?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Make the world a better place in two easy steps!* 1) If I believe my… - Sally's Journal
December 20th, 2007
10:55 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Make the world a better place in two easy steps!*

1) If I believe my friends, which I do, the particle physics and astronomy funding has been slashed by 25%, not because of a conscious policy to spend the money on other things, but because of an admin fuck-up. There is a petition here, and a facebook group here (although the latter seems more aimed at young physicists than, err, anyone that wants to help and is interested, which I think is a mistake)

2) Go and vote on the NHS website about whether they should censor the genatalia on a "how your body works" diagram.

*Or make yourself feel better by shouting about bad things while achieving very little, I'm not sure.

(21 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:cjp39
Date:December 20th, 2007 11:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the links.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:woodpijn
Date:December 20th, 2007 11:36 am (UTC)
(Link)
Done.

So many people read your LJ that it's probably quite a powerful force for raising awareness of petitions etc. I'll bear that in mind next time I have a cause I feel strongly about :)
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I'm never quite sure what I'm allowed to do - being a civil servant I have to abide to certain bits of the civil service code that limits what I can do politically, and no-one can tell me whether this means I can sign petitions against things the government / NHS is doing. But I'm pretty sure I can tell people that such things exist ;-)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:liseuse
Date:December 20th, 2007 11:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
Done. Or at least, done for the physics one. I am about to do the NHS one.
[User Picture]
From:lavendersparkle
Date:December 20th, 2007 11:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
So the question is: should we have anatomically correct anatomical diagrams?

I think there's a clue in the question.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:gerald_duck
Date:December 20th, 2007 03:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Which is, of course, pretty-much how the Samaritans got founded: Chad Varah had to officiate at the funeral of a parisioner, a girl who'd committed suicide because she thought the blood coming from between her legs meant she had cancer.

I've e-mailed the full-body address.
[User Picture]
From:kaberett
Date:December 20th, 2007 05:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It always astonishes me to find out that family-walking-around-the-house-naked is somehow bad evil and wrong, because, er, it's what we do. (Where some of the rest of the family lives on a nudist colony. Um.)

Sally: done & done.
[User Picture]
From:azron
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
now, I'm not a techy, but if their voting system amounts to sending a blank email to one of those addresses, isn't lol spam going to be a problem?

(hopefully they're not actually going to read any and just go with the anatomically correct ones, and at least say "well we *did* ask...")
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So the correct answer is to publisise the "full diagrams" email address on as many websites as will be picked up by spam bots possible?
[User Picture]
From:azron
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
now I'm just pondering the "no willy" address getting sent "increase your manhood!!!" emails...
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You made me laugh out loud at the office. Evil man.
From:mtbc100
Date:December 20th, 2007 02:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well the mailto: link fills in the subject and body of the message too, which is useless to me because I don't attach a mailer to my webbrowser.
[User Picture]
From:plinthy
Date:December 20th, 2007 12:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thank you!
[User Picture]
From:emperor
Date:December 20th, 2007 02:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Pah, they should fund biologists more instead :-)
[User Picture]
From:3c66b
Date:December 20th, 2007 02:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
They *are* funding biologists more -- they're the big winners in this spending review.

I've always thought there should be a way of voting against these 10 Downing Street petitions. (Though in this case I'm quite glad there isn't.)
[User Picture]
From:kaberett
Date:December 20th, 2007 05:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've always thought there should be a way of voting against these 10 Downing Street petitions.

The answer appears to be "start a counter-petition" - I think you'll find it in the FAQ, but I'm Working Diligently (nod) so amn't going to look.
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:December 22nd, 2007 08:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I understood that the particle physics and astronomy funding hadn't been cut at all, it's just that the research council had spent the money on something else. This seems to me to be a problem with the research council, not a problem with the government. Of course it's a problem for physicists, and there's an argument that the government should bail them out, although there's also a contrary argument that if you bail people out when they overspend, then they'll always overspend.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:December 22nd, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
AIUI there were two research councils, the one with the overspend and the one that does astronomy etc. And the government wanted them to merge, and the one that does astronomy etc said "but they have a large overspend, we don't want to merge with them in case it affects us". And the government said "Don't worry. We'll guarentee it won't affect you, now merge with the other research council like we want you to". And then the government forgot to put the money into the joint pot to fulfil the guarentee. Or something like that. But it is all urban legend and folk rumour I have heard.
Powered by LiveJournal.com