People in this country left to talk amongst themselves invariable come to a reasonable conclusion about most things.
The problem is overcoming the inertia created by the media which raises alarmist, sensational, inaccurate, and inane feelings that everybody has to work through, before being able to think sensibly on the subject in hand.
I do not know the percentage of below average intelligence viewers, but the content of ninety percent of the media caters only for this group.

As the commentator reports, in any average pub one can find quality discussions on most subjects, that make media reporting look like the output of brain challenged aliens with no awareness of earth society.
The bbc horizon program has degenerated into a program aimed at the average eight year old, with ridiculous music, camera effects and long pauses, that save any worthwhile script having to be produced.
The media should be leading discussions and awareness of ways to improve society and life, feeling proud that they have improved some aspect of peoples existence without a screaming, rabid, campaign.

Many good people gave their lives in two world wars and many small ones to keep a basic level of civilization safe.
The media in general has no respect for all the good people trying to better life and who need their full support, not constant coverage of "personalities", presenters etc.
We should celebrate that although our democracy is not perfect, it for many years has been in the middle of the political spectrum, thanks to a clear thinking population and not a irresponsible media, that, if left unchecked could lead people hyped up by media frenzy to take a disastrous path.
Nothing pleases the media more than to see dangerous bnp rabble showing there faces. It is the media that excited people into believing that an expense account row is so importent that we should turn to the black shirts.

It is up to the concerned, rational, thinking members of the media to start moving back to free and responsible reporting.

You can see some of the support for Simon in a video of that London meeting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0.

The constant talk in the press about a disengaged and willfully ignorant public is a result of lazy stereotyping. It reminds me of the time I went to see a talk given by Ben Goldacre about his brush with the the chilling effects of libel bullying. (http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-forced-to-pay-...)

He explained that he had rung up possible venues all over London to find a space to conduct the event only to be told that they were all in use on a cold, wet, Tuesday night. In the end that very same pub, the Pendrel's Oak, was used, crammed to a point that would have upset a fire inspector.

The fact that hundreds of lecture halls, concert venues and theatres across London are filled nightly with people seeking political engagement, intellectual stimulation, or simply entertainment deemed to highbrow for television seems to have escaped the notice of some of these commentators.

I was rather disappointed to miss this event, but an important point to consider is that this wasn't one-off event that people then forgot about.

Since this event bloggers and activists across the country have actually been doing something about this situation. People have been scrutinising the claims made by chiropractors, and where these have been unjustified or misleading they have made complaints. Eg: http://cargo-cult-science.blogspot.com/2009/05/success-with-victoria-chi...

Other people have made mass complaints to the regulatory body for chiropractic: http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/dont-panic-mr-mainwaring.html

This has forced their representative bodies (BCA, UCA, McTimoney's etc) to take action, as a result of which hopefully fewer chiropractors will be making unjustified or misleading statements.

Real activism. Real results.

Whether this will have any impact on the Singh vs BCA case remains to be seen, but it just shows what nerds can do when they get (vaguely) organised!

I do find it amusing that the MP scandal somehow switched from individual MPs to Democracy in general.

Get rid of the guilty MPs, let it be a lesson to others, problem solved.

It's interesting that lawyers, physicians, and engineers all must meet minimum licensing qualifications. Legislators do not. Perhaps, it is time that we review the need for minimum qualifications for legislators, since our society is being more complex.

The UK's libel laws appear to be skewed toward the individual, whereas the "actual malice" standard adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, gives great latitude to publishers to print almost anything. Actual malice is "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard means that the author or publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth. Mere sloppy fact-checking is insufficient to support a claim.

To georgeopen your point is great, I just wanted to help out slightly by pointing out that the percentage of below average intelligence viewers is roughly 50% (which in fact, strengthens your point).

Jessamine,thank you, I think if you broaden the average to cover the rump of those in the middle you would end up with a small percentage at the bottom and the same at the top.

If I have my maths wrong I meant the bottom 15-20%.

Free criticism of those in power, under and within the law, is a major feature of democracy. Elected politicians are simply a reflection of the cross-section of the adult voting and non-voting population they represent. No better and no worse.

The Limiting Factor wrote:
".... Perhaps, it is time that we review the need for minimum qualifications for legislators, since our society is being more complex. ..."

I disagree - I think the last thing we need is for an extension of the existing "political class" into a career option beyond what's already happened. Unless, of course, you mean qualifications from real-life experience such as working or volunteering in industry/commerce, health services, armed services, etc.

"Democracy is as much a state of mind as a collection of institutions."
- 'The Economist'

A lovely article. And true.

