October 2006
October 31 2006
Is it me Dept.
I have, before me, a large stick of Pritt adhesive. On the side it says (and to be honest, I was fully expecting it to say May contain nuts - well, everything else does), "not suitable for children under 36 months."
So tell me, how many three-year-olds do you know that have a pressing need for a glue-stick?
Tallking of nuts, at the weekend, I had some Tesco Cumberland sausage (Cumbria should sue - they were unremittingly crap!!), and on the pack it said that, although the recipe did not contain nuts, and the factory did not use nuts, nevertheless, they felt obliged to warn me that the snorkers "cannot be guaranteed free from nuts". I give up...
Tip - if you want a sausage that tastes of nothing, with skin like fried parchment, you'll enjoy these.
October 29 2006
Police state? No thanks - already got one...
In response to an article in today's Observer, about the establishment of a police state on the quiet (I recommend it to you, here ), I was moved to write the following letter to the paper, which you'll find self-explanatory:-
Sir,
Henry Porter's "The way the police treat us verges on the criminal"
(Observer, 29 Oct.), was an excellent article. However, for those of us on
state benefits, the police state has already arrived.
By this I mean the egregious Social Security Fraud Act 2001, under the terms
of which the benefits authorities can invade the privacy (access bank accounts,
utility accounts, mortgage records and a whole lot more, all without the consent
or knowledge of the claimant), and disrupt the lives of innocent citizens
just on the off-chance that they may be committing fraud - presumed guilty
until proven innocent, it seems. The "shop a benefit fraud" hotline,
of course, simply exacerbates the problem by maintaining the anonymity of
the caller (surely no-one should be allowed to lay claims of criminal activity
against anyone anonymously?), and encouraging malicious calls.
A friend of mine has fallen foul of this, being repeatedly shopped by a deranged
neighbour, sparking of a full-scale (and fruitless), investigation every time,
which must be a colossal waste of public money, not to mention the massive
distress this causes. My friend, like me, has ME, and I readily admit that,
when I appear in public, I don't look particularly ill. This is simply because
when I am ill, I can't appear in public at all, consequently, when I am seen,
I look well (for a given value of well). At the time of writing, for example,
I haven't been well enough to go outside for the past three days - when I
do go out there will always be someone who comments on how well I look (yeah,
right!), without a second thought for why they may not have seen me for days
- sometimes weeks.
Police state? No thanks - already got one.
Regards,
Ron Graves.
October 25 2006
All in the mind...
Not being a great TV watcher, I missed the Original Source shower gel ad that caused all the fuss - I did, purely in the interests of research (yeah, right), track it down online to see what the problem was. There wasn't one - not at all. I really wouldn't like to live inside the heads of those people who thought it was prurient and bordering on paedophilia.
Consider, this was a naked, gorgeous young woman - advertising shower gel - who in their right mind would expect her to be dressed? She's filmed in soft focus from the front - and some of the bar staff in my local pub have more on view than she does - and in long-shot from the rear, but even the deeply weird Hairy Whitemouse would have been hard pressed to find anything offensive in it.
So, to those who thought it offensive, shading towards paedophilia, I'd say this: get a sodding life, and stop reading the News of The World and the Daily Mail.
Wimmin...
Overheard in the pub yesterday, from a brain-dead teenage bimbo student - "I love shouting at people (in the context of yelling at her bank), it makes me feel really good about myself." I thought, hmm... how good will you feel when you shout at the wrong person, and wind up picking your teeth off the floor? I do hope I'm there for that!
Obviously she has just the right attitude to work for the DWP!
October 23 2006
Not so NICE...
NICE, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, has decided not to offer the drug Velcade on the NHS. Velcade is used to treat multiple myeloma, known as bone cancer to most people, the death rate for which seems to be about 30%, with a further 22-29% surviving a further 5 years (depending on data source).
