Archive for April, 2013

Epidemiologists are not Scientists

April 30, 2013

Just skimmed Gov’t paper on alcohol and the basis of the points system.

House of Commons

Science and Technology

Committee

Alcohol guidelines

Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12

Report says it’s based on physiological and epidemiological studies.

References

1 Robinson S & Lader D (2011). Smoking and drinking among adults, 2009: a report on the 2009 General

lifestyle Survey. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

2 Robinson S & Lader D (2011). Smoking and drinking among adults, 2009: a report on the 2009 General

lifestyle Survey. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

3 Robinson S & Lader D (2011). Smoking and drinking among adults, 2009: a report on the 2009 General

lifestyle Survey. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

4 Hasking P, Shortell C & Machalek M (2005). University students’ knowledge of alcoholic drinks and their

perception of alcohol-related harm. Journal of Drug Education 35: 95–109.

5 Gill F & O’May F (2006). How “sensible” is the UK sensible drinking message? Preliminary findings

amongst newly matriculated female university students in Scotland. Journal of Public Health 29: 13–6.

6 Plant MA & Plant ML (2006). Binge Britain: alcohol and the national response. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

7 Office for National Statistics (2010). Drinking: adults’ behaviour and knowledge in 2009. London: Office for

National Statistics.

8 HM Government (2007). Safe. Sensible. Social: the next steps in the national alcohol strategy. London: The

Stationery Office.

9 Office for National Statistics (2010). Drinking: adults’ behaviour and knowledge in 2009. London: Office for

National Statistics.

10 Office for National Statistics (2010). Drinking: adults’ behaviour and knowledge in 2009. London: Office

for National Statistics.

11 Department of Health (2010). Consultation on options for improving information on the labels of alcoholic

drinks to support consumers to make healthier choices in the UK—response to consultation. London: The

Stationery Office.

12 Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell et al (2003). Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

13 Gray R & Henderson J (2006). Review of the fatal effects of prenatal alcohol exposure. Report to the

Department of Health. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.

14 Welch-Carre E (2005). The neurodevelopmental consequences of prenatal alcohol exposure. Advances in

Neonatal Care 5: 217–29

15 Sokol R J, Delaney-Black V & Nordstrom B (2003). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Journal of the

American Medical Association 290: 2996–9.

16 O’leary C M (2004). Feta alcohol syndrome: diagnosis, epidemiology, and developmental outcomes. Journal

of Paediatrics and Child Health 40: 2–7.

17 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2006). alcohol consumption and the outcomes of

pregnancy, London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

18 Gray R & Henderson J (2006). Review of the fatal effects of prenatal alcohol exposure. Report to the

Department of Health. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.

19 O’leary C M (2004). Feta alcohol syndrome: diagnosis, epidemiology, and developmental outcomes. Journal

of Paediatrics and Child Health 40: 2–7.

20 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2006). alcohol consumption and the outcomes of

pregnancy, London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

21 Mukherjee R A S, Hollins S, Abou-Saleh M T et al (2005). Low level alcohol consumption and the fetus.

British Medical Journal. 330: 375–6.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [03-01-2012 16:32] Job: 015231 Unit: PG03

Ev 82 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence

22 Sood B, Delaney-Black V, Covington C et al (2001). Prenatal alcohol exposure and childhood behaviour at

age six to seven years L I. Dose-response effect. Paediatrics 108: e34

23 Little J F, Hepper P G & Dornan J C (2002). Maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and fetal

startle behaviour. Physiology and Behaviour 76: 691–4.

24 Hepper P G, Dornan J C & Little J F (2005). Maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy may delay

the developmental of spontaneous fetal startle behaviour. Physiology and Behaviour 83: 711–4.

25 Sayal K, Heron J & Golding J (2007). Prenatal alcohol exposure and gender differences in childhood mental

health problems: a longtitudinal population-based study. Paediatrics 119: 426–34.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited

 

Glancing down that list of references I’m seeing a lot of  “Authorative Opinion” and a lot of  Epidemiological evidence.

(Why do the media and politicians consider Epidemiologists to be Scientists? At most, they are capable of a bit of Statistical Analysis)

There is very little obvious physiological evidence used, although the report uses reference (10) to point out that Alcohol has a beneficial effect in terms of easing heart problems and, basically , says that it is helpful for older people, whose risk of cardio-vascular problems is higher.

