Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts

Monday, 14 February 2011

PhDamaged

I've never had a problem with the Royal Mail. I've always used their services with minimal fuss before, and I've always found myself sympathising with the postal staff when whatever smarmy dick in government cuts their funding, criticises them and generally hamstrings their ability to provide a decent service in what appears to be a rather transparent effort to force the Royal Mail into privatisation.

However, something happened recently as a result of a postal service employee that I can't actually overlook, and have decided that I really must lodge a complaint about it. Of course, I don’t expect anything to be done as a result of my complaining, so I thought I'd share it with the general public (or the select few who actually read this guff), so that at least the incident will be known about.

Here's my complaint, in all its dweeby glory.

"Dear Sir/Madam

Although I have never before had any particular grievance with the Royal Mail that ranks above a moderate irritation, I am sad to say that this is no longer the case. I am writing to you to register a serious complaint regarding a recent delivery I received at my Cardiff Bay address. The rather complex and surprisingly verbose guide to making a complain found on the Royal mail website states that, when submitting a complaint in writing, I should be as detailed as possible. I shall warn you now that, in this case, that may have been an ill-judged request on your part. So, here goes.

Last week I was away for a 5 day period, from the 7th to the 11th of February. My wife and I, who also lives at the same address for obvious reasons, went to Rome as part of her 30th Birthday celebrations. Yes, we had a very nice time, thanks for asking. One restaurant we visited had run out of mussels for the dish I wanted, and my wife did step in some particularly pungent dog 'mess' one evening (suggesting that Italian pet food is also much richer and varied than typical British offerings, but this one encounter provided insufficient data for such a generalisation), but apart from these incidents it was a very enjoyable time.

We returned to the UK at around 2pm on Friday the 11th, landing at Bristol and making our way back to Cardiff. After navigating the baffling route from this low-key airport, encountering numerous delays offered by Friday afternoon traffic along the seemingly perpetual but constantly unoccupied road works on the M4 between Newport and Cardiff, and stopping at a nearby Asda to stock up on perishables that weren't readily available in Italy and/or suitable for transporting via suitcases in the hold of a passenger jet (e.g. Bread, semi-skimmed milk, explosive materials), we arrived back at our address around 3.30pm.

As we live in a multi-story block of flats, our mailbox is located at the rear of our building, in the car park by the back entrance. As a result, we always check our relatively low-capacity mailbox before entering the building. In this case, we were encumbered by 3 suitcases (one of which weighed over 20 kg, according to the Easyjet check-in desk in the Roman airport) and 5 bags of shopping, which we had to carry up 3 flights of stairs. I had also just spent nearly 3 hours driving after a 2.5 hour flight, so was in a rather 'frazzled' state, shall we say. So perhaps you can appreciate that my reaction to what I found in the mailbox was remarkably restrained in the circumstances.

As I said, we had been away for several days, and it was the week of my wife's 30th Birthday. As a result, the mailbox was relatively full. It was mostly birthday cards, several bills, some official correspondence from my wife's workplace, and general flyers and advertising material from local businesses (coincidentally, regarding our recent holiday destination, the latter were mostly from Pizza delivery outlets).

However, among this predictable collection of mail, there was a large, stiff card-backed envelope wedged to one side. Here is what it looked like (minus the other mail, for clarity)











It doesn't look great, I'll admit, but if it won't fit I guess there is no alternative but to force it in and hope for the best (although I would suggest you avoid using this phrase as a defence in court, just so you know).

However, a closer inspection proved to be a very infuriating experience. Here is a clear view of the front of the envelope.











In case of any problems with the hosting or formatting of these images, I'll describe the envelope in detail so we both know what I'm referring to. The top left corner features a label with the return address, which is the registry office of Cardiff University. Under this, in slightly faint red letters, are stamped the words 'First class'. I'm not sure the expense of first class is meant to rule out the 'jam it in a too-small space and hope for the best' style of delivery, so I won't question that. Just above the centre is a smaller label with my name and home address on it. The most prominent feature of the envelope is to the bottom left, where the words 'Please do not bend' are stamped in large, clear red letters. This phrase is, in this context, quite ironic, being as it is quite visibly presented below a blatant large fold right across the centre of the envelope, which undeniably results from the envelope having been severely bent in order to get it into the mailbox, when it was delivered by someone whose job it is to deliver mail safely and correctly.