Why is this on an ME blog, you might ask? It's because NICE are currently putting together guidelines on how best to fuck up the lives of - sorry, how to treat - ME patients in the future http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=368933 , guidelines which have been universally condemned in almost every respect. I mention Velcade because it illustrates perfectly how much consideration, understanding and funding our illness might get in the future if the numpties at NICE have their way - i.e. bugger all!
In fact, NICE are entirely the wrong people to be doing this. The reason for their very existence is bean-counting and cheese-paring and, as such, they will always go for the cheapest option, no matter what anyone else says. That's what they do - always. That's not what we need - ever.
NICE for some...
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy (CBT/GET), seem to be much favoured by NICE and, unless they can be persuaded otherwise, they are very likely to saddle us with unproven and possibly dangerous therapies. Take CBT first...
I once - very briefly (they're an endangered species here) - had a social worker. He was so thrilled to get his degree in CBT (or whatever the relevant qualification is), he gave me a copy of his thesis. Never have I read such a wodge of undiluted, utter cobblers in my life. From which you can probably guess my opinion of CBT.
I've seen a lot of so-called "talking therapies" from the inside - my ex wife suffered from catastrophic mental illness - and in genuine psychiatric illness it can work very well. In a physical illness, the best it can do is help you cope, and get things in focus - it sure as hell won't cure you. It's my personal belief that anyone claiming that their ME has been cured by CBT didn't have it in the first place - that, or their ME ran it's course and they recovered naturally: it happens.
As for GET, it can help some - by no means all - and it can be dangerous. This is my story.
For personal reasons, I can't go into details (DWP Paranoia!!) - suffice it to say that, over a period of three years, I substantially, by dint of very carefull exercise, managed to increase my level of fitness. This had zero effect on my ME, or the level of pain I experienced, but I did lose four stones, and regained quite a bit of muscle mass. Then I crashed in flames. That was three years ago, and I estimate that the crash set me back four or five years - a position from which I've yet to recover. I don't - now - believe I ever will.
There are times when I can improve a little, but always the inevitable crash follows. I've pretty much given up on this, and settled for getting by one day at a time, because apart from the physical consequences, the repeated crashes were psychologically damaging - they could hardly be otherwise - and that was just too hard to handle. On top of ME, the last thing I needed was depression.
Life, in fact, is just too short to waste on crap therapies - sod it, I'm going fishing...
October 18 2006
Witch Hunt...
The knives are out for Madonna, but does anyone actually know WHY? 'Cos I'm damned sure I don't.
She's chosen to adopt a Malawian child, removing it from an almost certain life of poverty - why is this perceived as such a heinous crime? Why, indeed, is it a crime at all?
True, she could have adopted a child from the UK - there's no shortage, after all - but it's her life, her money and HER CHOICE!
It seems, insofar as any sense can be made of the rabid rantings of the prodnoses and do-gooders who are busily crawling out of the woodwork and jumping on the bandwagon, that Madonna's only crimes are being rich, famous and white (incredibly sexy, too, which doubtless doesn't help!). Surely, though, it's far better to give one child, of whatever nationality, a good future (or even a future), than do nothing at all?
It's been suggested that she could have donated a chunk of her sizeable fortune to Malawian orphanages, but in the past, money donated to charity in Africa frequently vanishes, never to be seen again, so she has no incentive (and if she did that, someone is bound to accuse her of patronising Africans). At least, by doing what she has, she retains control of the situation, and that's no bad thing.
Whatever she does, though, she can't win, so for the sake of the child, if for no other reason, leave the bloody woman alone!
Intolerance?
Jack Straw little realised what a can of worms he was opening in his (for me, perfectly normal), objection to the Muslim Niqab (full, head to foot veiling, with just a slit for the eyes). Or maybe he did...
Disregarding the fact that the Q'ran does not insist on the Niqab, merely on modesty of dress, surely, in the current climate of terrorism, it is simply unacceptable that a segment of British society is allowed to hide itself from scrutiny and identification. If there was a male equivalent to the Niqab it would certainly be banned without a second thought.