The graphs below are epidemiological in nature but seem to indicate the benefits of up to four drinks per day for men , or two for women (smaller stature).

 

Viz.

The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research and Alcohol in Moderation explained that the J shaped curve shows that light and moderate drinkers of any form of alcohol live longer than those who abstain or drink heavily. The relative risk of mortality is lowest among moderate consumers (at the lowest point of the J), greater among abstainers (on the left-hand side of the J), and much greater still among heavy drinkers (on the right-hand side of the J). In addition to longevity in general, the J-shaped relationship also exists for cardiovascular deaths, specifically for coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke.(49)

j-curve

Unfortunately the problem with epidemiological evidence, even when validated by a known mechanism, is open to contradiction in terms of other factors, which have not been taken into account.

For instance. some of the ”Authorative” opinions propose that alcohol can be a cause of some Cancers (? — Almost everything can be proposed to be carcinogenic)

The report says “The lingering question is whether this association (cardio-vascular protection) is causal. Clearly, observational studies cannot establish causation. However, when the present results are coupled with those from our companion review paper7 summarising intervention mechanistic studies focusing on biomarkers associated with cardiovascular disease, the argument for causation becomes more compelling. Indeed, the mechanistic biomarker review shows biological plausibility for a causal association by showing favourable changes in pathophysiologically relevant molecules.

 

In other words, alcohol probably does afford cardio-vascular protection and the jcurves have some physiological support.

 

No other physiological associations seem to be reported, although I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there is a known physiological mechanism connecting alcohol consumption with Cirrhosis.

Even so most of the evidence is still epidemiological I.e. a slightly more sophisticated version of The French drink a lot of wine and there is a high incidence of Cirrhosis in France.

 

My whinge about all the evidence used, which the recommended alcohol consumption levels are based on, is so nebulous and poorly founded.

Indeed a lot seems to be founded on the prejudices of those in Authority.

Then to compound this mass of supposition and prejudice is the argument that a simplistic set of guidelines are needed, because the Public hasn’t the capacity to digest a more thoughtful set of guidelines.

Then, furthermore, these guidelines have to err on the side of caution. Not all men are of large structure and able to cope with the higher levels of alcohol. The cardio-vascular benefits aren’t a significant benefit for younger fitter men.

The report is aware of how  unscientific its evidence base is and goes to great length’s to justify itself by comparing its guidelines with those set up by other similarly ill-founded guidelines, used in other Nations. Its recommendations, it claims, fall safely (phew!) within the average of these other guidelines. (actually, well towards the more cautious end)

The consequence is that the guidelines come close to warning that anyone imbibing more than a thimbleful of grog is in imminent risk of needing admission to Hospital.

The report is, to my mind, an insult and a waste of Public money. It throws into question the credence to be placed on all such reports

What I need is advice on how much damage can be done to my body by alcohol.

Whether any such damage is irreversible and in what respect. E.g. The dehydrating effect may kill brain cells, so how much would I have to drink before I would be eligible to qualify as a politician? How long would it take?

Most damage will be reversible, so if I drink 10 pints of bitter on a night out (not that I probably could, or would at my age), how long would I need to wait before I could binge again.

Is the rate of recovery such that I could drink  1 pint every day, without any long term problems?

Or is that 2, 3, 4 etc. pints per day.?  if I’m big and fat, can I drink more?

Most importantly, I want the figures based on studies of physiological measurements/mechanisms; not epidemiology analyses and certainly not based on “expert opinion”.  After all, It was “expert opinion” which said that the Earth was at the centre of The Universe.

Advertisements

Politician’s could get away with more, if they didn’t make exceptions of themselves.

April 28, 2013

Politician’s might be more able to understand what we actually get upset by, if they considered the rules,by which we are made to live our lives.
Quite often they are rules, which Politician’s have created.
Here again they perhaps mistakenly believe that the principle of “rules are made for the instruction of idiots(Us) and the guidance of wise men (Them)” is applicable.

