before it went off. So, that's why we have the culture we do. I tend to agree with you that there should be something on labels/cans detailing how much alcohol is around, so that people can better understand how much they're drinking...

    Jonnie, I'm with you re George Michael and the skull. In fact, anyone willing to pay that much for any piece of art should be made to give an equal amount to a charity/project to help combat global problems (global warming, HIV/AIDS, poverty, malnutrition, etc...)

    Ed I: To be honest, I think storage is relatively simple to do, whilst maintaining a working power plant is much harder. That said, I do think there's too much NIMBYism regarding renewable energy plants, and there are other alternatrive that should also be considered such as local micro-generation schemes, tidal, etc. To use an American phrase, we need to think "out of the box" on this one....

    FFred.

    p.s. Liffey water left on the bar for you, Ed!

16. At 10:31 AM on 12 Jun 2007, wrote:

    FFred,

    If storage is indeed that easy, why haven't we decided on a suitable system yet? It does seem to me that we ought to be able to design reactors with a longer expected lifetime.

    Thanks for the Liffey!
    Slainte
    ed

17. At 11:01 AM on 12 Jun 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Thanks for your responses.

    I’m going to add that I don’t really understand the prevailing mentality that ‘progressing’ to alcohol consumption at the earliest legally allowed age, or before, is somehow an accepted rite of passage. So to speak. Perhaps it is environment? Would anyone care to share their experiences on this?

18. At 02:25 PM on 12 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    The ‘binge drinking’ business does seem to me to be relatively new, or at least it seems to have become *acceptable* during my lifetime in a way it used not to be. When I was of student age in the middle of the 20th century and associating with students, if someone got pissed and made a nuisance or a bloody fool of himself (almost always him, not her: a girl getting drunk would probably be prevented before she went too far, by her friends telling her she’d had enough and refusing to buy her any more, and the barman refusing to serve her) the reaction the following day from people who’d been there was of scorn, or pity, or disapproval in a general way. Somebody who made a habit of it would be regarded as a bit of a pest, and might be shunned as a companion on a pub-run, or left to get on with it and ignored as much as possible. To become so drunk that one couldn’t stand up was a funny-once, and not in the least admirable if it was habitual. Certainly it would have been nothing to boast about. Yes, one might meet ‘eight pints a night’ men, but the pride was in *not* becoming incapacitated by alcohol, and failure to hold one’s drink was socially iffy at best.

    I suspect that some of this may have been because beer or cider or even shandy was the usual thing to drink, rather than spirits. It’s far too easy to miscalculate how much one has had when it’s spirits, and far too easy physically to drink too many vodkas before one has to try to stand up and make it to the loo. Beer by the pint makes itself obvious sooner. Also, to ask for a ‘short’ as part of a round was slightly bad form because it was more expensive for the buyer. I have a vague memory that a measure of vodka plus the mixer to go with it cost about twice as much as a pint of beer, though I may be wrong: certainly my preferring vodka-and-lemonade was frowned on and I was expected to make them last. (grin)

    When I took a degree as a mature student in the 21st century and listened to people of usual-student-age talking, the reaction to someone who on the previous night had got pissed enough to black out or wake up in bed with someone they didn’t know was friendly, sympathetic, amused and sometimes almost admiring, and the person who’d done it might be mocked but the mockery was not barbed. Certainly nobody seemed to suggest that perhaps it wasn’t something to do again.

    Historically further back, yes, beer was drunk here rather than wine -- though grapes were grown in England and even Scotland last time climate change made it warm enough here for that to be practicable (and ‘wine’ covers a multitude of things as well as grapes: primrose, cowslip, dandelion, even turnip, were certainly made all over England). It was certainly safer to drink beer or wine than to drink dubious water, but that might well have been because the water would be boiled and then allowed to cool during the brewing process, rather than anything much to do with the alcoholic content. Surely ‘small beer’ was a rather different thing from modern beer, and its alcoholic content must have been a great deal lower: if children as young as three were given ‘small beer’ to drink at breakfast, it can’t have been all that strong! It seems likely that what is nowadays labelled a ‘session beer’ would then have been regarded as ‘strong ale’.

    I don’t know what the alcoholic content of a pint would have been, but I suspect a great deal less than the 4.5% that I now see on a lot of the bottles in the supermarket; I *know* that the wine had less alcoholic content, and also that the bottles were smaller, so the claret-swilling Regency bloke didn’t get as drunk on his two or three bottles of claret in an evening as he would do if he tried it now.

    I also don’t know what the norm was for alcoholic content in beer in the 1960s, but I suspect that the ordinary keg beer served in yeraverage pub wasn’t as strong then as it is now. Is there a publican in the house who would know these things?

