Prof Roger Williams, George Best’s consultant, has been giving regular updates on his status and even details of his treatment. I can’t understand how this is not breaking doctor-patient confidentiality. Best is unconcious and has been for some time, so he cannot have given his consent for details of his treatment to be circulated, and the consent of relatives would not be acceptable in this situation. The only possible way that I can see this being organised would be a long-standing agreement between Best and his consultant that the consultant would be allowed to discuss his case with the media, but I’m not entirely sure how watertight such an agreement would appear to be in a fluid situation.

I’m certianly not calling into question the Professor’s professionalism, but I’m just a little confused as to how this situation doesn’t break a fundament of medical ethics.

On a not dissimilar topic, it’s interesting to read that Jeremy Thompson and his team had some difficulty deciding whether it was appropriate to air comments like this:

“I know this may be a bit cold but I can’t feel sorry for George Best. No one made him drink and he knows what too much can do.”

I don’t even really see why there’s a debate to be had – the man’s very ill, and so surely its only appropriate to explore the reasons for that illness, which happen to be very controversial. Perhaps these comments could be seen as insensitive immediately following Best’s death, but, at last check, he was still alive. Maybe the above comment doesn’t take into account that alcoholism is an addictive illness, but, whether one agrees with the comment or not, it’s a valid point of view – and what’s the point of programmes airing viewpoints if they are only going to pick the ‘nice’ ones? It’s an interesting debate to have I guess, but I see no problem with the comment.

From today’s Indy:

In the past 12 years no police officer has been successfully prosecuted for any of the 30 fatalities caused by police marksmen.

There’s something to ponder.

From the Beeb:

Punjilal, a 75-year-old resident of a village in India’s Madhya Pradesh state had said he would die between 1500 and 1700 local time on Thursday … But the time came and passed and the fortune teller survived.

A slightly off-beat story maybe, but why on Earth did it make the front page of the BBC News site?

Ken Clarke’s dreams of becoming the Conservative leader have been dashed this evening, as he’s been knocked out of the Tory leadership race (I’m using the word ‘race’ in the loosest possible sense). That’s a Good Thing ^TM, because he’s not someone to whom I’ve ever particularly warmed. But then, frankly, I’m not that fussed about the other three either. Clearly none of them seem strong enough to be PM, and to be honest none of them even strike me as a partciularly good leader of the opposition… So when David Cameron wins it, don’t be surprised if I’m rather critical for a change 😉

But the best part about this story is Ken’s comment:

I think it sends a message that they are looking for a younger leader probably, but I don’t think my age was remarkably relevant

Translated: Err, I didn’t win cos they want a young bloke innit, but, I dint do nuffink gov, the fact I ain’t young had nuffink to do wiv it

Condensed: Yeah, but no, but yeah

Just recently, the long-burning story of bird ‘flu’s potential to cause the due influenza pandemic (first picked up on this site at the beginning of the year) has become almost daily front-page news, despite the fact that it’s quite clear that any possible outbreak is months or even years away. Perhaps I’m being my usual over-cynical self, but could this not be symptomatic of the media tiring of terror, and Blair & Co. trying to distract the public from the disastrous anti-terror legislation they’re trying to introduce? And if so, is that a problem?

Bird ‘flu is pretty much the perfect story for the mass media. It’s an unknown, almost intangible threat to life, which is widely predicted to be a big killer. It’s indiscriminate, unfamiliar, and deadly. A bit like terrorism, but through a ‘sexy’ new sphere. And on top of all that, there’s the requirement to decide who should get anti-viral drugs and vaccinations – meaning that the ‘important’ people have to be named, which plays on people’s lingering sense of class division, one of the media’s favourite British preserves.

As far as the government’s concerned, it can quietly pass hugely controversial legislation whilst everybody else is distracted by the bird ‘flu figures they’re pumping out. The government also look very well prepared for the outbreak, and so get Brownie points in that department, too. And, of course, they have lots of information they can drip-feed to the media, who will inevitably lap it up, as they expand their coverage of this ‘inevitable disaster’.

In the worst-case scenario, there’s a whole shed-load of questions for the media to be thinking about – if 50,000 die at home, but millions abroad, how does one lead the story? How do you balance accuracy, responsibility, and sensationalism, so as not to cause mass panic but also boost sales of your paper? I’m sure these questions will be addressed in the fullness of time, and for now, bird ‘flu is a quick-and-easy unknown levelling enemy for the media – just what they like best.

So bird ‘flu suits the government and suits the media for the moment, which is good news all-round. There looks to be no immediate end to this fascination too, with the spread of bird ‘flu able to be tracked on a daily basis, and endless horror stories like this to print (ach, sorry ’bout that ‘un, gov’). But over time, it’s inevitable that bird ‘flu fatigue will set in, or some seminal event will give the news cycle a bit of a kick out of it’s predictable cycle. And that’s the worst part of the problem.

While bird ‘flu will ungracefully fall from the front pages, the H5N1 virus will continue to mutate, the expected pandemic will be coming ever closer, and the pressure on the government to be proactive will be conversely shrinking. Of course, this might be fine, as the pandemic may be prevented by early action in the outbreak country – but there’s always the slight possibility that it won’t be, and that one of the biggest natural disasters of our time will be witnessed – we have to stay alert.