Consider sex.
We aren’t bothered about men and women copulating. We consider that natural.
The majority of us frown on adultery, although there are many (of both sexes), who condone it. (why Boris still gets votes).
We aren’t as bothered about single’s sleeping around, as we once were.
We are bothered about adulterer’s, who lie, to us, about it and try to cover it up. Especially so, if they use their power (position/money) to conceal it.
We are bothered about people, who skive off to do it, whilst at work. Especially, if they use their position to seduce/traduce their shagee.

Despite Gay Pride, many of us aren’t too enthusiastic about being forcibly reminded that homosexuality exists, even my generation, who were responsible for approving legislation that enabled sex between consenting adults (male), in private.
We have always enjoyed the talents of men, whom we knew to be manifestly gay (e.g. Danny la Rue, Liberace, Larry Grayson, Kenny Everett and Freddy Mercury) providing they didn’t make it part of their performance.
Hugh Grant’s consorting with a prostitute was as equally disapproved as George Michael’s cottaging.
Their saving grace was that they never tried to deny it or get a cover-up and, seemingly, haven’t been caught repeating their behaviour in a public place.

We resent Politician’s passing Laws that specifically give themselves advantages such as tax breaks, enhanced pensions and pay rises etc.

We don’t approve of paedophile’s and we resent people trying to place them in proximity to our kids, especially when they are thus enabled to continue with their sickening behaviour, because of their highly placed connections.

We understand minor infringements of the Law and are ambivalent to some. E.g. exceeding the speed limit on wide open roads at 3 a.m., calling a judge a stupid xxxx and many similar. We object to those, who, having been caught out, use power to try to exclude themselves from being treated as we would be.

We object to the very rich and the very poor being taxed, or fined, with the same, or similar,sums. E.g. £6,000 is a year’s State pension but a “good night out” for some of out politician’s.

We hate bullies and despise the phrase “Do you know who I am?”, even when implied rather than vocalised.

We resent those given preference, except when deserved. E.g. we resent politicians getting F.A. Cup tickets but applaud such preference given to Servicemen and we accept those in wheelchairs being given front row placement.

When in doubt ask the question “Is it fair?” Are we all being treated on the level?

Scriptonite item, against #NHS privatisation, censored by Facebook. Snide.

April 25, 2013

I’m sure Scriptonite won’t mind me reproducing the piece

Yesterday I wrote and published the article The Man Who Pushed a Toy Pig to Downing Street to Save our NHS.  It was intended to raise awareness and support for The Artist Taxi Driver’s art based protest of the privatisation on the NHS.

On publishing the article on my Facebook page I was asked (unusually) to fill in a captcha (the little box that asks you to type the letters you see so they know you aren’t a computer).  Shortly after, people were reporting that they were being asked to complete captchas to share it.  People who tried to open the article were warned by Facebook it was spam and the content unsafe, to dissuade people from reading and sharing the piece.  Despite all this, the article spread and had totalled over a thousand shares direct from the blog.  Then something weird happened.  It disappeared.

The article was removed Facebook, from everywhere it had been shared. It was removed from every personal wall, groups and page where it has appeared.  It disappeared from the wall of any user that had posted it.  The comments and conversations underway on people’s pages were erased.  It was like it had never happened.

I received confused and angry messages from Facebook users who had noticed it vanish from their pages and pages they manage. Now, anyone trying to share it receives the message in the above picture.

This is not an isolated case; Facebook has form on this.  Fellow blogger Tom Pride faced the same treatment yesterday when he satirised the Jobcentre and a disgruntled official had his article removed from Facebook as spam. Another Angry Voice has also covered the issue after being branded spam.

More broadly, Facebook has been found censoring users, employing temporary and permanent suspensions of their accounts, after unjustly labelling them as spammers.

Noone Mention the NHS!

 

Look to your grandparents to find out what life was like and to see the future threat.

April 23, 2013

I was born at War’s end as part of the Baby boom created by soldiers returning from the hell of WWII.

My generation are the grandparents (in somme cases great grandparents) of Today’s generation.

It is important that we let them know the conditions that we grew up in, so that they understand why their world is as it is.

Our grandparents were born in the Victorian Era. They shaped our our parents World, hence ours and hence that of the present generation.

Unless the present generation get a feel of what life was like for their grandparents and their G.G. grandparents, their grandchildren will curse them for condemning them to return to the existence that their G.G. grandparents struggled to escape.

