This morning on BBC news there was a report detailing the use of plus size models on a runway show for the first time at New York Fashion week. This move, it has been suggested, has been prompted by a rise in obesity levels with some 28% of Americans now classified as obese.

First of all plus sized models are not obese, they aren’t even overweight. Watch that video and tell me that those models are anything but normal. The whole notion of a ‘plus sized’ model is nonsense, they maybe plus sized compared to a quadruple zero model but they are just average to anyone with any notion of reality. The whole language is designed to make us think these perfectly normal models are exceptionally large, they are plus. Plus = extra = overweight = obese. It’s rubbish. Has our perception of what the ideal body should look like been skewed so much that the only way we can rationalise a more reasonable sized model is by associating it with obesity? That thought alone is depressing enough but the report didn’t stop there.

Some have expressed concerns that the use of these perfectly normal looking models might encourage obesity. So bad is it that ‘normal person takes to catwalk’ that as a result of seeing these non stick like figures fashionably attired we are all going to go out and start stuffing our faces. I’m surprised someone hasn’t put a stop to it although I understand McDonalds are setting up a mobile stand outside the show in preparation.

The idea is ridiculous and if anything the complete opposite to what really happens. Surely the unattainable model look we are so used to seeing reinforces the discrepancy between our appearance and our perception of the ideal? Eating disorders are nearly always as a result of low self-esteem,  low self-esteem no doubt enhanced by the countless images of ‘perfect’ bodies we see in the daily papers to bill boards 10 feet high.

If this is the case then a move for more average sized models can only be a good thing. A good thing now completely ruined by the media’s insistence to point these models out as exceptional, plus sized, and therefore not normal.

Hello hello hello. It’s all been rather quiet on this blog recently and I’m not going to apologise or make excuses but just say that I have been off work so have spent my time enjoying the outside world, gardening, jogging, sitting in the garden reading the paper, walking aimlessly around town whilst listening to podcasts and generally doing things that don’t involve sitting at my computer. It’s fair to say I’ve taken somewhat of a brief sabbatical from blogging but I’m here now.

I saw this story in the Guardian today about how golfers at Stornoway golf course on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland are forced to break the law if they want to play on a Sunday. It turns out that the Presbyterian islands of Lewis and Harris are the only places left in Britain where sports facilities remain closed on Sundays for religious reasons;

“Over the past few years, the sabbatarians have lost a series of crucial battles with privately-owned businesses: ferries and flights now land on Sundays, while pubs and a petrol station in Stornoway are routinely open. All are heavily used.

But critics claim the sabbatarians’ influence over publicly-owned leisure centres, swimming pools, golf courses and football pitches remains total:”

The locals have understandably had enough and are starting to fight against this ridiculous ban with a petition to get the local leisure centres open and have appealed to the council to stop this clear religious discrimination that allows one belief system to dictate policy.

I think they are going about this the wrong way. If the sabbatarians think that leisure facilities should be closed on Sundays then let them have their own way but make sure that the ban is total. If they are so keen to stop people enjoying themselves or relaxing on a Sunday then don’t let them stop at just the leisure facilities but suggest the council ban all leisure at all on Sunday. Firstly all churches and places of worship should be closed on Sundays since this is clearly a leisure activity. Supposedly God rested on a Sunday so presumably He won’t be listening to any religious ceremonies that day anyway. When Christmas falls on a Sunday (2011) it will have to be banned that year because that is also a leisure activity. Television should be banned on Sundays, as should radio and newspapers. Talking should almost totally be banned other than for purely functional purposes, like asking what the time is or what’s for dinner. Come to think of it actually eating is quite leisurely so let’s just ban that as well, as should laughing, smiling, reading, drawing, walking your dog, gardening… actually, you know what, the only thing people should be allowed to do is sit. Sit and think hard about how much they love God and make bloody well sure they aren’t enjoying it. Perhaps by proposing that the ban should be taken to ridiculous proportions it might highlight its stupidity.

So I propose this is what the people of Lewis and Harris should petition the council for, but be sure they don’t do it on a Sunday.

Doublethink according to Orwell’s 1984 is “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them” essentially it is to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs as correct. I can only assume that the Editor of The Sun, Dominic Mohan, has read this novel and thought that Orwell was on to a fantastic idea because it seems to me that The Sun are trying to set themselves up as a modern day version of the Ministry of Truth.

