Viewers 'lose millions' to GMTV

Well of course, you gotta hope they throw the book at this bunch...

Callers to premium-rate phone competitions on the GMTV breakfast show have been defrauded out of millions of pounds, a BBC investigation has found.

Panorama found that for the past four years, a company working for GMTV had been finalising shortlists of potential winners "long before" lines closed.

GMTV has suspended all phone-in quizzes but said it was confident it had not breached regulators' codes.

The phone operator, Opera Interactive Technology, denied any wrongdoing.

Panorama said tens of thousands of callers had been charged £1.80 to enter competitions on GMTV - but as many as half had no chance of winning.

But what caught my eye was the quote further down.

Samantha Pedder, 37, from Saffron Walden, told Panorama: "I've spent near on £1,000, but you think, 'Well I'm in with a chance'.

"To find out that I wasn't makes me really angry and I want my money back."

Well no, Samantha, I don't think that.

And the link to this article which tells us...

Unemployed Brett Rees, 22, from Rotherham, landed a 126-page phone bill for nearly £9,000 after he repeatedly called TV quiz shows. He says he didn't realise how expensive it would be.

They should have cut me off, they should have cut me off straight away. Instead of letting me run up this phone bill so high they should have cut me straight off.

Incidentally, £9000 at £0.75 a call...that's 12000 calls.


Sigh...it's too depressing to go on...

GMTV phone+quiz+fraud TV

Sheryl Crow - "If It Makes You Happy"

I have a couple of Sheryl Crow CDs. It's harmless, middle of the road stuff...

...but now she wants to save the planet...

Unlike Al Gore, who's idea is to make so much money out of lecture tours and films that he will be able to buy a really big boat to escape the coming flood, her master plan is that we should get used to using one square of toilet paper whenever we visit "the rest room". She has sympathy for anyone with a gippy tummy - they can use two or three.

I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares (sic) of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Well having just spent the last few days with the worst bout of...well you really do not want know...I have to say sorry, Sheryl, three sheets just ain't enough.

I must have used up at least my next six months quota.

But it got me wondering; how does she think we should enforce this? Will there be "toilet tissue police" who loiter outside public loos and dash in after us to do a quick count? Will we have to sign for our roll in Tesco?

Will there be toilet paper offsetting? I have a friend who gets a bit constipated; could I have his unused ration?

Will there be a black market in the stuff? - "Here, mate...got some double quilted for you. No questions asked."

And what about the Andrex puppy? Won't he be out of work? And I was sure that Sheryl supported animal rights!

Further down the article another of her ideas was revealed.

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the heighth (sic) of wastefullness (sic). I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve". The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product.. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

I'm not sure this is Sheryl's own idea. Wiping your mouth and nose on your sleeve? My children got there first - perhaps I should have patented it.

Interesting that she has a clothing line...no that would be rude of me to suggest...

And there's more.

This next idea I have been saving but I will share it with you if you promise not to steal it. It is my latest, very exciting idea for creating incentive for us all to minimize our own personal carbon footprints. It's a reality show. (I feel pretty certain NO ONE has thought of this yet!). Here is the premise: the contest consists of 10 people who are competing for the top spot as the person who lives the "greenest" life. This will be reflected in the contestant's home, his business, and his own personal living style. The winner of this challenging, prestigious, contest would receive what??.... a recording contract!!!!!

Now leaving aside how you reconcile minimising "our own personal carbon footprints." with the carbon dioxide produced in broadcasting the show and then producing the record for the winner, I am forced to wonder if there isn't a greater threat to civilisation than global warming - reality TV shows!


After reading all this, I did have to check the date but no, April the first has long gone. Then I remembered...


...she's a celebrity!

Now, I am not just being mean here. I believe celebrities have as much right to speak out on any subject they choose. And even if she lacks a rudimentary understanding of the science behind the global warming debate - so what?

The problem is that, these days, we actually take them seriously. The younger you are the more chance there is that you take your opinions about the world from pop and film stars, models and professional TV personalities.

I was reminded of the teacher who was trying to explain the difference between the greenhouse effect and the reduction in the ozone layer. He could not understand why one girl in particular kept insisting they were the same thing. It turned out that the girl had heard it from "the science correspondent" (as if!) on Radio One. In the end the teacher simply had to give up - the girl would not have it.

Perhaps when the Beatles got into transcendental meditation, some of the more loony of their fans may have followed. Certainly the Hare Krishnas benefited from George's support. But I guess most people just smiled indulgently (or got angry when they were thought to have gone too far as in John's "more popular than Jesus" comment).

So there should be no problem with Sheryl Crow's dozy ideas.

But today the cult of celebrity is all...and her voice is another one adding to the unthinking acceptance of the received wisdom...and is that not also a concern for our civilisation?

global+warming Sheryl+Crow music science Al+Gore junk+science

Materialistic morals

I see that Ken Ham got himself into trouble over a post he wrote shortly after the shootings at Virginia Tech.