The Singh v BCA case is a cause for serious concern in relation to scientific enquiry, fair debate and press freedom. The resulting campaign for a review of the UK libel laws is essential - whether that starts in a pub (direct contact!) or via the internet. To increase support for that campaign, the following information may be helpful. Dynasty Press is a recently formed publishing company, and we already know how the application of the UK libel laws can effect the freedom of publishers. We are also well aware of Sir David Eady who ruled against Singh and is England's chief libel/privacy/freedom of speech judge. In the last four years he has made a series of legal rulings which have upheld those seeking damages for reputations apparently harmed by comments and opinions in the press. The result has been that press and publishers have been seriously curtailed. And not just in the UK. Basically, those living outside the UK have discovered that they can use the UK libel laws to their advantage.

Rachel Ehrenfeld was well aware that the Saudi billionaire and former royal banker Khlaid bin Mahfouz was eager to sue her in England in relation to her book ‘Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It’. Justice Eady presided over that case too and ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. Rachel Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay $225,000 costs and the book was banned in the UK, though it was published in the US. As Rachel herself says, ‘It is common for lawyers to choose favorable legal venues for their clients. The "libel tourism" phenomenon is associated mostly with the frequent use of British courts by foreigners to silence criticism. British libel laws favour plaintiffs and permit foreigners to sue other foreigners if they claim they were somehow defamed in England.’ For many more examples see Salil Tripathi’s article in the Wall Street Journal 4th June 2009, Britain Chills Free Speech.

The debut novel Empress Bianca, written by the well known biographer Lady Colin Campbell, and one of our main authors, was subjected to these same UK libel laws. When the original publisher of the book, Arcadia, was sued for defamation by Lily Safra, the knowledge of UK libel law favouring the plaintiff and the sheer financial muscle of Lily Safra, resulted in Arcadia backing down and pulping the novel. They also agreed to have no involvement in its future publication. Eventually the case was resolved, after Lady Campbell intervened and threatened to sue Lily Safra. Minor changes were made to the MS and we are now re-publishing the novel in September.

Our point is that the UK libel laws are being used inappropriately by the courts. David Eady is claiming international jurisdiction for his rulings so that British libel laws are being used to muzzle the press in Iran and Iraq and worldwide. In addition, as Singh makes clear, the cost of legally responding to a plaintiff’s case is extortionate. We strongly believe that there needs to be a cap on legal fees in all cases dealing with libel law, and the national and legal boundary lines of the resulting jurisdiction also need to be clearly defined.

Lady Colin Campbell is a staunch advocate for civil liberties despite the fact that her own reputation has been in the past severely damaged by the press. We are pleased that she is willing to speak out publicly on this central issue. Forced to use the law herself to protect her reputation and refute inaccurate reports about her life, she has become knowledgeable about the legal complexities involved in most libel cases. Ironically David Eady was one of the barristers she once consulted for advice and legal information. Yet, as she says,

‘It is far better for a few celebrities like me to suffer at a potent press, than for the press to be muzzled. Because one of the most important guarantees of civil liberties is a vigorous press with teeth. It is far better for the political health of a democracy to have a privileged few suffer so that the majority’s democratic rights are preserved and protected. A free press needs free speech.’

We now live in an exciting world where we can connect, discover new voices and ideas and a wealth of information. But just as there need to be restrictions in relation to the internet, so the legal judgements of one country should not be allowed to silence legitimate voices in another.

The United Nation committee on human rights, English PEN and the Index on Censorship are all concerned about how British libel laws are limiting critical media reporting and stifling debate. Dynasty Press was concerned about these issues even before the legal debacle over the publication of a novel by a small company hit the headlines. We are still concerned and argue that it is essential there be a serious review of the British courts’ use of the UK libel laws. To that end, we will continue to contribute to this vital debate and support the campaign for an immediate review of the UK libel laws.

Dynasty Press.
June 2009

Very interesting, the need to publish the truth must be upheld,
only a court case can do that.
All court cases should be free. then it would be justice for all.

What is a "celebrity" please. Is that somebody special.

A fine article that unfortunately could do with supplying a bit more actual information.
The lawsuit centers around the use of the word 'bogus' which in most dictionaries carries the connotation of 'fraudulent'. Simon Singh seemingly was offered the chance to retract his statement prior to having the legal brought against him, but he refused.

Sense About Science is incorporated as a 'Charitable Trust' under English law, but it by no means a charity in the common sense of the word, 2008 saw them receiving more than 88,000 English Pounds from corporations such as Astra Zeneca and BP. Their activities range from promoting GM, claiming that AAAS overstates Climate Change and touting the health benefits of radiation. Simon Singh sits on the board of trustees of Sense About Science.

A fine article that unfortunately could do with supplying a bit more actual information.
The lawsuit centers around the use of the word 'bogus' which in most dictionaries carries the connotation of 'fraudulent'. Simon Singh seemingly was offered the chance to retract his statement prior to having the legal case brought against him, but he refused.

Sense About Science is incorporated as a 'Charitable Trust' under English law, but it is by no means a charity in the common sense of the word, 2008 saw them receiving more than 88,000 English Pounds from corporations such as Astra Zeneca and BP. Their activities range from promoting GM, claiming that AAAS overstates Climate Change and touting the health benefits of radiation. Simon Singh sits on the board of trustees of Sense About Science.