Teenage hoodies are banned from some areas, on security grounds, but no doubt teenagers would claim, with some justification - no matter how bizarre adults might perceive it to be - that wearing a hoodie is part of their, culture - it cuts no ice though. It seems to me - and Muslim scholars can't even agree that it is a requirement - that the Niqab is just as unacceptable. It is tradition, not religious writ - nothing more, and a male-imposed one, at that.
A Muslim terrorist suspect has already used the Niqab to evade arrest - how long before a suicide bomber dons the Niqab, fills the area beneath with explosives (and there's a lot of room, far more than under normal male garb), and wreaks havoc? Can you imagine the potential for a backlash against Niqab-wearing Muslim women?
There was no anti-Muslim backlash of much consequence after July 7 - I wouldn't bank on this next time - and there will be a next time, I don't think there's any doubt about that.
The Niqab has
to go - no-one should be allowed to hide their identity, whatever the reason.
And there is no genuine reason here, only tradition and bloody-mindedness
- third and fourth generation Muslim women, especially since this debate took
centre stage, have adopted the Niqab as a gesture of defiance. Western women
in Muslim countries are compelled to dress appropriately, we should accept
no less from Muslim women in the West. If they don't like that, there is no
shortage of Muslim countries where they can wear the Niqab happily. They may
also be second-class citizens, but, hey, as long as they can wear what they
like, what does that matter...
October 17 2006
Reality check...
This sort of thing, issued without benefit of rational thought by a Liverpool hospital, annoys the hell out of me:
It seems not to occur to these green zealots that patients attending the hospital are more than likely in no condition to walk or cycle, or even use public transport (waiting for a bus in a cloud of exhaust fumes from passing traffic will certainly not improve the health of patients with respiratory illness). I use a car because I already have severe respiratory illness (as well as ME), and I have no intention of making it worse by pandering to overzealous green numpties.
MEA...
It goes without saying that neither Tony Britton, nor anyone else at the MEA, has responded to my email. There's a surprise!
October 11 2006
Ron's Realm column update...
To date there has been no reply to my email to Tony Britton and the MEA. It's not entirely surprising, I suppose, as it must be proving difficult for them to defend the indefensible - every person who uses their 0870 number gets screwed. It's also possible, nay, probable, that they derive income from the calls as, depending on where they acquired the number, profits of 2.5p to 4p per minute are not unusual. Type 0870 into Google (UK search), and see for yourself.
It's been suggested by several people that by withdrawing my RR column from ME Essential, the only people to suffer will be my readers (I care not one iota about any inconvenience the MEA may be put to, as they brought it on themselves). If any of you feel strongly enough about RR continuing, could I suggest writing to the MEA and making your opinions known? I know some people already have, and I really appreciate that, but the only way RR will appear again is if the MEA correct their untrue "correction" and, perhaps, explain to the membership why they found it necessary to lie about their 0870 number in the first place. That won't happen without pressure from the membership.
MEE contributors, by the way, are unpaid, which I have no objection to, but I have very strong objections being made to look stupid, especially when they lie to do it. And then lie about emailing me to discuss it - that really is beyond the pale.
It's true that emails very occasionally go astray, but two people, in very different locations, are supposed to have emailed me about it - they can't BOTH have vanished into cyberspace. There's always the phone, of course... and it doesn't cost 7p per minute to phone me! My view, until someone proves me wrong, is that the MEA made no attempt whatsoever to contact me about this matter, because they knew damned well what my response would be.
Weather...
Here in the northwest we seem to be having a monsoon season instead of autumn, with torrential rain and the trees still green and in full leaf.
Last week, a trip to the Peak District - where autumn arrives a bit earlier than here because of the elevation - revealed the same state of affairs. So what's going on? It's the middle of October and I'm still wearing T-shirts, admittedly topped with a waterproof, but usually I'd have a light fleece too. It's all quite bizarre, and not a little worrying.
I'd be interested in knowing - just out of curiosity - what's happening in other areas. Like to let me know? ron@ronsrealm.me.uk
October 10 2006
Be afraid, be very afraid...