This is from Scientific American.com

The Idiocy of Blaming Science for the Virginia Killings

It's no surprise that the blogosphere contains rampant mis- and disinformation about the tragic events at Virginia Tech. Two arguments I have heard in particular are relevant to science education and make me fume.

One thing I am learning as I take my first tentative steps in the blogsphere (as I gather I should call it) is that blogs are voracious feeders. The SA comment is based on another blog that objects to Ken Ham's comments.

Despicable. Ken Ham couldn't even wait until tomorrow to start blaming godless secularists and evolution for this crime

Well yes, I think it would be - despicable - if that was what he was actually saying. However, having read the article, it seems to me that Ken Ham is actually making a critique of Christians who believe that Genesis does indeed help us to make sense of the evil in the world by describing the fall...but do not accept the literal historical truth of the story. Well, knowing Ken's beliefs on this, we would hardly expect anything else!

But here is another quote...

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

...the "Fawlty car" refers to Basil Fawlty thrashing his car in an episode of "Fawlty Towers". The author reminds us that this is funny just because it is so foolish to blame a car for not working...

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

This is from the high priest of scientific materialism, Richard Dawkins.

Now in no way am I claiming that he is suggesting that we laugh at the actions of Cho Seung-Hui. But he is clearly saying that any attachment of blame to the killer is laughable (or rather that if only we could only become truly enlightened, we would then laugh at such judgements). ChoSeung-Hui was just a "faulty unit" and a product of his genes and his environment. The logic of this would be that if he had lived, the only valid reason for "punishing" him by, for example, locking him up, would be to remove the faulty "component" from society.

Now many (most?) people would find this view abhorrent - but that is not my point (and I guess Dawkins would claim that such feelings are just another "fiction" - useful or otherwise).

But it illustrates nicely some of the problems of the naturalistic world view.

After all, if we are no more than products of heredity and upbringing, then why does Dawkins get so upset by Theists. Surely they are just products of their genes and their environment too! They can't help it...anymore than Dawkins can take credit for being an atheist...his genes made him that way. Furthermore, why should it be the Theists that are "faulty" as I assume he believes they are...perhaps its the atheists that are actually "broken".

But the materialist would say that the "faulty" members of society are those that do things that "damage" the human race in some way; that reduce our overall survival chances, and the chances of our genes being passed on to the next generation. Clearly this suggests that Dawkins would regard Cho Seung-Hui to be "faulty" indeed.

However he is not consistent. Millions of Christians (making no point about other religions) are motivated by their faith to do nothing but good for their fellow man - believers or not. And yes, there have of course been some believers who have used their faith as an excuse for some dreadful acts - not that Dawkins would approve of me calling the Spanish Inquisition, for example, "dreadful" as, of course they were just products of their...etc. etc.

Most Christians would argue that such acts were either not truly motivated by faith but often by the desire for power. Also, I find it hard to believe those who burned witches at the stake truly had a relationship with Christ. I know I'm not supposed to judge, but we are also supposed to "know them by their fruits".

But even if I shouldn't make that judgement (that's between me and God, anyway), Dawkins too, makes exactly those type of judgements.

In response to Hitler's ideas he calls them "an insane and unscientific eugenics theory". (From The God Delusion)

Well I'd agree with insane...but "unscientific"? Why unscientific, Richard? It might be science that we find abhorrent, but it's science, nonetheless.

So again, we see the inconsistency. Believers must accept all the evils done in the name of God but materialistic scientists can reject embarrassing history as not really science.

And to return to the irate comments that I started this post with...

...one says Ken Ham's comments "made me fume" and the other calls them despicable. As I said I believe that they have misread Ham. But even if they haven't, why "fume"; how can he be "despicable"? You cannot blame him - afterall he's only acting as he has to, according to his genes maybe...or maybe they don't really believe that...

Finally,I am not saying that this proves atheism is wrong - I have other reasons for knowing that! Neither am I saying that it was atheism's fault that Cho Seung-Hui did what he did.

But I will claim that my beliefs - in the sanctity of life, in loving my enemies as well as my friends, in doing good and blessing those who curse me, of giving, of going the extra mile - to name a few, has a better chance of preventing a "faulty component" than the belief that we are no more than atoms and molecule who have no responsibilities and cannot be blamed for their actions.

As I mentioned early, I am learning that blogs feed on blogs and this one is no exception. While "googling" on these ideas I came across this excellent (and much less long winded) post on Dawkins' views on morality.

Dawkins morals materialism faith Christianity atheism

University Massacre

US university shooting kills 33

Student describes shooting spree


After reading a number of blogs and comments on news forums today, I find myself embarrassed to be from the UK.

The hectoring and lecturing on US gun laws is bad enough. Most of us from "over here" can never really get a handle on the gun control argument as we do not have a history where guns played the same role as they did in the USA.

In any case, do people really believe that even a total ban would have prevented this or previous massacres? Do they imagine that someone who is prepared to carry out such acts would have handed in his weapons if they had been banned (say) a year ago? Or that he wouldn't have obtained one on the black market?

