A long one

I see that Andy Cat6 has commented on Prince Charles' handshake with Mugabe at the pope's funeral. I have to say that this handshake doesn't really bother me. I don't often come out in support of the Ponce of Wales, but in this case I think I will. A handshake is not an endorsement of the Mugabe regime. A handshake is something civilised poeple do to show that they are willing to behave in a peaceful manner. What should Charles have done when Mugabe approached him, stuck out his tongue, turned his back? No, I think I would have done the same, and shaken his hand.

Regarding Abby's question about why the Wales' didn't just marry each other when they met, well there are several answers to this seemingly simple question. First and formost, she wasn't suitable, and still isn't. Charles was expected to marry a virgin and an aristocrat. Camilla was no aristocrat and she'd apparently "been around" by the time they met. On top of this, Charles was eager to present himself to the world as a potential monarch and considered that a period serving in the forces was part of this. So he went off to be a sailor. While he was away CPB married Andrew PB and that seemingly put an end to the notion that they might get it together at some point. It would also appear that Charles was rather pushed into marrying Diana by his father. Though we shall never know the full truth of that I suspect.

The marriage is destined to cause changes to the monarchy. Currently the monarch automatically becomes head of the Anglican church and "Defender of the Faith". This is more than a little embarrassing to the church since they are still fundamentaly against divorce. Charles has said that he wants to become the "Defender of Faith", rather than "Faiths". Originally this was billed as an attempt to appeal to an increasingly multi-denominational country. Now it seems more like an effort to distance himself from the Anglican church.

I don't believe in anything, so his faith/faiths problem doesn't concern me. I can't see that this problem can really be ignored by the faithful however. I think also that declaring himself "defender of faith", is something that he will regret. I can't see how one can be a defender of many faiths which contradict each other, and I think people will see it as an empty attempt to appeal to everyone. As for becomming King, a majority of the population are still in favour of maintaining the monarchy, though very few want to see Charles crowned. I suspect that he will ignore public opinion when the time comes and take the throne. What damage that will do to the monarchy can only be specualted upon.

Now something else, click here, to read a piece from BBC Health Reporter, Jane Elliot, on homeopathy. I got a bit annoyed with that article because it presents a very one sided view of homeopathy, and it's written very much as though the practice is a proven science. Homeopathy is not a proven science, and while I do understand that there are planty of nutters out there that subscribe, I'm quite convinced it's bunk, and I can back up my arguments with some facts. So I wrote to the BBC...

I’ve just read a piece by Jane Elliot on your web site entitled “Malaria row inspired homeopathy”. I find it frankly quite astounding that the BBC could allow such an unbalanced view of such a controversial practice. The theory and efficacy of homeopathy has been debunked so many times that it is becoming embarrassing. Trial after trial has shown no benefit beyond the placebo effect, and scientific theories that have sprung up claiming to explain this non-existent benefit have also been ridiculed in scientific circles.

I realise that not everyone shares my admittedly fairly extreme view. I realise also that this means that the BBC has a duty to cater for those people mad enough to subscribe to this quackery. The BBC however has a duty to give an unbiased view on matters like this, which clearly can be approached from different viewpoints. Ms Elliot’s piece did not even mention that the efficacy of homeopathy was in dispute. It was presented as fact. That is irresponsible.

I would ask that you do a little research into the subject (though a News Health Reporter should already know the facts) and publish a further piece that presents evidence on the other side of the argument. I’ll write it for you myself if you like.

If you are looking for more information on the sceptical side of the argument, I would suggest that the James Randi Educational Foundation would be a good place to start (www.jref.org). You might also try Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/), or do a web search on “Jaques Benveniste”, who’s work to try and explain homeopathy by scientific means has now been discredited.

I wasn't convinced that I would get a reply, but I did...

Thank you for your email. We have added some comments into the piece from Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine, who highlights the debate over whether homeopathic medicine is effective, or if it is simply a placebo.

I hope this answers your concerns.

Kind regards

Caroline Ryan
BBC News Online
Tel: +44 208 576 9613
Fax: +44 208 624 9098

Well I found 1 comment, but I didn't think that was really good enough, so I wrote back...

Ms Ryan

No, this most certainly doesn not address my concerns at all. Are you seriously trying to convince me that one sceptical comment hidden in this article makes it a balanced piece?

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. How would you feel if someone made a decision to treat themself using homeopathy based on the information presented in this article, and then made their condition worse, when traditional medicine may have cured them?

Why not publish the sceptical viewpoint in a sepearate piece and put them side by side?

I really wasn't expecting any reply to that, but I got one...


I am sorry that you do not feel the measures we have taken address your concerns. However, I do not feel the piece is unbalanced, and I certainly do not feel that we should be ashamed about our coverage. Homeopathy is a significant health issue which people obviously have extremely strong opinions on. I believe it is perfectly valid to mark the anniversary of the birth of its founder. The piece highlights early on that there is debate over homeopathy's effectiveness, and the extensive quotes from Professor Ernst detail what those concerns are.

It's not our policy to put two pieces side by side as you describe. But we regularly run pieces which cover opinions on both sides of this argument, as well as including opposing views in each piece itself. We also cover research which examines the safety or otherwise of such treatments.

I've replied once more asking where the "extensive quotes" are. I haven't missed anything have I? They aren't there are they?

I'm getting Caroline's out of office reply now.

I have other stuff to discuss but I have rambled far too long already. I'll deal with other issues tomorrow.