The images created by Dickens etc. don’t truly catch the conditions for commoners (as condescending a term as pleb is Today) in Victorian England.

These are images created by and for the Middle/Upper classes, who could afford books (Oliver Twist gives a glimpse of the cost of second hand books) and who had had the Education, necessary, to read them

The books don’t catch the wretchedness of the poor living in housing that Orwell tried to describe in The Road toWigan Pier. They don’t capture the gnawing hunger that caused people to risk execution for stealing a loaf of bread. They don’t capture the struggle to survive represented by the Little Match Girl.

It was a time when commoners died young, in pain and in squalor. Few married, because life  was too uncertain.

Moving forward to my parent’s era, Communism had scared the upper classes into realising that the commoners could turn nasty, unless they were given better consideration.

Soldiers had returned from the trenches, where they had seen friends murdered by the callous orders of their own officers (The film Gallipoli softens the contempt of the classes for each other). Trained in the use of weaponry and “infected” by conversations with soldiers of our Russian allies. The ruling classes tried to palliate the workers in a Capitalist Economy, which was dependent on Labour and which had squandered that same commodity in the Trenches.

Between the Wars, my parents grew up in The Depression, which was a great aid in restraining union power.  My father told me of tramping 10 miles to join a queue of 200 men waiting outside a factory, in case another worker hadn’t got to work on time.  In Liverpool, this casual employment of dockers  created a lasting resentment by a workforce dependent on such bits of temporary employment to eke out a living. To an extent, it explains the strong union militancy existing between Scouser’s and Tory Government’s. It also helps explain the strong bonds between Scouser’s.

Unfortunately, the rape of the German economy by France, as part of the Armistice, led to the rise of Hitler.

That rise was financed by Capitalists, whose attention was focussed on Communist Russia and its growing influence.

Today’s generation has had their faces rubbed into the horrors of Al Qaeda atrocities, which are trivialities compared to the devastation seen by my parents’ generation. Almost all had friends or relative’s die in that period and many saw much worse scenes than those captured by TV camera’s in recent years.

The result of that conflict was a much strengthened Democracy and the birth of The Welfare State.

My generation grew up under the shadow of “The Bomb”, many fatherless, but we grew up without seeing our grandparents die in poverty and without losing our friends to treatable illnesses.

I would have undoubtedly been carried off by the Asian Flu epidemic but for the NHS.

When we talk of the deprivations of rationing in WWII, it gives a clue to what life was like during the Depression. Rationing ensured that we all got an equal share of the food available. It was a hardship for the ruling classes, despite their access to the Black Market, but for the average child growing up during rationing, it was actually a blessing, causing their average adult height to increase by about 3cm.

(Interesting to contrast the average height of commoners in Victorian Britain, under 5′ with their height today, over 6′)

When you dip into images of the past, you can find a strong contrast between the version portrayed and the reality.

For instance, my teen years were in the Swinging Sixties :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMfFRiSTFu4    and    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

but these are also images of that era:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DnTx6BztQThere aren’t many images of Bombed houses in that video footage, although from my house I could see four such. My street was cobbled except for patches down the middle of the road, where the bomb shelters had been placed. A few hundred yards away we had prefabs, hastily erected to house those who had lost their homes. These were so comfortable that owners in London protested the demolition of the last ones, just a few years ago. It’s strange that in privatised Britain we can’t provide enough homes for those who need them and that the only solution, by politicians, to this problem has been the ineptitude of the “Bedroom Tax”. Almost all our images of the past have been taken by those with comfortable lifestyles. I’d like to see more pictures of working class habitat’s being put on line to nable the present generation to see what their children face, unless they resist the changes now under way.
 

Terrorism is a lame game, unless you’re the Government

April 22, 2013

I was mulling over the ineffectiveness of the latest terrorist atrocity and it occured to me that none of those that I had lived through had ever achieved much.

I looked up wiki and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

The point is that terrrists kill loads of plebs and all they get is some publicity.

Nothing changes.

Sorry!  correction. None of their alleged objectives are ever achieved.

Who remembers the Baader-Meinhof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_%28disambiguation%29), or their aims?

Of course, we all remember 9-11. We don’t have World Sharia and probably never will.

However, we do have a whole raft of legislation, which has destroyed hard won democratic freedoms.