19. At 10:56 AM on 13 Jun 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    I am trying to instill in my kids the idea that moderation is acceptable when it comes to alcohol. They have both sipped champagne. (and both like it arrgh!).
    I have three times in my life (yes only 3) drunk so much that I was sick. I blame the curry the first time and the second actually and I had had a taste of cigar (thats also a never gain thing) the third time. So I was obviously drunk enough to do something stupid (i.e. smoke or try to smoke a cigar).
    I have had more hangovers though not now for ages, Its just too much hassle to be in that sort of state.

    As Chris and others mention beer was safer to drink than water in the bad old days but was probably naturally fermented as in the belgium lambic beers so alcohol content was low, but high enough to kill off bugs (as was the boiling of water process) The alcohol probably acted as a preservative.

    Folk have to start to take some responsibilty for their actions, so we need to be informed of the risks of alcohol, smoking etc etc but the state should not nanny us. I do not mean by this that all drugs should be legalised.

    separately anyone want to but a Landrover? a few previous owners.

20. At 12:34 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Eddie,

    If you're going to cover the dropping of Scotland's "Graduate Tax", can you include a couple of things:

    1) A decent explanation of the "block grant" system, whereby the amount Scotland gets to spend each year is calculated on the basis of England's spending, and

    2) A calculation on the amount spent per head not just for England and Scotland, but for England *excluding* London and the South East. I strongly suspect that without the abnormal spending/income of London, people in rural areas or smaller cities of England get about the same amount of spending as Scots.

    I also think you should point up the fact that the lack of tuition fees and the availability of some drugs on the NHS are paid for from the same blocked-out amount of money; something else has to go in order to pay for these. Scotland is *not* getting extra money for these things, we've just made them a priority. Personally, I think health and education are much better targets for spending than e.g. large sporting events.

    Seriously, if I hear another Daily Torygraph style rant about England subsidising Scotland and how unfair it all is, I'll... I'll...

    ...probably roll my eyes and say "tch!" I *am* British after all.

21. At 01:04 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    SSC (20),

    British, not Scottish? Tsk!

    ³§±ôá¾±²Ô³Ù±ð
    ed

22. At 01:34 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Ed (21):

    If I was being Scottish, I'd roll my eyes and say "Och!"

    Or maybe charge the sassenachs wi' mah skean dhu flashing and mah kilt flyin', screaming "Gonnynodaethatyabam?"

    One of those two, probably.

23. At 03:58 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Cat,

    I remember meeting a couple of Edinburgh cops who referred to their new headquarters as "Disneyland", and when I enquired they responded, " The loos disnae wurrk, the telephones disnae wurrk, ...

    xx
    ed

24. At 04:56 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Geoff Bottoms will be chair for the CND debate this Saturday
    @Mander Hall
    Hamilton House
    Mabledon Place
    LONDON WC1
    9.30am-4pm

    Also with Tony Benn, Brian Catton, Bob Crow, Jon Cruddas, Rob Griffiths, John Haylett, John Hendy, Kate Hudson, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnel, Alan MacKinnon, Andrew Murray, Salma Yaqoob, Matt Wrack.

25. At 05:02 PM on 13 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Not had time to read and then write this properly, but I do think there should be restrictions on the sale of drinks which are of the strength of currently fashionable "shots".

    I was working at a Uni when the first of the alcopops was being trialed. It tasted of traditional, cloudy lemonade and was the strength of a strong lager. The effect was immense - young adults away for the first time were discovering a drink they found pleasant and they started consuming it en masse. The inevitable side effects were unpleasant to witness.

    The problem, though, would be maintaining the stance in the face of such strong alcoholic unmixed drinks as whiskey and brandy.

26. At 11:53 AM on 14 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Not only is the grass greener, but there's twice as much on the other side if you can get past the Troll!

    xx
    ed

27. At 12:05 PM on 14 Jun 2007, wrote:

    >;)

28. At 12:32 PM on 14 Jun 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    Serious Topic. NICE and Lucentis. Busy with patients so cant stop. But a drug that can slow down /stop wet macular degeneration can I believe be used in Scot;land but not in England & Wales. Its Two Tier health again

29. At 02:31 PM on 14 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Nobody does it better! (11'25")
    xx
    ed

30. At 03:42 PM on 14 Jun 2007, wrote:

    So true Ed.

    Is Gerald Kauffman an anti-semite?

    My answer is typically Marxist involving class and the state, which applies to all countries, so I won't put it here!!!
    I would have fought the Nazis and the Zionists. Dialecticts are a habit I am very pleased to have adopted in a world full of contradictions.

    xx

31. At 04:04 PM on 14 Jun 2007, wrote:

    So true Ed.

