annaj

Helena, people didn't question Lewishammans account because of his age, they quesitoned it because it sounded a bit odd. The OP raises lots of questions, some of which have been answered (like what, apart from lots of men arriving in BMWs suggests it's a brothel?, are brothels actually illegal? and in what way is it bothering you?) and I think it's ok to ask them. Declan's original suspicions, now withdrawn and apologised for, were a response to having seen the OP post something seemingly incongrous elsewhere and suspecting a troll. No-one is bullying or discriminating on grounds of age. Surely, reading the post and thought "well that's a bit odd, but I won't question it, because he's old, poor fella" would be a far more patronising and insulting approach? Whilst I agree with Sean that prostitution is the oldest profession, there is a world of difference between a nice lady upstairs choosing to entertain gentleman callers and exploitation of young girls trafficked form abroad and if Lewishamman suspects the latter, he should report it. Lewishamman, I completely understand your concerns about your anonimity not being protected if you report to the police, but if you think something illegal is going on or have concerns for the safety of those involved I would second (or third) the suggestion to report anonymously to crimestoppers.

Well in that case, thank you, kind sir. Shame that Gimme seems to have lost interest in his own question.

I think that's a rather narrow minded view of science, antijen. For me science is not about finding proof in order to take the moral high ground. Far from it, it is about an endless and exciting curiosity and the search for the truth. I entirely accept that there is much that can't yet be expained by science, and may never be, but that just makes the journey and the attempt all the more exciting and necessary. As for empathy for people's suffering, I would say that is exactly what drives many scientists, particularly those in medical fields. From your posts elsewhere it is clear that you don't put much faith in the the medical community, but I would ask you to open your mind a little and consider the possiblity that many doctors are motivated, not by money (certainly not in this country) or by arrogance, or by a desire to control and dictate, but by a true vocational desire to do what is best for their patients. Neither do I think being a scientist necessarily dictates belief. I know scientist that cover the full spectrum of beliefs, from uncompromising atheist to completely dogmatic followers of various religions. Each finding their own way of marrying together and justifying their scientific and religious beliefs. As far the original question is concerned, despite my scientific tendancies, this is a mystery I am happy not to solve. I am a happy agnostic. I am not religious and don't need a reward or punshment system to live my life in a moral and ethical way. I am motivated, not by the promise of heaven, but by the intrinsic desire to be the best that I can be, to be happy and to make others happy (although, obviously, I'm not always sucessful in all or any of those aims) and the belief that the world is essentially an amzing place. But I also don't feel the need to entirely reject the idea that there could be some kind of overriding reason or divine force. I don't know and I happy with that.

Eh? Should I be flattered or offended? I think I'll assume typo and go with flattered.

No, it's been moved to the "About The Forum" section, because it's a question about the forum. Since it was my comments that started this I thought I'd respond, although I'd like to make it absolutely clear I'm not involved in the running of the forum, I'm just a user like anyone else. All I posted was a friendly and polite suggestion that it might be better to add to existing threads than start new ones to prevent the forum getting repetitive. It wasn't bullying or dictating it was my opinion as a user of the forum and I don't really see what the problem was with me posting it and why it's got you so upset. As for your TV analogy - if you don't like the show change channel - what if every channel is showing a repeat of a sit-com that wasn't that funny the first time around? I really don't know why this has got you so wound up, or if it's just me that you're not keen on, I wasn't trying to assert any kind of authority over anyone I was just saying what I thought.

Some might even call it ignorant and prejudiced, James, and we all know how you feel about prejudice.

Is that really true about Texas? That's extraordinary. As I understand it, BBW, Tony Martin was convicted, because he shot someone in the back as they were running away, which it is very difficult to class as defence of any kind. He also did not call the emergency services, either to report the burglary or the injury, ans the boys body wasn't found until the next afternoon. It was argued, I think, that the boy might have survived his injury had he been found sooner. I'm not saying that boy wasn't in the wrong and I'm not saying that Martin hadn't suffered repeated break-ins, but I would agree with the jury that what he used that night was not reasonable force.

Well said TedMax.

Since you missed them, Gimme, here's the first thread, the second thread, the third threadand the fourth thread on the topic. You're obviously not alone in finding the subject fascinating and, if you look through, you'll find everyone you've listed plus an awful lot more mentioned. I'm not trying to put anyone off, but it does get a bit tedious when things just go round and round.