Here is a Sun Poll conducted by YouGov which clearly asks in respect to voting reform “Regardless of how you vote do you support the principle of holding a referendum?” To which 69% of people said yes. 69% of people are in favour of a referendum on voting reform. Keep that in mind.

The Sun has made no secret of its support for the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party have made no secret of its plans to campaign against electoral reform so you can see how that 69% figure might prove a bit of a problem. But why would The Sun let a little thing like popular opinion get in their way? If there is one thing polls are good at it’s asking leading questions to manipulate the public into giving the answer you want. So here is another poll done by YouGov on behalf of The Sun asking a similar question only this time with a slight bias.

46% against a referendum now is hardly a resounding no but at least it’s a bit more in line with the Tory position. Let’s be clear about what it says; 46% of people think it is inappropriate to spend £80million on a referendum now. Presumably some of these people still want a referendum on electoral reform they just accept that maybe now isn’t the best time if it is going to cost £80million. That figure seems a bit of an exaggeration anyway, according to the Electoral Commission you can use the general election as a guide for how much a referendum might cost and that this was in excess of £80million. However they state that “costs would depend on the level of public information activity required, but would likely be in the range of £10-30m.”

So 69% of people want a voting referendum and of these 35% think it should happen now despite being told it would cost £80million. How does The Sun report this?

The Ministry of Truth would be proud.

Thanks to @AdamBienkov on Twitter for the heads up.

Regular readers to this blog, hello to you, will remember my post a couple of weeks ago about Pet Plan and their insurance policy that covers alternative medicine. I wrote a letter to Pet Plan asking why they were happy to pay out for treatments that don’t work; you can read this letter here.

My main issue was that if a deluded few want to pay extra for an insurance policy that covers them for magic then that’s fine but I don’t see why I should have to pay for this as well. Pet Plan got back to me and said that this part of the coverage was “not optional” and “they have no plans to change this”. I replied asking how Pet Plan had come to this position and this was their response; 

Within our customer base there is demand for these types of treatments and therefore, to provide a flexible product which suits all the different policyholder requirements we offer cover for these types of treatments. 

The cover for we provide for these types of treatments is limited with a maximum benefit of £750 per year for all injuries/illnesses, when compared to the veterinary fees benefit which provides £4000, £6000 or £12,000 per year for all injuries/illnesses (depending  on the plan chosen). 

The complementary treatment benefit provides cover for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathy and hydrotherapy and most of these treatment types have been proven scientifically. 

I understand that with homeopathy the basis and scientific evidence to prove effectiveness is continuously under debate; however, as there is a demand for this type of therapy we provide a limited benefit towards these costs.

Thanks again for your feedback.

This will be my final correspondence on the matter.

Kind regards,

I concede that if there is demand for something then as a business it makes complete sense for them to provide this service. But surely those of us that don’t want to pay extra for coverage we will never use should be able to opt out of this? It is irrelevant how limited this coverage is; any money spent on rubbish is too much. I don’t accept this reasoning with the NHS spending money on homeopathy and I don’t accept it here.

I don’t want to get into the evidence for the various treatments listed above but for them to say that most of them being proven scientifically is pushing it quite a bit. 

Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill but I think if we just let these sorts of treatments to be supported and funded, regardless of how tacitly, then we are just allowing these dangerous practices to continue. All this does is give more legitimacy to nonsense and unproven madcap theories about how the world works.

It was good of Pet Plan to take the time to respond to my questions, I am not a customer only a potential one, and although they took a while to respond and I didn’t get the answers I wanted I am pleased that they engaged with the issue. Perhaps if more people ask for unproven treatments to be removed from their insurance plans, pet or otherwise, then this will be another victory for science based medicine.

I’ve been busy earning a wage the past few days so apologies for this rant coming a little late. On Tuesday the British Medical Association came out and said that Homeopathy “should be banned from use in the NHS” and that “pharmacists should remove homeopathic remedies from their shelves because this indicated they were medicines”, it suggested that these remedies should be placed on a shelf marked ‘placebos’.

Great news you would think but I couldn’t help but get annoyed with the way it was reported on the BBC news website. I am starting to get a little bit tired of the whole impartiality/tell both sides of the argument stance the BBC seems to take on practically everything. I can understand why in politics a publicly funded media should remain impartial but when it comes to matters of science it isn’t simply a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

The way the BBC reported on this matter is illustrated perfectly in these couple of paragraphs in the ‘What is homeopathy?’ section;

Supporters believe homeopathy helps relieve a range of minor ailments from bruising to insomnia

But critics say it is no better than sugar pills and people only get better because they believe the treatment will work – the so-called placebo effect

There we have it, both sides of the argument; one person says this and the other says this. In the article we have the BMA saying homeopathy is a load of old bollocks and The Society of Homeopaths saying there was “evidence the remedies worked” only there isn’t and here lies the problem.