We have laws against carrying knives - it doesn't seem to be preventing gangs of youths in our cities from stabbing one another!

But the above may just be ignorance. What is quite disgusting is the almost gleeful comments that attempt to link the situation in Iraq in particular or Bush's presidency in general to yesterday's murders.

I find it personally sad how much of this comes from bloggers that would clearly describe themselves as liberal or left wing - the area of politics that I have spent most of my life in sympathy with.

One of my memories of 9/11 is of groups of Palestinian women dancing in the streets as news of the destruction of the twin towers reached them. I am saddened to find that some of today's comments come from people who are little better; and who certainly should know better.

They should be thoroughly ashamed.

For goodness sake, they were just kids!

My heart and my prayers go out to all caught up in this dreadful tragedy.

God bless you all...and somehow bring you peace.


university massacre killings shootings "virginia tech"

Easter: religious intolerance

Or...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.' (From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

It is interesting how often these days, people act just like Humpty Dumpty...words mean what they choose them to mean...

...sometimes this is just annoying - why can't I be feeling gay, without being errrr gay?
Or why can't something unpleasant be wicked without it convincing anyone under 25 that it's also cool?
And exactly what did Bill Clinton mean when he declared

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

...OK - lets not go there!

But sometimes this misuse of words becomes sinister.

Take Anil Bhanot, writing in The Guardian Unlimited.

It seems he likes Easter...

Hindus look forward to the Easter bank holiday and few of our children refuse the offer of an Easter egg.

but he clearly isn't so keen on Christian's telling anyone what Easter means to them...

What does affect us is the renewed focus hard-line Christian groups place on evangelism at Easter.

He states...

Hinduism is an inclusive religion respecting other faiths and ways of seeking God.

Well maybe...but it is doubtful that the Christians described here, here, or here would agree.

But this is not about excesses by any or all faiths (or none at all, atheists are by no means innocent of causing pain, suffering and death), we all have groups and individuals to be ashamed of.

But to return to the article...

Hinduism is an inclusive religion respecting other faiths and ways of seeking God. In the final chapter 18 of the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna declares to Arjuna:

"The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings,
Seek refuge in Him alone with all your heart;
By His Grace
You will gain Supreme peace
And the Eternal Abode."

Some Christian groups cannot see the beauty in this approach, sticking rigidly to their belief that their "truth" is the only "truth" and they alone have the monopoly on God. Using devious evangelical tactics, they plague our world and threaten our ability to live together in one global village.

So let's just make sure we are clear...we can quote the Hindu scriptures to illustrate the Hindu belief that (to put it another way) all paths lead to God but if one was to quote the bible...

"I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father, except by me." John 14:6

...then presumably that is using "devious evangelical tactics".

Next we have the all too common tactic that accompanies a flawed argument - a personal attack...

If Jonathan Aitken and his ilk really cared for humanity, they could compensate poor children working in India with wages while they attended school.

I have no idea, whether Jonathan Aitken gives money to India or any other charitable causes but I do know that millions of Christians do. They tend not to shout about it but they do their best to follow Christ's commandment to love others in practical ways.

But they also follow Christ's command to tell others the good news of the gospel. they aren't "hard-line" or anyone's "ilk"...just ordinary Christians.

And the snide language used of Jonathan Aitkin...

Former jailbird Jonathan Aitken

...is just a cheap trick. But it does beg the question of just how inclusive Anil Bhanot is...clearly he wouldn't wish to "include" Jonathan Aitkin (and his ilk). Or more probably he would, if Aitkin wasn't an evangelical Christian.

So,

A Christian trying to follow his beliefs and sharing his faith is intolerant...and we will not tolerate them...

..a Hindu telling a Christian not to share his faith is being "inclusive" and "respecting" of the Christian faith.

Humpty Dumpty would be proud.

faith belief christianity intolerance hindu religion

The what centre for what?

I used to be a member of something called "The Association for Science Education" (ASE)

Now if I tell you that I am a scientist who taught for twenty five years, you might think that the ASE was an organisation where scientists met, discussed, shared resources and generally helped one another to be better science teachers...and you would be dead right!

So if you saw a group calling itself "The British Centre for Science Education" you might conclude that they were the same type of organisation...but in this case you'd be dead wrong.


Turns out that they're just a bunch of anti-faith nut jobs...with a distinct lack of scientists and/or teachers. In fact this quote...

The membership is open to all who support our aims. Members, in practice, are professional and managerial people from all walks of life who have been through the education system,

...from their web site, suggests what they regard as their main qualification..they went to school it seems!

...what's in a name, huh?

This links to a blog run by a guy who has bravely taken this bunch on.

science faith creationism evolution

Winning Friends and Influencing People

Can this story get any more embarrassing?

She also said that there were times during her two-week ordeal when she cried herself to sleep.

Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest of the British sailors to be held captive, told the Daily Mirror: "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst, we've all seen the videos.

Forgive me, but guys...you need to shut up...now!

iran captives media