The new authoritarian regimes, emerging globally, have taken advantage of Islamic terrorism to push through legislation, which implements Monetarist policies to enrich the rich and pauperise the poor.

They Occupy movements, arising to oppose them, is weakening, as they are isolated, subverted and smothered by the Media.

In the U.S.A., where the revolutionary spirit versus crass greed has the greatest polarisation of the two camps, the Occupy movement is talking of more active opposition, there is a danger of breakaway groups moving towards terrorist acts.

This would be sad, if it were to happen, as it would only strengthen the hand of those who wish to legally turn The USA into an oligarchy and tear up their Constitution.

In fact just as Hitler had The Reichstag burned down to destroy the Communist opposition, it would be conceivable for the Republican hierarchy to instigate and fund such a faction.

Terrorism only works, when it is employed by those in power e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Kim Jong-il.

The only effective counter to such forms of Government, where there is one identifiable key figure, is assassination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_assassination

However our present threat has no such identifiable figure/s.  (the same problem faces those who want to impose Global Sharia)

The world leaders are merely pawns looking to feather their own nests, with little chance of joining the players.

The true key figures will only emerge a few decades from now, when we have no more ability to act than a six week old broiler hen.

On the bright side, a natural disaster could destroy civilisation and give a chance for democracy to re-emerge.

Even a Solar storm, wiping out much of our computer technology, could loosen the control of the Oligarch’s.

Sometimes I depress myself but I lighten up by remembering that I can’t read the future and there’s always the Devon Loch aspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon_Loch)

 

The British aren’t left wing or right wing. Their politics are based on what is fair

April 11, 2013

Those on the Left are supposed, by the political careerists, to be in favour of soft drugs, to favour positive discrimination, to be anti-military, anti-police, anti-prison, pro-shirkers.

They are supposed to have every shade of extreme view.

They are supposed to be rabidly pro-gay.

They are supposed to be the instigators of all the Political Correctness declarations that bedevil our lives.

These statements are only true of the professional leftists.

Most people, whom I have met, whether Tory, or Labour voters, don’t hold these extreme views. They don’t embrace the badged philosophies of the main parties.

The common theme that I meet is that of fairness and justice (not to be confused with Justice).

For me, Socialism and Christianity embrace these two principles, whereas Capitalism has become inextricably linked with exploitation of others and the worship of Mammon.

If Capitalist principles were bound to Christian principles, then Capitalism would be embraced as helping a friend, or brother, in time of need.

In Britain, pre-Thatcher, Interest levels were kept low by anti-usury legislation, which was scrapped to enable Banks to profit from the introduction of credit cards.

(The damage done, by credit cards, later led to the demand that the concept of APR% be introduced as a political sop).

The demand, now. is to re-introduce anti-usury legislation (http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2009/09/03/should-the-british-government-re-introduce-anti-usury-laws)

If politician’s used fairness as the litmus test of their policies and abandoned party dogma, they would come a lot closer to being democratic representatives of the Nation and would have to justify their views both to us and themselves.

#thatcher #anon Thatcher’s funeral is being used to criminalise protest

April 11, 2013

They are already brainwashing  the public using TV programs, such as Newsnight to suggest that just because Thatcher is dead, we should not only sanitise and sanctify her but Laboutr MP’s should even be made to offer adulation to her.

This morning’s TV programs, “The Wrightstuff”. was presented in such a way as to be more insidious and invidious

An alleged screen quiz asked if Police were expecting disruptions of Maggie’s funeral from:

(a)    anarchists (b) terrorists (c) mentally unstable thatcher obsessives.

The answer given was “all three”.

This is subliminal propaganda intended to place in the mind the idea that these are the only sorts of people who could possibly object to her having a State funeral.

Viewers were also asked if Police should arrest such people before they could cause disruption.

It’s all very fine to say that the discussion presented the argument against but the damage has already been done by making it seem reasonable to ask such a question.

Each time such a question is asked it will seem as if this is the point from which we should start any discussion of any protest.

Eventually, the question would become  “is this protest, one of those that should be prevented?”

The addition of details about pre-emptive arrests of people, who had proven intent to commit a crime, creates the suggestion that protests against the funeral are equated to disruption, which is also equated to criminal activity.