The NetDoctor newsletter thudded into my Inbox yesterday, containing the following item. Am I the one one who finds this scary?
NHS reforms to mean fewer hospitals
Ongoing NHS reforms will result in fewer hospitals, according to the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt.
However, health services will be devolved to regional care centres and care in the community the government has promised.
The last few weeks have seen thousands of Britons all over the country turn out to protest about NHS cuts.
Ms Hewitt said: "With medicine becoming increasingly complex and specialised there are some cases for which you are much safer in a specialist centre.
"We will have a different range of hospitals. We're not sitting in London trying to work out what the right solution is in different places."
Decisions on local health resources are being made locally, Ms Hewitt added.
Many have compared the recent unrest and protests to the uprising against poll tax in the 1990s.
Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Huddersfield over an NHS plan
to switch maternity services to a hospital in nearby Halifax.
October 8 2006
The end of the Ron's Realm column...
Unfortunately, I have been left with no alternative but to withdraw my Ron's Realm column from ME Essential, due to what is, by any reasonable standard, dishonourable behaviour on their part. The following email sequence explains things (for those of you coming to this saga late, see also October 3).
It seems to me that their obduracy in the face of the facts is a possible indication that the 0870 numbers are so important to the MEA because they make money from them - this line, from the email below, says it all "I'm afraid I cannot offer you space to correct the correction. The subject is far too important to us for that."
They are not giving me the correction I deserve (not to mention an apology for impugning my veracity), not because they believe they are in the right, but because it's too important - that, to me, screams "profit motive".
Note, too, that Action for ME uses 0845 numbers, NOT 0870, an example the MEA could do well to follow (0845 numbers are higher than normal, too, but not as massively high as 0870). I will not be renewing my MEA membership, but will be joining AfME. I suggest that any of you who feel, like me, that the MEA is screwing its members, could do worse than to follow suit. It's £3 a year less, and you don't get ripped off (so blatantly), on phone calls.
Hi folks,
The following is the latest in the 0870 saga. Sadly, Tony Britton and/or the
MEA are simply too dishonourable to accept that they are wrong about this,
and refuse to publish a correction.
Sadly, this means the end of my Ron's Realm column, though advice will, as
always, be available for the asking, and the column will continue in some
form on my website. I simply cannot, in all conscience, continue to contribute
to an organisation that appears to be so devoid of principles. I did my research
on 0870 numbers - the information came directly from BT - I can't tell you
how much a resent these numpties making me look stupid. Telling me I've been
emailed to discuss, when I definitely haven't, is just the last straw. Sadly,
though, I'm not surprised - the office has lied to me in the past - this is
just more of the same, from my perspective.
A few years ago, the office duplicated my membership Standing Order. When
I complained, a simple "Oops, sorry, we'll fix it..." was all that
was needed. Instead, I got stonewalled, while Gill Briody blamed the bank
for the error. The bank eventually sent me copies of the duplicated SOs, quite
obviously from the MEA, and I duly passed them to Briody who then, quite bizarrely,
tried to tell me the bank had fabricated them and had lied throughout. Quite
unbelievable. And before the libel lawyers get in on the act, I have a full
email record of this!
Regards,
Ron.
From: Tony Britton [mailto:tbritton02@yahoo.com]
Sent: 08 October 2006 10:40
To: Ron Graves
Subject: Re:
Hello Ron
Sorry about the delay in reply. I now check the other email addy at weekends only - it's mostly obsolete now.
I put in that correction after you failed to respond to emails on the subject from my company secretary, Gill, and I believe from Angela Flack. The question of whether or not the 0870 numbers are premium numbers is a matter of highest importance to us - as callers use them to access our ME Connect telephone helpline.
I also failed to spot the relevance in your original piece. If I had, I would have edited your piece more closely, or asked you to change it.
Our interpretation of what constitutes a premium rate number clearly differs from yours. We are advised by our ME Connect service provider that they are not premium numbers, but are linked very closely to the BT national call rate. And 0870 numbers are under review by the Telephone Helplines Association, the body to which we subscribe.