The photo also features my left hand, my mailbox and those of my neighbours, and part of the building car park. I believe these details are irrelevant.

This 'Do not bend' envelope that had been bent was alarming and frustrating. Despite the fact that a large and reputable institution like Cardiff University had gone to the effort of sending whatever this was in via first class in a hard-backed envelope (as is made clear by even the most cursory inspection of it), I could only hope that it was something unimportant.

Here is what was inside it.











In case it's not made clear by the picture, the envelope contained a certificate. Specifically, it contained my PhD certificate, the legal document which states that, after 5 years of research, study, writing and infuriating delays, I am now officially a doctor. I need this document to prove to the passport office, my bank, the DVLA and numerous other students that my title is has now, by law, changed from, or 'Mr.' to 'Dr.' (or 'Mister' to 'Doctor' if, as 'the Dude' said in 'The Big Lebowski', you're not into the whole brevity thing).

My PhD has been subjected to many delays, resulting from lab shutdowns, numerous re-writes, questionable decisions by external examiners, and other factors. As a result, I have effectively been waiting for this document for over 18 months. To finally receive it, but have it treated with such blatant disdain and lack of care by a member of the postal service was quite galling (although I had to admit it was rather ironically symbolic of the way my PhD efforts have been treated by external agencies, but that's another matter)

As said, this certificate is an important document legally. I've not heard back from my enquiries about how much it would cost to get a replacement, but it's not likely to be cheap. A replacement birth certificate costs to replace, and those are far more common, and my PhD certificate took a lot more work to obtain than my birth certificate (although my mother may dispute this conclusion).

I have struggled to come up with a logical explanation for why a postal employee would actively damage an extremely important piece of mail that did not belong to them in clear contradiction of the blatant instructions presented on the package itself, and have failed to do so. I have come up with and ruled out several options. These are listed here, as are my reasons for dismissing them. If you feel I have made a logical error then please feel free to correct me.

So, why would they do this?

1: The Postman felt the package was too urgent to take back to the depot? Although a potentially well-intended action, this doesn't really excuse the damage to my document. If the postman was forward thinking enough to predict I would require the document with some urgency, he would presumably have had the wherewithal to notice that there were several other pieces of mail already in the mailbox from previous deliveries (this delivery is postmarked 10-02-2011, the day before we returned home). I appreciate that he may have considered this delivery important enough to risk damaging in spite of the obvious instructions, and in spite of the fact that I clearly wasn't collecting my mail at present, but that's not his decision to make.

2: The Postman felt that taking the package back to the depot was a bit excessive and unnecessarily costly? Again, potentially well meant, but not really his decision to make, even if it was for my benefit. And in all honesty, this would run contrary to previous experiences I've had with packages from Royal Mail. Most recently I received a 'failed to deliver' card, and was made to drive to the main depot and pay the excess on what was declared 'a package'. What it was was a small envelope with a thank you card from a friend based in Oxford whom I had recently done a talk for. She sent me the card, but it was deemed too big to be considered a letter because it contained the cap from my USB stick which I had mistakenly left behind. The cap had the dimensions and weight of a slightly-thicker-than-average thumbnail, but this was still considered too big to be delivered. So you can hopefully understand my being sceptical of a postman willing to deliver something which is clearly much larger than the hole it has to go into.

3: The postman was angry with me for some reason: The damaged delivery may have been due to malicious intent. Admittedly, there have been several times before when a delivery has been too big for my letterbox and the postman has contacted me via the building intercom, and there is usually a delay between me answering and arriving at the letterbox, but this is because I live on the 3rd floor and we don't have a lift. If this relatively minor delay is deemed sufficient reason to damage my property, then I'm somewhat stuck as, aside from bodily hurling myself down the 3 flights of stairs, I can't see a way to get down there faster than I already do. Even if I did do that, I doubt I'd be in any fit state to sign for packages by the time I got to the bottom. I suppose it's possible that it's traditional to tip postmen at Christmas as is the norm with dustmen, but as I rarely ever encounter the postmen I have no idea how I would go about doing this, and it still isn't really an excuse to damage my documents.

