Well, it appears that the latest in Nadine Dorries' attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom got pretty short shrift in Parliament (The Guardian).  From the Guardian's live blog:

What does it mean? On Twittershortly before the vote took place Labour's Chris Bryant posted this:I suspect Nadine Dorries has done more harm to social conservatism on abortion than anyone in 25 years. Hurrah!Really? It is certainly a terrible defeat, perhaps even a textbook example of how not to approach a free-vote, conscience issue. Dorries tabled what appeared at face value a relatively technical change, and yet she ended up losing the support of her government, a large section of her party and even the co-sponsor of her amendment (Frank Field).But this wasn't really a decisive encounter in the culture war; it was more a case of Westminster ganging up on one of parliament's easiest targets. (Which is why the PMQ's exchange earlier was significant. When your own party leader treats you as a figure of ridicule, you are in trouble.) Does this really tell us much about the balance of power between social liberalism and social conservatism in Britain today? I doubt it. The only lesson that really stands out is that, if you want change legislation on a contentious issue, don't ask Dorries to take the lead.

I don't suppose that will stop her attempts to limit abortion rights.

Over at Posterous:Once again Nadine "70% fiction" Dorries falls short on telling the truthYes, the Tories do want to lose the NHS

VeloNews has an article saying that a report in Gazzetta dello Sport says an investigation into disgraced cyclist Riccardo Riccò's mysterious collapse earlier this year was indeed due to a self-administered blood transfusion  (Probe reveals Ricco self-transfusion – report).  Having spent this weekend reading David Millar's excellent account of his fall from grace into doping, and his subsequent rehabilitation (Racing Through the Dark: The Fall and Rise of David Millar), it's just so depressing seeing someone who is quite probably a very talented athlete take themself so close to death.

In all the furore over the Dorries-Field attempt to restrict women's reproductive rights, I believe that it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this reflects a mere handful of amendments to therather larger legislative effort, a bill to reform the National Health Service.More over at Posterous...

This event was one that we'd been targetting for some time, as it offered an opportunity to ride a 2-up time trial a couple of weeks before the 'big one', the Duo Normand.  The preceding evening saw classic Team Grumpy preparation, a large Thai dinner in the local Thai restaurant washed down with lashings of energy drink.  We must be getting a bit used to this dietary assault as we had no ill-effects (for a change).The Norlond '10' was being run on the F12/10, which uses the A505 Leighton Buzzard bypass, turning at its junction with the A5.  On arriving at the HQ, we had a chat with some of the tandem riders. who were off in front of the 2-up teams, at 1 minute intervals (the 2-up teams were riding at 3 minute intervals) and then set up the bikes and went off for a warmup.  Because we were near the start of the field, we had the opportunity to warm up on the course.  This was good, as it gave us a good feel for how the wind (which was rather stiff) would affect the course.  It turned out the return leg was definitely the harder leg, so we decided to take shorter turns for that leg.  It was also useful to gauge my body's response to effort: I had been suffering from quite a bad cold for the best part of two weeks which had kept me off the bike.  In fact, the worst I felt were some twinges in my legs which cleared by the time I started the event.We lined up at the start, in our usual starting formation with Gerry poised to lead off.  I exhorted him in front of witnesses not to look over his shoulder after he started, and for once, he didn't!  Somewhat disturbingly, I was in a bit of  a high gear for starting, so a gap quickly opened, but it closed quickly as I horsed the gear round.  I was at the front as we approached the Billington roundabout and for once we sailed through with no interfering traffic - indeed I stayed on the tri-bars.We powered off towards the turn, taking turns of about 1-2 minutes.  This was a quick leg, with a stiff tailwind assisting us.  I was surprised at how good I felt, and our changeovers seemed very smooth and professional.  Up the ramp to the turn and a gap opened up, but only briefly, we were together coming out of the turn.  Heading back was indeed tougher with a stiff headwind, but we responded by keeping the turns short.  Gerry exhorted me to take shorter turns, but all I could make out was a seemingly inarticulate and strangled shout.Back to the Billington roundabout again, and once more we got through without traffic problems.  I shouted to Gerry to go all out to the finish, which was by now in sight (I dare say all he heard was a seemingly inarticulate and strangled shout!).  Getting to the lne, I was annoyed to see a motorcyclist blocking the timekeeper's line of sight, so I bellowed out our number.We finished with 22:15, not a bad time in the conditions.  We'd caught a team for 6 minutes and were the fastest 2-up team (but the only all-male team, so that's not too important).  What was hugely encouraging for the upcoming Duo Normand 2-up, is that we both rode really well as a team, which highly effective changeovers.  Indeed some spectators later commented that we were riding so tightly that when seen oncoming we looked like a single bike.  All in all, a very encouraging race.  And just what we needed in the run up to 'the big event'. 

