It’s amazing how much you take your nervous system for granted; or at least, I did. Suddenly being unable to smile, talk, chew, drink, blink, sleep, taste, kiss etc is a reminder of how interesting and complex our bodies actually are. And the fact that they’re all functions of a single nerve (or nerve bundle) is a testament to the inventiveness of evolution.

By all accounts I’ve made a very rapid recovery. Within three weeks I was operating within reasonable parameters. Some things aren’t exactly right though, and I wonder if I’m stuck with them:

• My brow is still partly paralysed. It makes certain expressions quite uncomfortable. I also wonder whether it’s related to the unusually large number of misunderstandings I’ve had with people lately. I can’t believe people pay to have this done to them.
• My right eye closes when I yawn. I must look like a right plonker.
• The same eye has a slight twitch, and tends to close involuntarily at times, especially while I’m thinking or if I have my head inclined to that side. I assume it’s receiving signals intended for another part of the face. Maybe that’s where my forehead has gone.
• Although I have my sense of taste back, my palate has changed. I can’t pin down exactly how, but e.g. I can now eat a piece of shortbread followed by a pint of dark ale.
• My hearing has changed too. It’s quite subtle, but everything sounds like some kid has been fiddling with the EQ. It’s most obvious with music, but background noise is different too.

There’s no moral to this story. I just haven’t blogged anything for a while and thought somebody might be interested. It’s less miserable than some of the other stuff I could write about. Now I’m off to play WoW, if my hands/wrists hold out…

Mr Yon,

Thank you for your email. Firstly I share a number of concerns about the constitutional aspects of rushing this Bill through in wash up. It is deeply regrettable that the Government was unable to prioritise Parliamentary time in the House of Commons. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.

Despite these concerns there are a number of very important aspects of this Bill that are needed as soon as possible. Online piracy is a rapidly growing problem for our creative industries and one that we need to tackle. The measures within the Bill designed to block access to websites promoting illegal downloading and tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a relatively weak regime that could, following repeated warnings and due process, lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.

Blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and therefore not something we are willing to do. The widespread concern over these measures would have been assuaged if a committee stage had been allowed for this Bill prior to wash up.

There are a number of other aspects of the Bill that we do not find acceptable and we will be doing all we can to remove these during the wash up process. Clause 1 adds an unnecessary duty to the regulator Ofcom which will make little difference to the way they operate. Clause 29 will prop up regional news with tax payer subsidy when we should be looking at long term financially sustainable measures to support local news. Finally, clause 43 tries to create a system that would unlock a large amount of digital content primarily held by the BBC and the British Library whose ownership is unknown. Unfortunately this has been drafted so badly that many rights holders would find their content automatically defined as an orphan work – as such they would lose control over their content. We cannot support these provisions but will return to this issue after the General Election.

I hope that this helps.

Kind Regards

Alex

Of course, I know this is a cut-and-paste response. It amazes me that anyone can think that such a patronising and pathetic effort will go unnoticed. Vive la révolution.

Dear Mr Yon

Thanks for getting in touch. I’m proud to be standing as the Labour party candidate, and very proud of the many achievements of the Labour governemnt [sic] since 1997. I am committed to representing the people of Stretford and Urmston in parliament – as Bev Hughes has done. I simply don’t believe independent candidates are either as effective or as accountable to the electorate.

best wishes

Kate Green

Labour parliamentary candidate for Stretford and Urmston

I think that is the funniest thing I’ve read during all of this tragic week.

UPDATE @12:37: Alex Williams (Tory candidate) has responded simply with “Thank you for your comments.“

Dear Ms Green,

It is my understanding that you are the Labour Party candidate for Stretford and Urmston. I write to inform you of the reason that you will not be getting my vote.

Along with thousands of other UK citizens I watched in horror last night as the outgoing Labour government whipped their MPs to vote through the highly controversial and badly written Digital Economy Bill, not only without due process but with most of the voting MPs not even present at the truncated debates. While the bill itself is obnoxious, it is my belief that it would have been much less so if subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The issue is not that this bill originated in Lords but that, under government duress, Commons chose not to do its job. I raised my concern by e-mail to our current MP Beverley Hughes some days beforehand, but she did not have the decency to respond.