    Is Gerald Kauffman an anti-semite?

    My answer is typically Marxist involving class and the state, which applies to all countries, so I won't put it here!!!
    I would have been upset with the Nazis and the Zionists. Dialecticts are a habit I am very pleased to have adopted in a world full of contradictions.

    xx

32. At 10:38 PM on 14 Jun 2007, Joe wrote:

    This news certainly changed my expression today.

    There were 255 British soldiers killed in action in the Falklands Campaign.

    300 veterans have taken their own lives since.

    These are our boys. xx

33. At 10:30 AM on 15 Jun 2007, wrote:

    A very telling thought, Joe.
    xx
    ed

34. At 04:52 PM on 15 Jun 2007, Wonko wrote:

    A little late to the alcohol debate, but here's my thoughts on the subject:

    In medieaval times beer was the staple drink of the "oridinary" people for want of a better phrase. Those Norman knights prefered wine, partly because it was what they drank in France and partly because it distinguished them from the peasants. Indeed the Anglo-Saxon culture the Normans discovered was (as previously described above) about drinking as much beer as there was available and then falling over. The Normans were rather barbed in their comments about the English not being able to hold their drink.

    Interestingly brewing was largely controlled by the Monasteries at the time (before the English Reformation/Dissolution of the Monastaries). Typically three batches of beer were made from one batch of malt (malted barley). The first brew would have an alcohol content of around 10%ABV, the second 5-6%ABV and the last - Small Beer - was around 1-2%ABV. Beer was preferable to water because the water used to make it had been boiled and then allowed to cool to 67 degrees Celcuis. The way this exact figure was produced was by looking into the vat the beer was being made in, when you could see your face reflected in the water through the steam, the correct temperature had been reached.

    You only have to look back at Hogarth's pictures of Gin Alley to see that as a society we've never had a good relationship with cheap spirits. The relative cheapness of modern spirit based drinks, their ease of availability and the fact that they don't taste all that alcoholic are all factors in current binge drinking problems, IMHO. There are also social elements at play, I agree with a previous poster that attitudes towards people who drink too much and then misbehave have changed. There has also been a significant change in the kinds of places people drink at. Not all that long ago most people drank at their "local". They were known, as were who their parents were, and bar staff were confident in saying "I think you've had enough lad". These days it's town-centre pubs where the days takings are more important, and people go from one place to another where everyone tends to be more anonymous. Now it's bouncers who pick up the pieces after someone has had too much, rather than that person being told to go home by bar staff before they reached that state. I have also heard people claim that the chemicals used to make cheap lager had a negative effect on those who drank it, but I have seen no independent evidence to support this claim!

    I drink beer (mostly bitter, but others kinds too) and enjoy a dram or two. I think I have a healthy relationship with alcohol, I drink for the pleasure of drinking the drink, not to get drunk. I was brought up having the odd half glass of wine at home with meals from about the age of ten. As a result alcohol wasn't seen as anything special to me, it had no mystique or taboo qualities. I'm all for clear labelling, I'm even more for people taking responsibility for their own actions.

35. At 10:14 AM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    THIS FOR YOU MR IGLEHART!!!

    
    Alcohol is more dangerous than amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine and LSD. Excluding fights and accidents, it kills 100,000 people in the UK. You take care all!!

    xx

36. At 11:46 AM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Joe (35),

    "Leapin' Lizards!" -- Orphan Annie

    I've tried 'em all, including fights and accidents, but there is a power in this world which looks after fools, of that I am sure and certain evidence.

    "That Power I serve
    Which wills forever evil
    Yet does forever good"
    

37. At 03:51 PM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Dear Prof. Woland,

    I admire your faith, but must take responsibility for my own actions. Love your website. Give me a clue where you teach. Thanks. Have you read these short notes of a dying man?....

38. At 05:46 PM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Can't wait for your autobiography, Mr. Iglehart. Just make sure you double check your signature when you are deeply involved in the blogosphere.

    xx

39. At 06:49 PM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Joe (37),

    I read the notes with interest, thanks. I'm not a deep student of these particular matters, but I was reminded os some of .

    We are approaching the ideal situation in Scotland, with no two parties likely to combine to force bad legislation through. We are living in 'interesting times'.
    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/rss.xml

    I only taught for money for five years - 85-90. I now enjoy the triple freedom - mortgage paid, kids grown, and ancestors buried. Visit, and I'll talk your ears off like Henry Thoreau, and I might even listen a bit. There are thousands of acres of lovely countryside for pedestrians...

