The NHS Trust which controls the hospital at which Neon is being treated took Mrs Roberts to court in a last ditch attempt to save Neon’s life. The Trust and the hospital have not been named for legal reasons. Doctors involved with the case told the High Court Neon could die without further treatment, saying there was only a 35% survival rate with chemotherapy only. One of those doctors known only as Dr A said,

We have always said there are side effects and I do understand the family’s anxiety, but it does not reflect the risk-benefit balance.

Ian Peddie QC, who was representing Mrs Roberts, told the judge :

Her stance merely reflects the love that she has for him. The mother, having considered the pros and cons of radiotherapy, does not believe it is in his best interests because of the significant and long-term consequences of this dramatic, powerful brain-altering treatment.

Summing up, Mr Justice Bodey said:

One can’t enjoy a quality of life if one isn’t alive. The mother has been through a terrible time. This sort of thing is every parent’s nightmare. But I am worried that her judgement has gone awry on the question of the seriousness of the threat which Neon faces. The alternative treatments put forward were complementary and alternative medicine. Nothing put forward has undergone rigorous clinical trials. I find it difficult to see that doctors would withhold alternative treatment that would improve survival.

Mrs Roberts told the court she believed conventional cancer treatment was “out of date”. She said she feared radiotherapy would reduce Neon’s IQ, shorten his life, put him at risk of having strokes and make him infertile. She had asked the court to delay its decision, claiming other “credible” alternative treatment was available. It is unclear as to what this “credible” evidence is, all mortal illnesses seem to have taken on their own unique rumours and myths.

Entire cottage industries have sprung up around the likes and cancer, AIDS and Autism. These industries are an insult to both the victims of these illnesses as well as any serious thinking person. The billions of pounds spent on medical research and the millions of hours spent, and that will continue to be spent, seeking cures for cancer are the best way we have in the quest to treat and care for its victims. Quacks and magic potion pedlars exploit the fear of victims and their families. As is the case with Mrs Roberts, vulnerable people who’s judgement is clouded by fear of their own future or the future of their loved ones are most at risk of these charlatans and frauds. Only through improved education and victim support will these types of cases be settled amicably and not in the law courts.

You might wonder why I’m waffling on about some archaic aspect of being a Brit, but yesterday saw the publication of the results from last year’s census. The numbers have been crunched, the statisticians have done their jobs and there are some interesting, though unsurprising, results pertaining to religious belief and practice in this country. The first figure that leaps out at me is the rise of non-religious population. In 2001 we were 14.8% of the population but are now 25.1%. The non-religious rise has been mainly taken from the Christian numbers. In 10 years their share of the population has dropped from 71.7% to 59.3% – a result recently described by a spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as ‘challenging’. In real numbers it is even more encouraging, the population of the non-religious has swelled from 7.7 million people to 14.1 million in a decade.

There is some argument as to how much of a shift this actually is and if it even proves anything. As anyone who has ever had to write or answer a survey will know – it’s all about framing the question. The question used in both 2001 and 2011 was “What is your religion?”. This pre-supposes the person has a religion. Separate but smaller surveys put non-religious numbers much higher by first asking the yes/no question “Are you religious?”, with the yes answer inviting the responder to enter their religious affiliation.

There is also a grey area around what counts as ‘No Religion’. I think to most people, myself included, no religion means you don’t identify as a member of a particular organised group. However, there are a lot of people out there for whom that statement is true, but believe in all kinds of spiritual peculiarities. The Muslim faith is also on the rise but possibly for different reasons. The census showed a rise in the number of Muslims, with the proportion of the population in 2011 standing at 4.8%, or 2.7 million, up 2% from 1.5 million in 2001. Most of this has been attributed to immigration levels from Muslim countries and the high birth rate amongst immigrants compared to other groups, but the true reason behind their rise is probably a mixture of different reasons. Other faiths all showed slight increases, all taking a piece of the pie from the collapsing of the Christian majority.