Nadine Dorries' thinly disguised attempt to limit terminations seems to be running out of momentum as an understanding of its implications and motivation spreads (Anti-abortion bid in disarray as critics rally | World news | The Guardian).  Some statistics relating to terminations in England and Wales have been published by the Guardian (Abortion statistics for England and Wales: see the latest breakdown).Excellent news.  Now let's display the same attention to detail where the wider aspects of the Health and Social Care bill are concerned.  Does it endanger the NHS, as the BMA suggests?

Via the National Secular Society comes this appraisal of Nadine Dorries' plans aimed at restricting women's reproductive rights (Nadine Dorries’ abortion proposals – Fact and Fiction | National Secular Society).The key issue here is the use of the word 'independent'.  Dorries uses it as 'independent from the abortion providers', but knowing full well that the bodies she seeks to use for offering advice are anti-abortion organisations (and generally religiously motivated) intends Parliament and the public to misinterpret this as 'independent" in a more general sense.In this article, the National Secular Society has provided a detailed synopsis (with links) as to why this set of proposals are so thoroughly objectionable.It's interesting to note parallels between the devious language usage here and that used by American creationists - 'Teach the Controversy', where there is no controversy save in the minds of the cloth-eared creationists.  There's a constant strain of dishonesty apparent in the way that those motivated by christian beliefs seem to try and influence policy.

I don't often blog about political issues here, but I'm finding the illiberal and frankly unjust policies of the Tory government too much to bear at the moment.  And, yes, I regard this as a Tory government since their LibDem partners seem particularly passive.Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, has long desired to eliminate as many terminations of pregnancy as she possibly can.  She has repeatedly relied upon misinformation and untruth in her campaigns (see for example this, this, this, and this).  Her latest gambit is to file an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill due to be discussed in parliament next week.  This amendment seeks to require women seeking termination to receive 'advice' from a body distinct from the termination provider.This is couched in language that on the face of it seems reasonable.  But it's only in digging deeper that the serious flaws in the proposal become clear.  The advisory groups envisaged by Dorries are principally those with an anti-abortion agenda.  You can read more about the lies deceit and ignorance being spread by these groups in this Guardian article: Abortion: pregnancy counselling centres found wanting.  Naturally, those in favour of a woman's right to choose over her reproduction are up in arms over this amendment.  It would seem from a later Guardian article that the depths of duplicity in this amendment may have finally sunk in to Number 10: Downing Street forces U-turn on Nadine Dorries abortion proposals ( though see below: Dorries has claimed this is untrue).  In my view, this ghastly MP is not making these proposed amendments through any desire to help women, but rather through a deep-seated objection to terminations.  This is shared with Frank Field, an MP with a long history od such objections.I suspect Nadine Dorries is now feeling her PR advantage slipping away.  She's now been posting increasingly hysterical articles on her 'blog'.  Her blog, by the way, doesn't permit any commenting and in any case is 70% fiction according to her.  This is the latest, posted Wednesday, 31 August 2011 at 23:45 [Blog articles at blog.dorries.org have a habit of disappearing once the author realises her foot is well and truly planted in her mouth, so I pasted the text below.  Its current URL is this. Emphasis in bold is mine]

For those who have read this in the Guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposalsas has just been confirmed on Newsnight, Downing St has denied the story.If Downing Street were going to do anything, does anyone seriously think they would give it to the Guardian first?No, obviously, but Evan Harris would.The truth behind the story is probably slightly more menacing, more menacing even than Evan Harris.Bear in mind this amendment is to offer women the option of independent counselling, delivered not by the abortion provider, not by a religious organisation, but by one of the 80,000 BACP professional counsellors across the country who are prohibited at present from working with pregnant women.It’s just an offer, they don’t have to accept it, however, those who have doubts and need help may do and if they do, then so be it, surely it is their choice?Rumour has it that Evan Harris, abortion and assisted death zealot, is applying huge pressure to the office of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. That would be the no longer an elected MP Evan Harris.  It would appear that he believes he has immense influence on Government policy, more influence than elected Liberal Democrat MPs even.I am led to believe that this story in the Guardian originated from him.I am quite sure that the office of the DPM would like to have a little more information about what the public thinks before it tried to apply pressure on No10 to put the brakes on an amendment which has such huge support amongst women. When I say women, I don’t include those who write for the Guardian, obviously. Nick Clegg may also like to hang fire awhile and see what else pops up in the papers over the next few days. I can assure him, it will be far more interesting than anything Evan Harris has to say./blockquote>Isn't this a bit strong?  And in any case, Dorries is economical with the truth when she says 'independent'.   She is also wrong to claim that abortion providers seek to make profit from terminations.  I note a blog article (Abortion Amendments to the Health & Social Care Bill) at the Conservative Women's Organisation blog concludes with this:

You still need two doctors to authorise a termination. Both of them weigh up the patient's decision and will only sign if they believe that she has come to the decision independently and has considered all other choices - they would be negligent if they didn't.Instead of making abortion physically and mentally harder for women in the UK, we should be looking at prevention and education - and by this I do not mean we need to teach graphic details to 13 year olds and give lessons with condoms and bananas. Parents need to take a bigger part in the education of their children and talking about sex appropriately when they're young is the best way to de-stigmatise it.The fact is that the health and welfare of women would be affected in a bill that doesn't mention termination once in its 420 pages.I urge every MP, woman or man, on whatever bench, to allow women to choose for themselves. I urge every constituent to contact your MP to get your voice heard.VOTE AGAINST the 3 amendments and do not allow the government to introduce any other comparable legislation.