It really pisses me off that the Society of Homeopaths can just say there is evidence when there isn’t any. Especially when the British Medical Association come to their conclusions after looking at the evidence and both views are expressed as equal.

There is no bias in the article to one side; no mention of the fact that systematic reviews show it works no better than placebo and that if it did work “much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect.” Nope, just a couple of quotes from one side and a couple of quotes from the other.

This sitting on the fence is almost as bad as advocating the quackery; it gives legitimacy to their nonsense and gives the impression that the opinions of those with a vested interest in homeopathic witchcraft is somehow the same as a considered standpoint from the British Medical Association. This isn’t an argument from authority I’m making because the authority has evidence on its side. It is a great shame the BBC doesn’t take the time to represent these differences fairly.

Just a quick note on the Society of Homeopaths argument that homeopathy shouldn’t be banned because “the cost of homeopathy on the NHS is low – just 0.001% of the £11 billion drugs budget.” This small amount has been reported as about £4million per year, that might seem a small amount to spend on water and sugar pills to the Society of Homeopaths but to me it sounds like a hell of a lot. Just because something is relatively cheap in comparison to a huge budget it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about how that money is spent. You could spend that money on hiring some more doctors or nurses but if the Society of Homeopaths are going to support that kind of attitude I have a great idea; give me just half the £4million the NHS would otherwise throw literally down the drain on homeopathy and I will spend my time sitting in the Caribbean praying for people to get better. I’ll save the NHS £2 million a year, will guarantee that some of the people I pray for will get better and I don’t even believe in God.

I just found this excellent video from Penn Jillette, the talky half of Penn and Teller. I would imagine regulars to this blog are familer with their series Bullshit! those that aren’t check out that link for the website or you can watch full episodes here (works from the UK).

This is Penn’s take on Andrew Wakefield being stripped of his credentials. It’s a little more ranty than Bullshit! if you can imagine such a thing.

You can find some background on the Wakefield story here at Dr Steven Novella’s blog Neurologica.

Yesterday I came across an article in the Daily Mail which highlighted a new campaign from Debenhams; “Debenhams bans the airbrush from swimwear ad campaign – and lays bare all the sneaky tricks of the trade.” A quick Google search showed this story also featured in the Evening Standard, Marie Claire, The Telegraph as well as countless websites. Each time the story appeared it seemed very much like a cut and paste job from the original press release. You can judge this for yourselves, here is the original press release in full for comparison to the articles I linked to above;

Debenhams Unveils Beauty Untouched

First High Street Retailer to Use Un-airbrushed Images

Debenhams broke ranks with the rest of the high street today by using un-airbrushed photography in a trial window to launch new swimwear lines for the summer.

It believes that over use of some digital photography techniques to create unrealistic body shapes and flawless skin may instead can make women feel more insecure about their natural looks and size.

Debenhams will be canvassing customer feedback on the raw images in a move which highlights the retailer’s long standing commitment to encouraging positive body-image through minimal digital retouching.

Says Mark Woods, Director of Creative & Visual, “As a responsible retailer we want to help customers make the most of their beauty without bombarding them with unattainable body images.

“Our campaign is all about making women feel good about themselves – not eroding their self belief and esteem by using false comparisons.

“Not only does it make sense from a moral point of view, it ticks the economic boxes as well. Millions of pounds a year are spent by organisations retouching perfectly good images.

“As a rule we only airbrush minor things like pigmentation or stray hair and rely on the natural beauty of models to make our product look great.

“We are proud to bring the issue of re-touching into the main stream when the likes of Britney Spears and Madonna are using un-airbrushed but over-lit images as a shock tactic.”

Caryn Franklin, fashion commentator and broadcaster, says, “Retailers do have the power to take a stance on digital manipulation. Fashion and beauty imagery that is honest, is absolutely crucial for all women to see. I’m delighted that Debenhams has taken the lead here and customer feedback will no doubt validate this important step.”

Signage in the window will read: ‘We’ve not messed with natural beauty; this image is un-airbrushed. What do you think?’