The brave efforts of members such as Tom Watson, Eric Joyce and Austin Mitchell have not gone unnoticed, but against the force of the party whip they were doomed to failure. The Labour leadership has shown a despicable contempt for democracy and for the purpose of the House of Commons. Therefore I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any candidate whose appointment will encourage this to continue.

Please understand that this is not about you as a person. If you are elected, I would like to believe that you will do the job that we will be paying you to do and represent us fairly. However at a general election your credibility as a candidate is linked to your party’s credibility. If you believe in democracy then you will surely wish to resign your Labour Party membership and stand instead as an independent candidate. If you do so, then I and many others will be able to judge you on your personal merits when choosing whom to vote for.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Yon, BSc(hons)

I have written similarly to the Tory candidate, to express my feelings about the fact that his party were complicit in the subversion of democracy. And I’ve written to Bev Hughes asking her why she didn’t turn up. I doubt she’ll reply.

Thanks for your e-mail regarding the BBC News Channel.

Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

I understand you felt a report broadcast on 22 February contained an inaccurate and biased interview regarding the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in treating cancer.

Gemma Hoefkens was correctly introduced as a homeopath and during the interview she spoke about her views through her experience and more specifically her claim that homeopathy had cured her cancer after all other medical options had been exhausted.

Both the validity of homeopathy as a medical treatment and this specific claim were subject to challenge on a number of occasions by Joanna Gosling who put it to her that:

“The MPs are today saying that there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond a placebo effect, what do you say to that?”

This question clearly went to a central issue in the wider context of the interview, namely the committee of MPs and their call to stop NHS funding for homeopathy on the basis that it does not work. Joanna Gosling further explored this point by stating that:

“One of the concerns that the MPs have voiced is that they fear that if people turn to homeopathy they might actually not look to conventional treatments that might be more proven to actually work… Obviously you turned to homeopathy as a last resort, but do you think that there might be an issue that people might hear a story like yours and think ‘Okay I will go down the homeopathic route to cure my cancer’ rather than other methods that do have scientific evidence to back them up?”

This also went to a central point in the interview and Gemma Hoefkens’ claim by acknowledging that while it was her own personal view that her cancer was cured due to homeopathy, there was no scientific evidence to support this link, leading to concerns that others would take an approach based on her personal account.

She then went on to ask:

“Have you come across any other case studies like yours, I mean the MPs are concerned about a lack of scientific evidence to back up whether homeopathy works or not?”

This again went to the question of the link that Gemma Hoefkens believed existed by specifically pointing to the lack of scientific evidence in the form of other cases to support her view.

Joanna Gosling then pointed out that:

“So it’s a very inexact science, and that’s exactly what MPs are worried about. They point out that any new drugs that are funded by the NHS do have to be proven by scientific evidence… “

She also subsequently and directly addressed the issue of homeopathy having a placebo effect again by asking:

“Do you believe that there is an element though of ‘if someone believes it will work, it does actually work?”

Given the nature of Gemma Hoefkens claim, we accept that there will inevitably be some in our audience who feel that it should have been met with incredulity and challenged in a highly robust manner, but given the examples above it’s clear that her claim and homeopathy generally were nonetheless subject to persistent, clear and direct challenge.

We also took the opportunity to forward concerns on this issue to BBC News Channel Editors, who explained that they were happy with the interview and added that the channel and other BBC outlets gave plenty of airtime to the alternate view, including the chance to hear from the author of the committee as he strongly put his case, as well as a debate that set out both sides and which was broadcast at 20:30 that evening.

I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’ve recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Regards

Ciaran McConnell

BBC Complaints

Last night (22/02/10) just after 1930 on News24 an interview was broadcast on the subject of homeopathy. The interview was highly biased towards advocacy of homeopathy, despite the fact that it has no scientific basis and is proven to be ineffective. Of particular concern was the claim that homeopathic treatment could cure cancer. This claim was repeated an hour later in another interview, and not accompanied by any disclaimer. This is not just misleading but dangerous and irresponsible. Under the Cancer Act 1939 (specifically §4) it may even be criminal. It is utterly unacceptable, and I would like to know how you intend to correct this.