As a final note, despite the appalling Dorries and her vile amendment, it's important not to lose sight of other issues around the bill as a whole.  Some commentators have observed that it may well lead to the complete breakup of the NHS.Update:  Despite Dorries' assertion that "as has just been confirmed on Newsnight, Downing St has denied the story", the BBC is reporting (David Cameron 'won't back abortion advice change') that

David Cameron "cannot support" an attempt by a Conservative MP to change the rules on the advice that can be offered to women seeking abortions.The PM's office said he was sympathetic to Nadine Dorries' view that women should be offered independent advice.But he was concerned the planned amendment to the Health Bill would prevent abortion providers like Marie Stopes from giving counselling as well

Having written just the other day why I view the iPad as an appliance or a gadget rather than a personal computer (my judgement revolved around limits to what the user is able to do with the device), I found myself limited by iTunes 10.4 running on Mac OS X Lion.The problem surfaces for two reasons.  I dislike iTunes because it's clunky and painful to use, and I dislike iTunes because it seems to limit how I deal with digital music - I like to choose the file format in ways that iTunes appears not to like, for example.  Anyway, I investigated removing iTunes, and it turns out OS X throws a bit of a wobbly when you try this, claiming that it's required by OS X.  Now, I don't know whether that's true or not, but even having found a method of doing this I thought it better not to try (most such efforts are a prelude to making a clean reinstallation).  I don't synchronise my iPad to my MacBook, and I've recently replaced an iPod Touch with a more reasonable device from Cowon (review part 1, part 2) partly to get away from iTunes.No matter, I thought, I'll simply assign the default application for opening audio files such as mp3 to Songbird, and that'll deal with the issue or iTunes opening every time I open an mp3 file.  Well, I can report that on my MacBook at least, iTunes refuses to relinquish its role as the audio player foisted upon me by Apple.Irritated, I had a bit of a Google about, and found recommendations to try an application called RCDefaultApp.  This seems to over-ride the iron grip of Cupertino and forces iTunes to take a back seat!  The whole episode does seem to reek rather of control-freakery and reminds me of one's inability to remove Internet Explorer from Windows.  I do wonder how required iTunes really is for OS X...and whether this is symptomatic of a move of OS X towards the iOS way of working.

Ars Technica has an interesting article pondering whether the iPad can be considered a Personal Computer or not (The iPad is a Personal Computer—true or false?).  This is something I have considered, in the year or so since I became an iPad owner.My own personal view is that iOS devices such as my iPod Touch and iPad occupy a space somewhere between an appliance and a computer.  I'm used to being able to do what I want with my computers: something that reaches the heights with my various machines running Linux (two laptops and a desktop running Ubuntu 11.04, and a Mythbuntu system).  Even my most recent acquisition, a MacBook Pro laptop, falls into this category.  Despite the surface gloss, it's a Unix-like OS at heart.  The GUI may be remarkably limited in configuration possibilities, but I've still set up Perl scripts, done limited Bash scripting and negotiated aspects of networking, particularly for my backup system.  Significantly, I can install what I want, where I want, and put files where I want them.How different that is from iOS.  Applications selected from a tightly organised (and some might say censored) list.  Application install in some space in the filesystem, and the files associated with an application go in that application's defined filesystem space.  In fact it doesn't seem terribly easy to see the filesystem space!If anything demonstrates why I don't consider the iPad a computer it would be any one of those restrictions.  If the iPad was a proper personal computer, I would be able to install Flash on it.For me, the iPad remains a gadget, something that's a huge pleasure to use.  But it's not a personal computer, for there's no way it can replace any of my computers, be they running OS X, GNU/Linux or Windows.  It does come close.  I routinely use my iPad for quite a lot of things:

• - email/calendar access
• - navigating my music collection
• - remote access of computers by VNC
• - limited wordprocessing
• - reading pdfs
• - reading e-books (though it isn't as good as a Kindle)
• - web browsing (except for those sites using Flash)
• - simple games
• - watching TV (either from apps such as BBC iPlayer or from  my Mythbuntu box) and videos
• - Twitter, Facebook and the like

Much as I've tried several Office packages, none really come close to using a notebook or desktop PC, even when using a Bluetooth keyboard to speed text entry.