4: The postman responsible can't actually read: It's feasible that the postman who delivered the document damaged it because he couldn't read the instructions telling him not to. However, if this is the case, then he would also have been unable to read the much smaller and less clear information regarding the address, so usually just guesses which items should be delivered where. In this situation, the fact that I actually received the document addressed to me at all should be considered an occurrence so unlikely that it actually constitutes a miracle. If you find the postman in question, can you ask him for a guess regarding this week's lottery numbers? At the very least, contact the Vatican so he can be canonised after he dies.

5: The postman is blind and could not see the letterbox: If this is the case, the argument from the previous possibility is just as valid, if not more so. But it begs the question of how he knew to fold it to fit into the smaller hole, if he is blind? I can only hope that he wasn't the one driving the van if this possibility turns out to be correct.

In summary, I received a highly important, legally essential and long overdue (but the latter was nothing to do with you) document that was specifically labelled with instructions to treat with care and specifically not to bend, which was treated with no apparent care, bent rather severely and inserted into an already rather full mailbox.

The certificate is, after all this, intact. I could feasibly leave it under some heavy books or iron it in some way and it would be usable, but I shouldn't have to do this and it is quite scuffed after the delivery. This certificate, which took me an incredible amount of time, effort and expense to obtain, would usually be displayed quite prominently in my home (or, as is more likely, my mother's home) for the for the rest of my life, but it was damaged before I even saw it thanks to the manner in which it was delivered.

I don't really anticipate much being done about this, but I felt it necessary to lodge a formal complaint in case it happens again. I have several friends who work in medicine, and if they were to be sent important but delicate patient scans which were damaged in this manner, it could cost some their life.

Actually, I can't think of any circumstance where crucial patient scans would be sent to a doctors home via Royal mail, so please ignore that previous attempt to introduce some gravitas to this complaint.

I sincerely doubt anything will actually come of this complaint beyond someone being told not to do it again. But I feel I should let you know that this has also been posted to my bizarrely popular blog so that people know it is something that can occur when they send potentially important packages. It's a final, bitter irony that, as a result, it's almost certain that more people will read this complaint than will ever read the thesis that got me the PhD (and subsequently the certificate) in the first place.

Yours sincerely


Dean Burnett"

StumbleUpon.com

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Animal Testing Blog: Some interesting reactions

Yesterday, I put this up.

Originally a spoken piece for the Pod Delusion, I thought it wise to put a written version up as well. Obviously, I made it as provocative as possible (in the title at least) to get attention, and also to vent a bit at the violent campaigners who feel it's fine to intimidate and threaten people in my profession.

And it is the violent, law-breaking, threatening ones I a talking about, not the respectful, organised, official campaigners. They're generally all right, I agree with them on most issues as well. I thought I'd made this clear in my piece. Apparently not. My bad, I suppose. Some of the responses have been quite interesting.

A lot of the traffic is coming from Metafilter. My piece has come under a lot of criticism, but primarily (at least at first) because they don't think it's funny. Fair enough, other people do, and they have credited me with far less self-awareness than than I do in fact possess (e.g. I'm fully conscious of the fact that making meat-based references in an animal-rights rant are neither 'edgy' nor particularly original), and if you listen to the Pod Delusion episode I hope you'll pick up on the sarcastic tone with which I make the aforementioned jokes. But then that's the problem with text; inflection is hard to get across. But no matter.

The comments on the blog post are a joy to behold, feel free to scan them. From interesting, considered criticisms to insane religiously-inspired condemning of me and my soul. And again, a lot of people feel that attempts to insert comedy into my rant nullifies the points I'm trying to make. An understandable viewpoint, but not one I agree with. I've learned first hand that inserting humour into serious things makes people MORE likely to listen and take it in, not less. Hence The Daily Show and its ilk are seen by many as the most reliable news source in the states, and Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell in the UK are arguably the most popular and respected pundits on all manner of subjects; they can take hard truths and unpleasant facts, and deliver them in an incredibly amusing, entertaining fashion. I would never claim to be capable of their standard of writing, but I'm willing to give it a go.