The interview itself is here, and it was also quoted as fact later on in the evening.

It’s no wonder really that I’m relatively lonely. Much more surprising is that anyone ever agreed to marry me and settle down ’til death us do part. I want to come out and say that Sally is the best thing that ever happened to me, and regardless of any disagreements we may have I see the future involving her all the way into old age. She’s the person God decided I should be with and I am wholly convinced that He knows what he’s doing – and I love her, more than I can ever describe.

But the friends I do have are also really important to me. Time after time I’ve said something which was simply intended to let someone know how much they mean to me, and I’ve gone and cocked it up and made things awkward. I realise that most people don’t need to know that, to me, they are an indispensable part of my life. I realise that most people are only used to hearing that from people they’re intimately close to, and that the English language doesn’t have an easy way to express such feelings towards a mere friend. And I realise that I have no comprehension of how people interpret my comments until some time after I’ve made them. I just wish I knew when to say something and when to STFU.

If you’re one of the people I’ve managed to upset, whether recently or further back, I’m really sorry. I’ve never wanted to hurt anybody, ever. I think, maybe, the best adjective to describe me in pretty much any situation is: inappropriate. :(

Reading that back made me feel a tad uncomfortable. I could hear myself saying something meant genuinely, but ultimately meaningless. “Tomorrow,” he said, “I’m going to quit procrastinating.”

That discomfort got a lot stronger as I prepared for my recent ESA appeal tribunal hearing. Essentially this new benefit is now the only sickness benefit that is available, with one horrible twist: eligibility is not based on whether you are ill! Instead they have a checklist of tasks which may not be in any way related to your illness, and each one you can do counts against your claim. Alarmingly, the fact that performing the task would have negative consequences for your health (e.g. causing pain, exacerbating mental illness) is not allowed to be taken into consideration. I’m not making this up; the judge told me this herself. My appeal was allowed not because of my physical health problems, but because I eventually got myself arrested in the course of my subsequent mental breakdown.

I guess this is a rather cynical move to reduce unemployment figures. Anyone who can’t work (therefore not eligible for JSA) but fails the ESA criteria won’t show in any stats. Of course they’ll struggle to pay the bills, too. This system is particularly discriminatory against people like me with invisible conditions, who may suffer levels of chronic pain and fatigue which would make them a liability to an employer, and makes their working days a misery. At those times, what they really need is to be at home, away from stress, until it gets more bearable again.

To tell us that our pain doesn’t count, that our incapacity is not real, is unfair, insulting, and downright cruel. You’d have to be seriously confused to choose a life on state benefits instead of the pretty decent salary I was on, if you were capable of work. Being unable to pay my debts, or to keep a home over my children’s heads; yes, that’s a rational choice I’d make any day.

I decided I can’t just stay silent about this injustice, and today my first ever e-petition went live. I guess now I have to find creative ways to convince people to sign it. Please, if you care, add your support and spread the word. If you don’t care, please don’t be cruel enough to campaign against us. Either way, I’ll tweet any updates as @painisreal if anyone is interested.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/chronicpain/

Alfalfa seed production requires the presence of pollinators when the fields of alfalfa are in bloom. Alfalfa pollination is somewhat problematic, however, because Western honey bees, the most commonly used pollinator, are not suitable for this purpose; the pollen-carrying keel of the Alfalfa flower trips and strikes pollinating bees on the head, which helps transfer the pollen to the foraging bee. Western honey bees, however, do not like being struck in the head repeatedly and learn to defeat this action by drawing nectar from the side of the flower. The bees thus collect the nectar but carry no pollen and so do not pollenate the next flower they visit. Because older, experienced bees don’t pollinate alfalfa well, most pollination is accomplished by young bees that have not yet learned the trick of robbing the flower without tripping the head-knocking keel. When western honey bees are used to pollinate alfalfa, the beekeeper stocks the field at a very high rate to maximize the number of young bees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfalfa

Awe inspiring stuff.

Charlie Simpson is fundraising for UNICEF UK – JustGiving.