Sean, I think this, published in British Poultry Science, is the abstract for the orginal study referred to in the Daily Mail article. Without reading the full text it's impossible to say how good a study is, and the authors admit that it's a trend rather than a definitive finding, but it does seem that on taste what they call "standard" chickens rated highest organic chickens lowest and maize-fed and free-range in the middle. I think DaveR made a good point in saying that food doesn't have to be organic to be ethical and we shouldn't assume that anything labelled organic is necessary ethical.

Where is my brain today, I almost forgot..... Happy Birthday Lovely Moos :)) Have a great day x

Moos, I'm counting that post as revision.... Not this one though, better get back to it...

Oh and Moos, agreed. Better treatment of animals and people is what I had in mind when I said ethical.

I know you didn't FO, but Asset did, or at least implied that by saying that it was just a review, and it was her I was mostly replying to. I agree about the BBC cover, but a lot of BBC science coverage is very poor and full of illogical extrapolations of good evidence. That's a thread in itself - maybe the Drawing room is the place for a bad science thread.

Ha! Get me. I've just been in and posted. Stuck to what I know, obviously, but feel very brave.

Welcome to the forum computedshorty. Before starting threads you might want to try doing a search, using the search box top right, to see if there's already a thread running on your topic that you could add to. The forum has been running for a while now and lots of things have come up before. It's always good to hear new voices and new opinions, but seeing the same threads satrted over and over does start to get a bit dull.

The study is a systematic review which, if done well, is considered the highest level of evidence. Rather than just being a review of other studies it's an analysis both of the quality of previous studies and their findings. It provides a better reflection of the population than a single study, because it includes data from mutliple samples. There is a set process to producing a SR which involves formulating a specific question, searching published and unpublished literature for relevant studies, critically appraising all the sutdies individually for their relevance to the question and scientific validity then statistically analysing the results of all the trials to see if, taken together, they give a consistent result. The question of harm resulting from pesticides has been ignored, because that wasn't the question in this review. To work a SR has to be specific and has to stick to the question it is trying to answer. Using data that was collect to answer one question and extrapolating to draw a conclusion on another is one of the big mistakes in research. Sorry if that explanation is off topic, but I thought it really important to understand that, far from diminishing it's validity, the fact that this study is a SR makes it probably the best scientific evidence we can get. Anyone who wants to read the SR for themselves you can, surprisingly, download it for free here if you click on the pdf link on the right. My personal opinion is that the organic food industry should focus on the very valid environmental, ethical and taste benefits rather than make unproven health claims and argue with scientific research Edited because the quote function didn't work and it looked messy.

I heard it this morning Rosie (I know, Absolute Radio, it's rubbish, but I like the music and it stays in tune all the way to the Medway tunnel) and I think it was a deliberate, and slightly botched, attempt to look cool. It was so obviously a prepared line and he kind of sniggered in a "I know I'm being naughty" way as he said it. Absolute Radio are loving it. It's the first item on their news and they've put video of the interview on the website along with "leaked" "candid" footage of Cameron's PR woman telling him off afterwards. And the second swear word was pissed FFS, that hardly counts. But the really scary thing, if you look at things like the comment pages of the online papers, is people saying "well, I'm not a tory, but if he says twat on the radio he's a good bloke and I reckon I'll vote for him" F u c k w i t s. Now that's a swear word.

Happy Birthday Buggie! Nights on your brithday? Poor you. Sleep well and make sure Mr Buggie makes the biggest fuss when you wake up x

No, Ted! If I've read this thread correctly then killing all the mice would rapidly lead to a massive and disasterous increase in their natural prey, which, I think, is chocolate and peanut butter. So, unless you want your house covered in chocolate and peanut butter, with no way of controlling it, don't kill the mice.

Leave me alone Mockney, you big bully. I've had a very hard, middle England life. Do you have any idea what I've suffered...?

Not just cross posting. Absolutely top quality, innuendo inviting, rumour starting cross posting. Well done!

How can anyone possibly write the phrase "Hasn't middle England suffered enough?" without irony? Bonkers.

Cunning, HonaloochieB, more like. So, you're saying you posted near identical, but sublty different responses to the same post in two different areas? Causing poor Jeremy to think he was going quite mad and dash off to seek clarification in the About The Forum section. Has that been your darstadly plan all along? To slowly drive us all mad with clever mind games? Are you, in fact, an evil genius? Or have I spent too long in the library?

Happy Birthday Keef! Lovely to see you, Mrs Keef and the Keeflette yesterday.