From the front page of today’s Guardian:

The government should not attempt to browbeat judges over its new anti-terrorism laws, the new senior judge in England and Wales warned yesterday. The lord chief justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said judges were not in conflict with the government but said that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for a politician to try to put pressure on them … Tony Blair denied that he was “browbeating” the judiciary and went on to warn the judges – again in explicit terms – that they must not rule against the anti-terror measures that were being proposed.

“Err, I’m not telling you what to do, but you can’t rule against this!”

I don’t think he understands…

As no-one can fail to have noticed, earlier this week, 82-year-old long-term Labour supporter and Conference-goer Walter Wolfgang was physically removed from the Conference centre by ‘heavies’ after showing the single word ‘nonsense’ during Jack Straw’s speech. The police then detained him under Anti-Terror Legislation when he later tried to re-enter the hall.

This gentleman clearly posed no terrorist threat. His only ‘crime’ was to utter a single word when the Labour bigwigs didn’t want him to. And yet he was held under the ‘crucial’ Terror Laws that we were assured would only be used in the most extreme circumstances to detain the most dangerous people.

For some time, people including myself have been arguing that

Laws [cannot be] restricted to what they were meant to be used for. Judges and the police have a nasty habit of sticking to the very letter of the law … If this government continues to make laws which are this full of gaping holes, sooner or later it’s going to turn round and bite them back.

And yet, in the face of police blatantly flouting Mr Blair’s publicly stated intentions for the laws, all he’s done is apologise to Mr Wolfgang. He’s not revisiting this legislation, and he’s not even disciplining the police force. In fact, Mr Blair wants to extend the powers available to the police. And all because He, in His infinite wisdom, has bypassed thousands of years of history and declared that protection of the common-man is now more important than the freedom of the innocent. The logical conclusion of which is surely that we just lock up – or kill – everyone who we don’t like the look of.

The terrorist threat to this country may be different to that which we have faced in the past, but it’s no so great that we should sacrifice the central tenet of our justice system and beliefs. If we change something so fundamental with so little thought and debate, then what is left to protect?

Ruth Kelly, the government minister determined to introduce something eponymous during her tenure, is apparently to ban junk food in schools. My question is: How?

Many schools are locked into implausibly long contracts with suppliers, from both catering and vending machine companies. These contracts include a great financial disincentive to early ending. So where’s the money coming from to end these contracts by September 2006? Or does the government plan to do something quite sneaky, like change the law to make it illegal to supply such items in schools, and hence make any company doing so a law-breaker? It’s an interesting idea, but it’s hardly true to Labour values.

Or is Kelly just going to leave the ending of the contracts as each individual school’s problem, possibly meaning that many will get into financial difficulty, and, by definition, all will have less to spend on, erm, education?

Or, in typical New Labour style, is this a well spun fudge? Kelly actually said…

So today I can announce that we will ban poor quality processed bangers and burgers being served in schools from next September.

It would therefore appear that good quality processed bangers and burgers will be fine. And which company is really ever going to admit to selling ‘poor’ quality ones? And how is this ‘quality’ going to be regulated and judged?

On the subject of vending machines, the words falling out of Kelly’s mouth were actually…

And because children need healthy options throughout the school day I can also announce that from next September no school will be able to have vending machines selling crisps, chocolates, or sugary fizzy drinks.

It’s noticeable, particularly on the fizzy drinks front, that most ranges have now switched over to production with ‘no added sugar’ – so presumably they don’t count as ‘sugary fizzy drinks’. And so on that front, there needs to be no change. As for crisps and chocolates, that seems fair enough, but it clearly doesn’t rule out all sweets, biscuits, and similarly unhealthy snacks. And, of course, school ‘tuck shops’ will still be able to sell all of these things – because they are not vending machines.

Perhaps I’m just being overly cynical, but it appears to me that Kelly has announced a headline-grabbing policy of precious little substance. How very New Labour.

David Mery’s front page piece in today’s Guardian certainly makes for interesting reading – and raises some very valid and important questions about the actions of the police in the wake of the London tube bombings. Well worth reading, and worrying.

Eight months ago, in response to claims that there’d be seven different editions of Windows Vista (then referred to by the codename Longhorn), I said:

This seems a rather unlikely story

Today, reports state that

there are seven separate editions of Vista headed your way

So you’ll notice that I picked up on quite a small rumour months ago, and trashed it. And it turns out to be true. That’s a pretty big bobo, even by me. But hey, when I was I ever right? 😉

Anyway, the seven editions are reported to be Starter Edition, Home Basic Edition, Home Premium Edition, Professional Edition, Small Business Edition, Enterprise Edition, and finally the Ultimate Edition. Nice to see that they’re keeping it simple. How on Earth do they hope to educate users as to which version they need? It was hard enough to educate people when there was just XP Home and XP Pro – seven versions is going to be a bit of a marketing nightmare. But, as I’ve said before…

At the same time, though, this would be a good move by Microsoft if it meant that the most basic version of Windows could be sold at a very low price, so that it could compete in that field for the home users that Linux and the like are trying to target, since these could become more of a threat over the next few years. And, of course, Microsoft has been shifting in this direction by adding two further editions of Windows XP to the market (Media Centre and Tablet), as well as the stripped-down bargain version sold in countries where piracy is a particular problem. So there are clear advantages to taking this proposed stance on the release of Longhorn, and clear signals that this path is being taken.

Hey ho, I’m sure Microsoft have done their research, and I have little doubt that Vista will be very successful. So good luck to them.