The Church of England especially is in in big trouble, its own surveys of its members paint a grim picture of the future. Despite being the largest religion in the UK, only 20% people identify as Anglican. A good proportion of those probably only attend church a few times a year, in fact 48% of those who identify as Anglican admit to never going to church. The Rev Dr Patrick Richmond believes the church will cease to have any meaning or possibly even exist in 20 years time if it cannot muster a serious recruitment drive. The average age of its congregation now stands at 61, over 65 in more rural parishes. Once this generation has died there is unlikely to be anyone to replace them. Adult attendance has halved in the last 40 years and childhood attendance has seen an incredible decrease of 80%. The results from the census are not perfect and people shouldn’t place too much trust in statistics like this, but the results are encouraging. As the great Homer Simpson once said; “Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that.”.

The US Patent and Trademark Office issued patent no. D670,286 to Apple and it really does cover just the outer edge shape of a device. The images provided as part of the application require that details directly relating to the patent be solid black lines, with dotted lines used for shapes that are not directly related and aren’t part of the patent but provide context to the application. Below is the drawing from Apple’s application. As you can see, it’s a sea of dotted lines with just a single solid line around the edge of the device.

I don’t actually blame Apple for this, apart from the obvious ethical implications of trying to protecting a shape that has been aesthetically pleasing to the human eye for thousands of years. They have a duty to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, and forcing other companies to pay for a licence every time they wish to use a rounded corner rectangle should make them a handsome sum of money. The blame for the chaos that will ensue from this approval lies squarely with the US Patent Office. The patent is far too broad and there is no way it can be shown to be a significant advance or some crucial piece of design. Allowing it to continue will only prompt other companies into seeking to copyright other shapes. The next round of Apple v Samsung court battles could really be fought over the squares, triangles and circles.

Fortunately a patent that is so broad it can be used to attack anyone, is also a patent that is too hard to defend. The moment this patent comes up against any serious discussion in a court room it’s going to get thrown out. This whole affair is just yet more proof that the entire patent system is broken. It is very important that there is a system in place for companies to defend their intellectual property and make money from the time and effort invested in their creations. However, something has to give. In the last two years we’ve seen all the big technology companies drag one another through the courts defending or attacking patents with varying degrees of success. Part of the solution to his problem must be to enforce a more rigorous application system that prevents spurious and broad based applications such as this one.

Pundits and commentators will pick over the bones of a shattering Republican defeat in the coming weeks, each offering his or her own slant on the possible reasons Romney failed to usurp Barack Obama. All kinds of reasons have already been offered. Changing voter demographics, increasing numbers pro democrat hispanic voters, decreasing white male voters, Romney’s inability to mobilize supporters to actually go and vote as well as just basic dislike of Republican Party policy. All of this and more will fill newspaper columns and TV shows, but for now there is an opportunity to stand back and gawp and the sheer delusional faith Romney’s supporters had in his certain victory, and the inevitable strain now that he’s actually lost.

Take for example exhibit A, A totally shell-shocked Bill O’Reilly offering his take on the reason for Romney’s defeat.

Or perhaps Exhibit B, the outright denial of the facts displayed by Fox Pundit Karl Rove. At this point even Fox News, the great media bastion of Republican propaganda had already called the race for Obama.

It’s Rove’s refusal to accept the situation developing around him, the imminent confirmation of Obama’s second term that makes this clip. In a little under three minutes he powers through the first four of the five stages of grief. Firstly he just flat out denies the call FoxNews makes that Ohio has been won by the democrats. Secondly he becomes angry at the result, angry at Ohio and angry at his FoxNews colleagues for making the call. Thirdly he backpedals, trying to claim that its still too early, too close to call and maybe Romney can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Finally a deep depression spreads over his face, and the FoxNews studio as a whole as the realisation sinks in that Romney has in fact lost and Obama has won a second term in office. The final stage is acceptance, I guess we’ll have to see how that pans out.