It will also show customers an example of just how much the image could have been altered; including all of the following:

• Arms slimmed
• Legs made thinner
• Waist pulled in significantly
• Stray hairs tidied
• Skin tone changed and smoothed
• Creases in garments removed
• Under-eyes smoothed and lightened
• Cleavage enhanced
• Underarms tidied

Jo Swinson, Lib Dem MP and co-founder Campaign for Body Confidence MP said, “Its great news that Debenhams will be using images of real women who have not been digitally manipulated to advertise their new swimwear range.

“More and more people are realising that airbrushing and other trickery are not necessary in order for women to look beautiful.  I am sure that what this will demonstrate is that swimwear modelled by real women who have not been retouched can sell just as well as products advertised with extensive airbrushing, which has become the norm.

“Women can feel good about themselves knowing that beauty is not about achieving the unachievable.”

Other advertisers regularly use digital techniques to slim waists, lengthen legs, perfect teeth, and even change eye colour and skin tone.

This is not the first time Debenhams has shown its commitment to promoting positive body image – in January the store ran a trial with size 16 mannequins in windows. The trial gathered customer feedback on a more representative size having a presence on the high street.

Also in February, Debenhams released images using disabled model Shannon Murray to launch the retailer’s new Principles by Ben de Lisi range.

The window, which celebrates natural beauty, has been unveiled this week at the Debenhams Oxford Street store with staff members will be asking shoppers what they think, before the initiative is later rolled out across the country.

Continues Mark Woods, “We’ve been showing natural beauty for years and will continue to present women in a natural and positive way.”

ENDS

Now there is nothing wrong with reporting on this campaign. It is certainly something news worthy and the campaign is a good one. But given the apparent lack of actual reporting it’s fair to say I approached this campaign with some amount of scepticism. Was this a genuine effort from Debenhams to promote realistic body image or was it a cynical ploy to run a few unairbrushed pictures in their London Oxford Street store while continuing to airbrush everywhere else?  I would be lying if I said I didn’t believe it to be the latter, as I was quick to point out on Twitter.

I contacted Debenhams with my concerns and they were very quick to respond, at first they provided me with the press release but after a couple of emails addressed my main question; were they airbrushing girls slimmer in the rest of their material? They said;

“As a general rule, we don’t airbrush girls slimmer. This is not to say that it has never been done in Debenhams’ history but for economic as well as moral reasons we cast women who we feel represent our brand well as they are.

Previously we would ‘tidy’ pictures; so that’s the stray hairs, blemishes, pigmentation etc but with these images, the ‘before’ image is completely untouched.”

I am happy to admit I was wrong on this. Not only is Debenhams campaign genuine but their commitment not to airbrush girls slimmer is something that should be commended.

Body image is a massive issue in modern society and while this is an something that mainly effects women I have seen more and more images of men of vitruvian proportions and it is a worrying trend. We should all strive to lead healthy lives but the pedestal of unattainable perfection sets unrealistic goals, women who focus on unrealistic body images tend to have lower self-esteem and these images do nothing to celebrate the variety of all our body shapes.

Well done Debenhams.

Over the weekend I went to a local café and ordered a chicken panini, after ordering I was told that they could not toast my panini because they were not allowed to reheat chicken due to health and safety. My word, I thought, you couldn’t make it up!

Except you could or rather they could; on checking the Food Standard Agencies regulations I can find nothing that states cafes are not allowed to reheat cooked chicken for any reason. (I have emailed to ask but they are yet to get back to me at time of posting) In fact there are guidelines that suggest if you are to reheat chicken that you should make sure it is hot enough to ’discourage the growth of bacteria’ – yummy! 

You hear these sorts of stories all the time and if I hadn’t bothered to check then I might walk away tutting thinking this was yet another example of the nanny state oppressing my right to have hot chicken.

I don’t want to single this café, or their misinformed staff, out as acting foolishly, they are only doing what they think is right. But I do wonder how this misinformation spreads, and how many other people harbour health and safety protocols or fears that simply aren’t true? How much of this nanny state, that the government is currently reviewing, is actually down to the general publics’ irrational inflation of health and safety regulations rather than genuine guidance? We all know Cameron likes to touch the tabloids’ hot spots and maybe we should have seen this coming. But rather than towing the old line that there is too much red tape perhaps this government review should ask how these health and safety fears are sown. Maybe just maybe, if our media wasn’t peppered with stories of ‘elf and safety’ gone mad, then we all might be a little less sensitive when it comes to this stuff. But they just report don’t they? Not make shit up.

