I've met so, so many people who reliably inform me that you cannot walk down the street in London for all of the forrins. None of them have ever been there, of course, although I've lived there and don't recognise their ludicrous scare-stories. Some of said people have been known to boast that they've never been more than 10 miles from where they're born, as if it is an achievement. I think it is frightening, that I can go for a leisurely Sunday afternoon bike ride and go further than some people have been - ever. I have relatives in a very rural and remote place and they have neighbours who boast of only going into town once a month. Again, a source of pride for no obvious reason. If you knew what 'town' meant you'd realise it is stretching things. "This is a local hamlet for local bigots" sort of vibe.

I do think the 'Little Englander' stereotype comes from somewhere and I think an ultra-parochial strand exists out there, perhaps as a very large minority, qute at odds with millions of fellow citizens.

Well, on my walk to the tube each morning I usually bump into a couple of neighbours and say hello. They're both white English (and male, in case the commenter thinks women are also taking over). My immediate team at work comprises 1 French person, 2 Americans, 1 Zimbabwean, 1 Scot and 5 English people. Last time I was served in a shop (this morning) it was by a British Asian with a heavy London accent. Yeah, I go days without speaking to an English person in London...

And yeah, I've met people who think it's something to be proud of that they've never travelled much around the country. I knew a girl back in N Wales who was proud of the fact she'd never been further east than Chester or further south than the Llyn Peninsula.

What you need to remember is these people don't regard people who aren't white as British even if they are.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

A fair bit of that going on with Nickly Campbell's phone in this morning.

Something that interests me is the Mailite's unshakable belief that We All Want To Be With People Just Like Us. Because my adult son, who has severe learning difficulties and is about as innocent as a human being can be, with just about no learned attitudes at all as far as I can tell, got a new carer some time ago, a guy whom he sees once a week for a few hours. This guy is black South African and has a strong accent. Son didn't notice a thing different about him for several weeks, and eventually pointed to a black footballer being interviewed on TV and said the guy's name. But no mention of his colour or his accent or anything else, and he *is* capable of talking about that sort of thing if he wants to, which he clearly didn't. And he has no inhibitions at all, not being capable of it. Does anyone know of any studies on this sort of thing, ie innate as opposed to learned attitudes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1oA2guotQ

I suppose we're lucky the DM didn't say that Mars would appear as big as the Moon.
http://www.snopes.com/science/astronomy/brightmars.asp

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

I'm not surprised given the drubbing it's received in the comments.

Curses. And I was about to post a hilarious quip about being able to see Uranus.

Doctor struck off in MMR jab row wins fight to clear his name: High Court judge overturns the GMC's ruling



Yeah.... like I trust the judicial process in the UK....

Birmingham six, Guildford four etc. etc.....

Who overlooks the judiciary?

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

I think you may have been misled by that headline which, as usual, bears little resemblance to what actually happened. This doctor hasn't won any "fight to clear his name": what he has won is a finding that the procedure by which he was struck off was flawed, mainly because the panel failed in its central job of making a funding about whether Walker-Smith believed he was carrying out genuine investigation and treatment of his patients, or if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment. If the latter, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure, and if not, not. As this went to the root of the entire decision, it could not stand. So the very best that he can say about this finding is that it was a verdict of not provent.

However, as the Mail reports, the judge went out of his way to say
Which doesn't exactly leave the guy squeaky clean, given that there's a finding on the official record that he lent his name to a theory which is wholly discredited.

Well that may well have been the Mail's intent....

However, my point is that I trust science over the judiciary.

That said, there may be more to this story than what the mail has provided us with (surprise, surprise). I would be interested to see if there was any further progression.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

But it wasn't about the science, it was about the process. For which the judiciary are ideally qualified as arbiters.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Well the judiciary may well be qualified.

I still trust the scientific method more than the UK legal system. If you read what I said I am merely stating a preference.

*edit - A preference is the wrong term ... I wholly trust the scientific method while I do not trust the judiciary with any great degree of confidence. I do not trust the UK legal system, particularly jury trial, very much at all.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

How can the scientific method be applied to a legal judgement?

I reiterate, they were not judging his scientific work or probity, this was a judicial review of the procedures used to find him guilty. Where does science come into that?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I reiterate. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

I have limited trust in the UK legal system and the judiciary (mainly because I have limited trust in people). If you have an issue with that then knock yourself out. :shrugs:

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....