Finally I’d like to point you in the direction of the truly amazing Tumblr feed, whitepeoplemourningromney

Split itself is centred around an old town area consisting of a walled Roman Palace of the Emperor Diocletian and a large harbour. The old town is the typical old mediterranean fare of narrow winding cobbled streets, amazing cooking smells at every turn and the roar of locals touting for trade from the crowds of tourists.  Climbing the old bell tower of the church in the centre of the old town gives superb panoramic views over the city as well as the bay and the islands it contains. We spent the remainder of the day walking around, chilling out by the beach and then returning into town for dinner. Later that evening we returned to the old town and watched as locals danced to salsa music in the square in front of the church bell tower.

On day two we decided to head out to one of the islands, and the popular spot of Hvar. Given my notoriously un-seaworthy nature I was a tad apprehensive about the one hour catamaran journey out there, and even more so of the two hour car ferry journey back. The old trick of locking eyes on the horizon at all times worked a treat and I escaped with just mild nausea. Hvar itself was a bit of a letdown for me, it was just a very small town with not a lot going on. The island, like most of Croatia, has pristine waters but rocky and pebble strune breaches – but other than that not too much is going on. We managed to fill a day by trekking up to the old fort high above the town and sitting in various bars and restaurants watching the world go by while we waited for the ferry back to Split.

Still slightly uneasy on my feet after my brush with the raging swells of the Adriatic, it was time for our first experience of Croatian public transport – a five hour bus journey to Dubrovnik. The journey snaked along the coastline, providing spectacular scenery and precarious roads at times – looking down at times I could see only the sea and not the reassuring presence of the road or even the cliff face. The bus was pretty busy and with no aircon it quickly became a bit of sweat box. Grateful then that upon arrival in Dubrovnik, I had time for a decent shower.

Dubrovnik is an amazing looking city, the old town sits behind high walls beseiged on two sides by the spralling urban area that is modern Dubrovnik, and the sea on the on the other two sides. On our second day we got the cable car up to the mountain that looks over the town providing stunning views over the town and the surrounding bays and islands. After the cable car we spent a couple of hours walking around the walls which again provide superb views over the old town’s rooftops. On a section overlooking the sea we sat for a while and watched as some locals jumped off high cliff faces into the sea below.

The hostel in Dubrovnik wasn’t the greatest, most comfortable or most well equiped but the other people staying there made it the best hostel so far. We spent a couple of days with a couple of Australians and the most stereotypical irishman I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting. Plenty of time spent drinking, eating and putting the world to rights in surroundings unique in Europe – which is high praise indeed.

In looking for the exact reasons and traditions behind this beard growing, hoping for a line in scripture that mandates it, I came across a question on the Amish Religious Freedom website FAQ. It made me realise why Amish beards look so strange to me; “Why do Amish men have beards, but not moustaches?”. That’s why they look so strange! The answer however, is even stranger…

There are quite a few scriptures that mention beards in the Bible. An example would be Psalm 133:1,2. An Amishman does not shave his beard after he becomes married. A long beard is the mark of an adult Amishman. Moustaches, on the other hand, have a long history of being associated with the military, and therefore are forbidden among the Amish people.

Wait, what? Moustaches have a long history of being associated with the military?! The more I think about it, the more I realise that it might be true. Now when Christians use the classic Hitler/Stalin was an Atheist argument we have a new rebuttal based in absolute fact. It was the moustaches all along. Moustaches clearly lead to genocide. Excuse me while I go shave…

The opening sentence of the BBC report of the guilty verdict began with the following;

Members of an Amish breakaway group have been found guilty of hate crimes for forcibly cutting the beards and hair of community members.

Who knew that the Amish suffered from these kinds of breakaway groups! We’re used to hearing of Christian, Muslim or even Mormon breakaway groups, but the Amish?! Don’t get me wrong, I still think the Amish ideology is a seriously flawed system, but on the grand scale of dangers posed by religion I think most people would have them fairly low down their list.

The prosecutors argued the victims’ hair was cut because of its spiritual significance in the Amish faith. The defence lawyers admitted the attacks did take place, but argued they were internal family disputes and did not amount to hate crimes. The picture emerging of Samuel Mullet is one that is all too familiar. His followers and detractors paint him as an extremely charismatic but very strict man. Witnesses in the case said Mullet maintained absolute control over the settlement he founded two decades ago. Some said men were made to sleep in chicken coops as punishment. Court documents also show Mullet practised “sexual counselling” for married women in his community. Well we’ve seen all of that before.