Also, this has always been a comedy blog, which has developed a worrying number of regular readers. A deadly-serious, passionate rant about such a controversial subject would be incredibly jarring. So I tried to stay 'in character', as it were.

Now, the fun begins.

My blog was lifted wholesale and posted on the animal activists website named 'negotiation is over'. The title alone shows what their stance on the issue is. I believe the lovely devout Lisa who bemoaned my toxic heart in the comments section is there. I do like the way it's put up as if I actually voluntarily sent them the piece to put up like a prick, and I love how I'm introduced as 'Mutilator Dean Burnett', but seriously, check out the website comments if you want to see extreme vitriol and a complete disregard for Godwin's Law.

Interestingly, my old school headmaster was called Mister Godwin, and he was a bit of a racist right-winger if memory serves. Life's weird like that sometimes.

And finally, the emails. I've had a few. Some have been supportive. Some have been critical but nice with it, some have been like this. Being a shameless attention seeker, I can't help but reply.

Subject: france
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:39:22 +0000

i'm french and i FUCK YOU, you says "go fuck" to animal lover ?

Come to see me in Marseille, i will show you, who will fuck who ... may be your mother want to come ? i will fuck her too !!!

BITCH !!


Thank you, Anonymous French person

Maybe it's a translation thing? At no point did I say "go fuck" to animal lovers, I'm not sure that even works as a threat or a command in English, but what I was trying to say was "go fuck yourselves" to people who think it's OK to threaten and intimidate people doing essential scientific research. Most animal lovers don't do that, so telling them to "go fuck" would be pointless.

I've never been to Marseille, is it nice? I'm actually quite busy at the moment, but I'll see what my mother is up to if you like, she's due a vacation.

Cheers again for the email, it will make an excellent addition to my blog.

All the best



I really Like to be a part of your blog thanks You !!!
Essential reSearch ?? CAN i laugh ? Essential money may be You want to say !

I don't like what i've readed when You speak about vivisection, and Marseille is not Nice ... Don't take vacation here, it's very dangerous.

Please link me your blog, this Will may be give me some buzz !!!!!! Thanks!!!

Nico

Anonymous French person is named Nico, as it happens. He/She doesn't like me and my kind. Fair enough, it's just nice to get the attention.



From: smaragda@icon.co.za
To: humourology
Subject: FEEL FREE TO FUCK YOURSELF TOO
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:25:43 +0200
THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? JUST CANNOT GET MYSELF TO LAUGH. AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU'RE OUT OF A JOB?
To: smaragda@icon.co.za
Subject: FEEL FREE TO FUCK YOURSELF TOO
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:25:43 +0200
Thank you, Anonymous person in South Africa

Thanks for the email. Not sure if it's a formatting thing, or if you meant it to be written in such a massive font, but rest assured that I read it fine, especially as I have a particularly large computer monitor as well

I'm sorry you didn't laugh at my article, that's the problem with comedy, it's very subjective, and it is a tricky subject to make jokes about. A lot of the crap jokes were deliberately inserted to lighten the tone in a self-depreciation style, but it's tricky to get this across in print.

There are many reasons for me being out of a job, partly because I'm an average Doctor of Neuroscience, not a great one, and partly because my wife's job means I'm geographically limited. Believe it or not, the inability to make random strangers in other countries laugh is not seen as a handicap when applying for scientific vacancies, so I tend not to mention it on my CV.

Cheers for the email, it will make an excellent addition to my blog.

All the best
From: smaragda@icon.co.za
To: humourology
BLAH BLAH BLAH ONCE YOU START TALKING SENSE ABOUT ANIMALS MAYBE PEOPLE WILL LISTEN. AS FOR THE REST, NOBODY'S INTERESTED IN YOU'RE LITTLE LIFE.

That last part is quite a strange thing for stranger who felt it necessary to abuse me via email to say, when you think about it.