The total message being slipped into the national debate is that people planning to protest are criminals (before the fact) and should be arrested to prevent them commiting this crime.

What is Dark Matter?

April 6, 2013

If The Universe is expanding, then matter is becoming more dispersed.

Light travelling towards us from the edge of The Universe must be entering less dense matter.

Light travels faster, when the matter density is reduced, reaching a maximum in a perfect vacuum.

Of course Space isn’t a perfect vacuum and as we travel further away from Here to There, the speed of light, rather than “The Speed of Light” should be getting less.

This would mean that the deeper into Space that we look the longer the light has taken to reach us.

Would this mean that The Universe is actually older than we think?

The concept of Dark Matter was created to account for an apparent slowing down of the rate of expansion of The Universe.

It’d be lovely if this simplistic answer was valid and removed the need to have Dark Matter.

I dare say that the whole idea of Dark Matter is a lot more complex but I can’t help thinking that there is a reason Dark Matter is hard to find.

Time for someone to design the sunfan

April 6, 2013

On really hot sunny days, you can go to the beach and let the sea breeze cool you down.

Inland, it’s not so easy; you need a fan.

There pathetic little battery driven fans and fans that rely on a mains supply but what if you’re walking to the shops?

How about a parasol cum fan, operated by attachments to your shoes, so that as you walk, the fan spins and turns some of the power of your muscular legs into a cooling draught?

In the garden, on a recliner? How about a fan with solar panels on the blades. The hotter/brighter the Sun, the stronger the fan’s breeze.

If we get a Summer like the one that my Ozzy relative’s have been complaining about, they’ll sell fast.

Some may find my views are off but I wish I could get paid as much as Ann Widdecombe does.

April 6, 2013
I think Ann Widdecombe is hoping that the Tory Hierarchy will make her a Dame or give her some sort of sinecure.
 She seems to be perpetually protecting actions and statements of her party, when she’s not attacking those who aren’t good Roman Catholics, or defending the excesses of “hardworking” MP’s, in general.
I picked up on two items in her column and posted off an email to The Daily Express.
Not surprised they didn’t publish
I can never make up my mind whether Ann Widdecombe is merely trying to be contentious, or has actually immersed herself into a far right mind set that is incapable of understanding those on the left of the social spectrum.
Her defence of Iain Duncan Smith is based on a deliberate confusing of the terms “living” and “surviving”.
Although these terms can be considered synonyms, she must be aware that most people conjure up different mental images for the two.
For most of us “Living” on a particular income means being able to pay ones bills without too much stress and without having to dine on bread and water.
“Surviving” conjures up images of tramps, slums, life in WWI trenches and Victorian prison life, or the conditions that led to the introduction of The Victorian Poor Laws.
I.D.S. made a mistake in claiming that he could live on £53 per week. It’s up to him to apologise for this dismissive response to a seriously posed situation, which had exposed the lack of thought going into the restructuring of the Welfare system.
It’s up to I.D.S. to actually acknowledge anomalies created and set about rectifying them.
He needs to, meanwhile, sit down and decide exactly what a welfare system should achieve. Then he needs to re-evaluate how he can deliver help for those trying to survive, without adversely affecting those who are barely making a living.
 
On the same page, I found it difficult to excuse Ann’s commentary as an attempt to be provocative.
Her take on the nasty death of a young girl by dogs bred to be capable of savagery seemed ill considered, at best. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/387301/Crazed-pack-of-dogs-put-to-death-after-they-kill-girl-of-14-for-her-MEAT-PIE)
She tried to defend dog attacks on private premises, by promoting a false comparison.
The scenario where she, a mature(!), educated woman refuses to enter a house with Alsatians, unless the owner is present, can not reasonably be placed alongside the scenario, where a 14 year old girl visits a school friend’s house.
Are we to accept the premise that the young girl should, with her limited life experience, have shown better judgement regarding the mother and her dogs?
Should she have been expected to be mature enough to resist social conventions regarding invitations to enter a friend’s home?
Should she have realised that an attempt to eat a meat pie was likely to provoke these dogs to attack her?
The desire to prevent such death’s is not a hysterical response to the incident and Ann’s piece is not, as she may believe, the sweet voice of reason offering a calm and considered counter-response.