Part of the reason this case is so interesting is that it is very rare for crimes within Amish communities to ever be reported. In fact a number of the victims of this crime refused to even press charges. Instead punishments are decided upon internally. This is one of those grey areas where I can’t really decide where I stand. There is an argument for leaving the Amish alone to live their lives the way they see fit. However this under reporting of crime and internal punishment does not sit well. It leaves me wondering about the types and frequency of crimes that are never reported, the safety of those convictions and the ethical nature of the punishments.

Rinehart made her fortune in mining, especially iron ore prospecting in Australia’s mineral rich Northern Territories. She’s grown her company and become a huge global powerhouse. Her problem now is not competition in her own back yard, she’s either driven them out of business or bought them out. Her mining competition comes from further afield – specifically Africa. Mining occurs on some level in almost every country on earth, but the largest reserves are in Africa and South America. Rinehart’s business is now subject the flow of the global markets, and she cannot control what goes on in Africa then way she can in Australia.

As a result Rinehart believes the only way she can compete is to match the standards set by Africa. This would mean wages of £1.25 per day, no restrictions on working hours or conditions. This from a woman who earns in the region of £375 every second. Despite her huge wealth, she wants more;

The evidence is unarguable that Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export- orientated business,” she insisted, adding that “Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day.

Only last week she came under fire for writing a newspaper column criticising what she sees as Australia’s lazy drinking culture;

If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself — spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working.

Now that last quote does seem very reasonable, the problem is that when set against Rinehart’s previous actions her morality, or lack thereof comes shining through. Rinehart is part of a group of mining multi millionaires who have very deep pockets and are trying to influence political policy to further their own agenda. Political lobbying is nothing new, it has been going on for a very long time, its just she isn’t very good at hiding her motives or phrasing her political opinions. Considering Australia is a first world country her ideas for it’s future are more than a little troubling. Her proposals include;

• Special economic zones to be set up in the north of Australia where companies would enjoy tax holidays
• Exemptions from restrictions on wage levels and minimum wages
• Exemptions from restrictions working conditions

The first Moon landing in 1969 was one of those events in history that I wish I had been alive to witness. It was to become the pinnacle of a great age of scientific discovery, of engineering and human endeavour. The space race captured the imaginations of hundreds of thousands of people around the world, inspiring a whole new generation of school children to pursue science and engineering careers. Those very same people are today pushing new boundaries of discovery on the surface of Mars with the Curiosity Rover, experiments aboard the International Space Station and efforts to further understand the origins of the universe at CERN in Switzerland. Whilst not solely responsible, Neil Armstrong’s iconic first words and first images as he stepped from the lunar landing module onto the soft dust of the lunar surface are a massive part of that inspiration.

Images of the footprints left by Neil Armstrong, as well as the others who were to follow in his wake are perfect testament to the success of our species. Just 50,000 short years ago our ancestors were moving out of Africa and spreading East into Asia. Footprints left in volcanic ash by our earliest ancestors in Laetoli in modern day Ethiopia are forever fossilised as a record of our lowly origins. Now they can be set alongside the footprints left by Armstong and his fellow Apollo Astronauts as a defining moment in the history of our species. For all of humanity’s short comings, Neil Armstong is one of those special people who reminds us that our species is capable of extraordinary deeds.

You can tell it’s HR that is to blame, because it’s all about the numbers, and by extension the money. In order for professors to keep their jobs, they must have have published 11 papers between 2008 and 2011, of which two are deemed to be ‘high quality’. They must also have had at least one PhD student complete their thesis. What actually constitutes ’high quality’ is decided upon by the university, which is basically a publication in journals that get lots of citations. Journals such as Nature and Science get most of their citations from very few articles, skewing the figures to such an extent that the concept of ‘quality’ becomes utterly baseless.