I'm afraid I cannot offer you space to correct the correction. The subject is far too important to us for that.
Tony
My reply:
Tony,
You're telling me that the email address you gave me fairly recently is now
obsolete? Frankly, that beggars belief. Did it occur to you to tell anyone,
because you sure as hell didn't tell me.
I have had no emails from either Angie Flack or Gill Briody or anybody else
- not on this address or my old one, which is still monitored daily. Had these
emails actually reached me if, indeed, they were sent, you can be sure I would
have responded - you should, by now, know me well enough to know I would have
bounced right back at them.
And the relevance of the 0870 numbers in my column was perfectly clear - if
you can't see that there's something radically wrong. You also seem to have
forgotten our discussion about this a couple of years ago, when you agreed
with me.
The "correction" was 100% untrue - whether it was deliberate or
through ignorance I don't know. If you have trouble grasping the definition
of "premium" in this context, a dictionary might help - "above
the nominal or usual price" - OED. 0870 numbers, then, by definition,
are premium rate numbers - to try to claim otherwise is simply dishonest.
If you and the MEA are so dishonourable that you refuse to publish a correction
to something that is blatantly untrue, then I'm done with you both. Find yourself
another contributor. I hope you have the balls to explain why my column will
no longer appear, but somehow I doubt it.
Ron Graves.
October 4 2006
No change there, then...
I was bitching, last month, about the sub-literacy that's so prevalent in the sea-angling community. It gets worse...
When I was involved in the sport, some years ago, I was struck by how many of the guys were absolute Neanderthals - evolution seemed to have passed sea-anglers by.
Now I'm making plans to get back into the sport, I'm deeply disappointed to discover that nothing has changed. Consider an ad for T-shirts in a sea-angling magazine - the picture is a back view of an improbably-proportioned young woman (blonde, natch), clad in a skimpy bikini, perched on a stool and fishing. From the way the rod is held, it doesn't take a genius to work out where the butt is positioned. The accompanying slogan? "There's nothing better than fishing at the crack of Dawn." Oh, please - pass the barf bag...
Remind me - what century are we in?
No doubt, if any sea-anglers read this, they'll insist it's just a bit of fun. Er, no, it's not - it's crass.
October 3 2006
ME Association magazine cock-up...
If you've read the latest issue of ME Essential, you can hardly have missed a "correction" to my RR column in the previous issue, relating to the cost of 0870 numbers - this is completely wrong. Either someone at the MEA is too stupid and uninformed to be let loose on the magazine, or this is deliberate mendacity (because, of course, you have to use an 0870 number if you want to call the MEA!). The facts, below, speak for themselves.
Anyway, I've sent my response to Tony Britton, and the text of it follows. The bottom line is that 0870 numbers cost a minimum of 7p per minute (daytime rate). A one-minute UK, day-time National call is £0.055. Depending on which BT Option you have, it could be less, or even free. Here's something to think about - a number of companies promote the use of 0870 numbers because "it cuts out time wasters"! Terrific, just what a pwme needs - a disincentive to call their support organisation.
Copy of email:-
Hi Tony,
I see there is an alleged correction to my RR column in MEE 99 - it would
have been appropriate, don't you think, for someone to have discussed this
with me, just out of courtesy?
I do NOT put information into RR that I haven't thoroughly researched first,
and the facts about 0870 numbers I got from BT - and they should know best.
http://tinyurl.com/bqf8r
Compare that with this, below, also from BT - the cost of a 1-minute daytime
National UK call, and you will see that the "correction" is about
as wrong as it could possibly be. I can only assume that whoever was responsible
is too ill-informed to be let loose on something like that, because I would
hate to think it was pure mendacity. And for the record, any phone number
which is charged at higher than normal rates is a premium number - whether
it be an 0870 number or a £5 per minute sex line in the Caymans.
There is also lots more info here, http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1086555604,78422,#cost
I take it I can look forward to a retraction, given equal prominence, in the
next MEE?
And yes, I AM angry!
Regards.
Ron