And then it got serious

Diana Meinor

Mr. Burnett -

I am writing after having read your recent blog post at Science Digestive in
which you defend caging and killing nonhuman animals. I believe that this
will be appropriately interpreted by many as an open call to violence on
your part against nonhumans. In other words, it's an act of aggression.

In the course of the post you acknowledge being "trained and experience in
animal testing" and that you are "not ashamed". This means that you are not
a mere advocate for violence against the innocent but also an assailant.

I suspect that none of what I am saying comes as a surprise to you. Suffice
it to say that you have not gone unnoticed.

Sincerely,
Diana Meinor

To:
Diana Meinor

Thank you Diana

My post also contains the following phrases

"the conclusion that 'innocent creatures suffering is bad' is a very hard one to disagree with, and I won't attempt to do so"

"Huntington’s life sciences did terrible things to animals all those years ago, nobody is disputing that. If they are, they need to be escorted to the nearest padded room as soon as possible."

"I've worked in animal labs, and I've yet to meet anyone who, despite the accusations and implications, actually enjoys animal experimentation. Pretty much everyone who does it manages to develop a necessary sense of detachment, but it's never easy. As I always strive to point out, the vast majority of scientists are actually people, and we don't like psychopaths or sadists any more than the next person."

"A suffering animal is, scientifically, pretty much useless"

"the logic of scientific research means it's essential that animal subjects experience as little discomfort as possible."

"if there was an effective substitute that offered the same complexity and sophistication offered by a living organism, we'd be using it."

"Someone once asked me 'what gives us the right to decide how and when an animal dies?' I genuinely don't know, nor do I know if we can be said to have the right to anything we do as a species"

All of these phrases clearly advocate and support the ethical treatment of animals, for reasons of scientific research and basic morality. The fact that you have chosen to take select quotes and jump to wide conclusions that you use to make thinly veiled threats to me suggests that you have no interest in rational debate or discourse.

I doubt this will make any difference to your views, but as depressing as it is to have to resort this, I have forwarded your email to the relevant authorities such as the police.

I hope we can remain civil about this

Dr. Burnett


There's always someone who has to ruin it by making actual threats. I'll put up any further interesting ones if/when I get them.

People have described me as 'brave' for saying what I did. I don't think so, I'm just an attention seeker. But it's nice to know it's having some effect, as the responses clearly show. Fun times!

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

StumbleUpon.com

Sunday, 19 September 2010

A letter to the BBC, about Science Reporting

For the background to this article, please see Prof. David Colquhoun's brilliant (and genuine) post regarding the BBC asking for comments regarding their science reporting.

What follows is my effort, which I emailed and which may ruin everything. I did say it wasn't meant to be taken literally, but still. Ah well...


Dear BBC

I was recently informed that you are, whether by choice or inadvertently, soliciting opinion regarding science reporting on the BBC. No doubt you have received several well informed and articulate observations from a variety of expert science bloggers, and I would wholeheartedly recommend you to take their advice on board.

Admittedly, if you don’t there is nothing significant I can do about it apart from withhold my license fee, in which case I’ll be severely fined or jailed, neither of which really seem like preferable options to ‘crap science coverage’, if I’m totally honest. You’ve got me over a barrel before I even start, so any threats would be completely empty. So I won’t bother.

Although technically I am regarded as a Science blogger, I’d describe myself as more of a science humour writer if I was forced to give a title to whatever it is I spend my time doing for the amusement of strangers. As such, my following recommendations will be posted on my blog which people still keep reading for no discernible reason and are FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. Feel free to consider them by any means, but if you do and it turns out to be a bad idea, then I’m covered. I’m aware that this is a weasely trick, allowing me to make wild claims and influence your behaviour while removing all accountability on my part. I got the idea from watching the programmes featuring psychics.

Here are my concerns regarding Science reporting with the BBC.

BALANCE: The primary and most pressing concern regarding BBC science reporting is the obsession with ‘balance’, and no doubt others who have contacted you will say the same. Although it is understandable to present opposing viewpoints in a news story of concern, the extent to which this is done regarding science stories is completely baffling. Actual scientists train for years in order to earn the right to be described as such, they don’t have to have just printed a business card themselves after reading a book about how pretty rocks give you better Karmic enemas or the like. Two such individuals should not be given equal time to express their views on an important subject.