What makes this even more laughable is that most Nobel laureates would fail to pass these requirements. Peter Higgs, the man who predicted the recently discovered Higgs-Boson would be in line to be fired by QMUL. This single observation at once displays the rationale behind the requirements. It was never about keeping high quality staff and eminent professors in their field, it’s all about making as much money as possible from as few researchers as possible. Incredibly it gets worse still, it is possible to buy immunity! In order to do this a researcher must have published 26 papers between 2008 and 2011, with six being this rather ambiguous target of ‘high quality’, thus encouraging quantity over quality. If a researcher is publishing papers at such a rate, it is highly unlikely they are writing or even reading them.

Requiring a PhD student to complete their thesis for the purposes of quota filling, rather than the attainment of any actual standard is not only deeply unethical but also deeply flawed. Once academics and students become aware of the university’s standards most will simply look elsewhere. The best academics can effectively choose where they go, but none are likely to be attracted to work at QMUL under such conditions.

If the National Rifle Association (NRA) had their way people would be banned from talking about gun control laws in the immediate aftermath of events such as last week. Their argument is that emotions are still raw, it isn’t a fair way of discussing such an issue. Bullshit. Now is as good a time as any for Americans to take a serious look at their gun culture. The NRA knows that the media is a fickle beast, the massacre and it’s victims will never be forgotten but the debate over what to do next sure as hell will be. The only good that can come of last weeks events will be if it spurs a political and legal change.

There is no way, at least in the near future, that Americans will hand in all their firearms en masse. The horse has long since bolted and closing the gate at this point would be futility redefined. There isn’t anything that can be done about citizens owning firearms, there are too many in circulation, owned by too many people. Not to mention the constitutional issue. There are however ways to change the rules around the ownership of guns. For instance, how is it possible that a person can buy over 6000 rounds of ammunition over the internet and that to be considered normal? Hell, why is it even possible to buy ammunition online at all.

If you’re argument for owning a gun at all is either self defence or hunting, then why do you need a fully automatic assault rifle with armour piercing rounds? Surely a small handgun for self defence or a rifle for hunting is adequate? Limiting ownership to a certain number of weapons, and certain types with a prior justification is the way to go. For example I can totally understand the need for people in the remote parts of the US to carry high powered rifles, they can encounter bears and large animals on daily basis. A thirty-something suburbanite cannot justify such a need.

I’m not against the use of almost any weapon in the right circumstances, it’s just those circumstances should almost be exclusively at a shooting range or gun club. With the weapons kept under lock and key not some kind of ‘bring your own’ policy. I’ve had the opportunity to have a go on some pretty powerful weapons before, an AK-47 for example, and it is enormous fun. I would not however attempt to dream up a reason why I needed to keep one at home. What has happened in the US is that in the vast majority of cases gun ownership has gotten completely out of control, ordinary citizens are armed to the teeth with military grade weapons.

As if this tragedy couldn’t get any more depressing – charging in from the fine state of Texas (where else) comes Representative Louie Gohmert. Not that you’d expect any different but he’s a Republican. He had this to say on the day of the shooting.

We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country … and when … you know … what really gets me as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs and then a senseless, crazy act of terror like this takes place. You know, when people say, where was God in all of this? Well, you know, we don’t let … in fact we’ve threatened high school graduation participants that if they use God’s name that they’re going to be jailed, we had a principal of a school, and a superintendent or a coach down in Florida that were threatened with jail because they said the blessing at a voluntary off-campus dinner. I mean, that kind of stuff … where is God? Where, where? What have we done with God? We told him that we don’t want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.

This is an utterly disgraceful political power play, uttered by a man who seemingly has no depths that he will not sink to in order to further advance his agenda. Sadly this is becoming a all too familiar response to right wing leaders. Don’t look for the real issues, the real problems and real political causes – just blame anyone who isn’t Christian! Over the weekend several others chimed in with reasons ranging from liberal bias in the media and lack of prayer in schools to Hollywood movies and of course gay marriage. I know that the UK is far from perfect, we have our fair share of problems, but its at times like this when I’m proud to live in a society that abhors gun related violence and values reasonable political discourse.