It is very easy to blame the government for being over protective but in my experience most actual health and safety guidelines seem quite reasonable when you think about it and are there because accidents happen and guidelines are introduced to try and prevent them happening again. Sometimes it maybe just common sense, but what is common sense to you might not be to everyone else; a quick read through some Darwin Awards will confirm that.

Yes there are some people that take health and safety regulations too far and it can seem ridiculous when they do. At this point I am reminded of an exchange I had with the cleaner in my first year at University in the Halls of Residence during a room inspection.

Your bin needs emptying

It isn’t full yet

You still have to empty it

Why?

Health and safety

What do you mean health and safety?

It’s a fire hazard How is it a fire hazard?

It is a half full bin, I don’t smoke and even if I did we aren’t allowed to in out rooms. The bin isn’t even near a plug socket in case you thought some freak spark might set it alight.

There might be food in there, that’s dangerous if you leave it.

There isn’t any food in there. I eat in the canteen like all the other students in halls.

Its still health and safety.

But I don’t understand what is dangerous about a half full bin.

You still have to empty it every day.

Do you empty your bin at home every day?

(At this point she stuttered for a bit said yes and then walked off.)

In hindsight the cleaner probably didn’t deserve some presumptuous eighteen year old pointing out the flaws in her argument. She was just following what she thought the regulations were and they may well have been the regulations, I don’t know. Either way it was a stupid rule and I enjoyed a good debate at the time never mind who it was with.

That exchange happened 10 years ago, these health and safety fears have been part of our everyday life for years and no matter how much the government review it I don’t think that will change. I suspect the media will keep saying ‘elf and safety has gone mad and people will continue to invent regulations so we end up in a kind of perpetual motion health and safety regulation making machine. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go empty the bin.

Update

The Food Standards Agency got back to me, this is what they said;

I am not aware of any restrictions on reheating chicken, as long as it is reheated properly and served straightaway. I have attached a link to the guidance we provide to businesses which you may find useful for your article:
 
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/hygleg/hyglegresources/sfbb/sfbbcaterers/
 
I hope this is helpful.

The World Cup is due to start in a few hours and since it hasn’t quite started yet I can remain objective about England’s chances, for the next few hours at least. Once it starts that all goes out of the window and I become as deluded as the next person. Seriously ask me Saturday and I will be 100% convinced England are going to win 3-0 against Argentina in the final and won’t put up with anything other than total optimism about our chances. So before logic goes completely out of the window I’m going to dust down my crystal ball, check out some tea leaves, go hire a TARDIS and lay down some predictions.

Winners: Brazil

England: Semis

Golden Boot: David Villa

Great Expectations Fail: Ronaldo

Team to Flop: Italy

Best Scoring Average (gpg): Spain

Highest Scoring Team (over whole tournament): Spain

Best Defensive Record (least goals conceded per game): Germany

Player of the Tournament: Rooney

Best disciplinary record (cards per game): South Africa

Worst disciplinary record (cards per game): Argentina

For the record if all these come true I may abandon the sceptical community for the far more lucrative psychic one. I’ve never really got that though, how psychics also seem to be associated with divination, and then how would you tell if something is going to happen to someone or if you are just seeing something that has already happened to them? It all seems very messy; maybe it’s all just a load of old bollocks.

Feel free to add your predictions below.

by @roachmeister

The British public’s decision to award only six points to Denmark in last month’s Eurovision Song Contest was revenge for the Viking Sacking of Lindisfarne in 793 A.D., some nutter in Suffolk has claimed.

Former BBC Royal Correspondent Michael Cole, 82, said “Most right-minded people would think that it was simply a reaction to the Danes having a quite catchy, but not overly brilliant, song, and that claiming that it was because the Danes came over and wrecked one of our most famous religious buildings over 1,200 years ago would be like, oh, I don’t know, maybe claiming that the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister joining the board of a Spanish company that might build wind turbines in the UK is her revenge for the Armada, but I’m sure the rape and slaughter of those Northumbrians was in the minds of the public when they picked up the phone to vote.”

Cole, who has been nicknamed Patrick Bateman by his fellow villagers after confessing he liked being compared to fictional characters with mental issues, made the claim as he received the award for “Most Blinkered Opinion Piece to be Featured in the Daily Mail This Week, or at least Since Littlejohn’s Last Column” this morning.