    My name is a map.
    xx
    ed

40. At 07:54 PM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    This guy makes me feel really guilty for sitting here watching squirrels.

    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

41. At 08:03 PM on 16 Jun 2007, wrote:

    News from

    In sadness
    ed

42. At 10:52 PM on 16 Jun 2007, Joe wrote:

    I have had the opportunity to read those particular notes before, bro. Remember those days in May? You left some other notes about Agrarian matters and working for Governments etc. They'll be worth reading again, before a clean sheet on Monday, ae?

    With you all the way about Palestine. That and Lebanon was when I began pestering ´óÏó´«Ã½ Current Affairs with my own inner torment. If you see some thug beating someone up in the street, you can't just walk by. Poor messengers don't deserve it.

    Dreich here,

    Joe

43. At 01:09 PM on 17 Jun 2007, wrote:

    When Corporal Jacobson was asked what he felt when he shot someone, he replied, "Recoil".

    WHERE DO I START???

44. At 04:12 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    I am extremely concerned at the latest statement from Hamas saying that if Alan Johnston is not released by the end of the day they will use force. While I'm sure we all want to see him released safe and well, I think the chances are considerably reduced if Hamas continue to posture in this manner. If Johnston's captors refuse to give in, the result could be tragic. It is surely a mistake, if you intend to free a captive by force, to announce this intention to the world and give the captors time to prepare.

45. At 05:29 PM on 18 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Politics is such a filthy business. Hamas cannot win in the propaganda war, all caused ultimately by the presence of Israel in the occupied lands. I feel so much for Alan and his colleagues and family, but his predicament is a personal struggle suffered by many other individuals in that sad State. Hamas are damned if they try to help Alan and gain some western favour by doing so, and just as damned if they don't.

    Hamas is born from occupation, exploitation and brutality. They are a detail of larger fundamentals.

    xx

46. At 06:18 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Tim wrote:

    Appropriately unbelievable conversation on Beyond Belief earlier - seemingly discussing the role of diet in faith. Did I really hear someone mention the "violence done to gods plan by eating an onion"? How can they have a conversation like this on a national radio station? You'd think they'd die of embarassment if they were overheard down the pub. As so often where matters of religion are concerned the elephant in the room was politely ignored (i.e. the incredible arrogance of believing that the 'creator of the universe' would give a flying turnip what you have for breakfast).

47. At 07:11 PM on 18 Jun 2007, wrote:

    Brow Beater (45),

    "Hamas is born from occupation, exploitation and brutality. They are a detail of larger fundamentals."

    Well put, my brother.
    

48. At 11:48 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Just wondering when a child is expected to be able to read.

    On the back of the phonics news, someone on (I think) R4 News said that until the age of 8, children are learning to read; after 8 they are reading to learn.

    Clever soundbite, but does it really take until the age of 8 for children (I assume this is some average worked out by someone...) to learn to read?

    What do professionals think?

49. At 08:07 PM on 22 Jun 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Frances O (48) It depends on the child, and also whether you consider ''reading'' to mean recognising words, or understanding their meaning. Some younger children are able to read to gain information - it depends on the context.
    I am more concerned about the damage that can be done by trying to teach formal skills too soon. Young children need time to explore and investigate the world around them in order to develop neural structures in the brain. This is what leads to cognitive development. If this time is cut short, curiosity, motivation, creativity and cognitive development can all be impaired. Some children need much longer than others to develop reading skills, but sadly in this age of targets and testing, they are not all getting the opportunities or time to develop these skills. Personally, I have always believed that it is more important for a young child to be a good thinker and communicator than it is to be a good reader. These are the qualities which will make their subsequent reading easier and more meaningful.

50. At 06:50 PM on 24 Jun 2007, Ross wrote:

    I've just heard on the news that Chemical Alli has been sentenced to death for crimes against humanity etc. Personally I feel that he should be made to suffer similarly to those of his victims. What a regime, the fact that the party he belonged to fashioned itself on the third reich has been lost on some people. They were cold blooded murderers.

    I also heard on the news that there is a 'stop the war' demonstration outside Parliament where apparantley some are accusing Tony Blair of war crimes. Why aren't they outside the Iranian and Syrian embassies demanding they stop sending terrorists to Iraq. Ah! I hear you say that's the power of the media. Some people will always succumb to brainwashing, after all we are not passive recipients of what we see and hear, we are active participants and of course, that is what an out of control media depend on.

51. At 09:37 PM on 24 Jun 2007, stoneface wrote:

    if digital radios use 9x more electricity than analogue, does that mean the benefits are 9x greater?