In an ideal world, the amount of time given to an individual arguing a specific viewpoint or opinion should be directly proportional to the evidence they can muster to support their claims. In this instance, two scientists arguing the pros and cons of a new experimental drug would have equal time to get their point across. However, in the case of contentious subjects like alternative medicine or climate change, the qualified scientist would be able to deliver a 5+ hour monologue on the subject and the basis for his views, whereas arguments from pseudoscientists or climate change deniers would be like that bit in Fight Club where Brad Pit’s character splices single frames of pornography into children’s films at the cinema; We’d get the occasional flash which is too brief to actually recognise, but causes a subconscious feeling of unease.

Failing this, if the dedication to ‘balance’ is to be maintained, then logically it should be applied to all areas of reporting. Every political debate should not be limited to the major parties with the possible addition of an extra one, but should include the input from every person involved with politics with a differing opinion. We have a chap in Cardiff who keeps running for political office under the name of ‘Captain Beany’. I would very much like to hear his position on the upcoming economic cuts or the stability of the housing market.

At the very least, every news report (including natural disasters or major terrorist incidents) should give equal time to someone pointlessly claiming that the events being discussed never happened, based on the argument that they weren’t there to observe them. You may think this is ridiculous, but you’re the ones who seem to think anecdotal evidence is just as valid as the actual kind.

PEOPLE’S ‘INPUT’: I have no problem with people, I am one. And as a broadcasting corporation, the approval of the people who fund you is obviously important to you. However, when it comes to science reporting, I don’t really care what people think, unless the science in question is based on theories about what people think. This reflects back to the balance issue discussed previously, but it is understandable that you want to represent the views and opinion of the licence paying public, but that isn’t how science works.

People may pay their license fees, but this does not mean their opinions carry equal weight on subjects outside of their areas of expertise/interest. Science and the NHS are also funded by the taxes people pay, but you don’t see Mary (Accountant, Stoke-on Trent) performing major heart surgery, or Brian (Plumber, Grantham) having a go on the advanced particle accelerators, purely because they help fund these things. Because that would be mad.

This goes for the supposed ‘balance’ when presenting pseudoscientific arguments; it’s obvious that many people believe in things like homeopathy and acupuncture, but why must they be catered for to such an extent? A lot more people are technically overweight, but I have yet to see a programme called ‘Being Fat is Fabulous (with James Corden)’, or something like that. Plenty of shows like Jamie’s school dinners where unhealthy eating is criticised and borderline mocked. If overweight people want respect and consideration, they should start banging on about the magical healing properties of water that’s been slapped around a bit? This is a bizarre system to operate under.

Involving the general public in science programmes that are nothing to do with them does not reflect science or it’s workings and could be viewed as a cynical attempt to avoid doing research and pandering to the wider audiences. The general public shouldn’t be involved with science on TV, unless it’s a programme about Sociology, although the jury’s still out on whether that is actually a science*

HAIR: As is the case with most fields, I notice that the BBC has several ‘big names’ when it comes to reporting science; Hawking, Dawkins and Attenborough, mainly.

(n.b. ‘Hawking, Dawkins and Attenborough sounds like an excellent title for a comedy/drama series where the three of them have to travel the country solving science-related crimes and getting into various scrapes, sort of like ‘Big Bang theory’ meets ‘The A-team’. If this ends up being made, I expect a percentage of the royalties)

As brilliant and inspiring as these people can be, I notice a disturbing trend in their promotion to leaders of science; they each embody the ‘elaborate white hair’ look of a stereotypical scientist (although given Hawking’s physical condition, I’ll assume he doesn’t have much say or choice in his style). Although there is nothing wrong with this hairstyle, when taken in conjunction with other big-name scientists such as Simon ‘Pineapple’ Singh, Ben ‘Curly’ Goldacre, Brian ‘looks a bit like a mullet’ Cox and Robert ‘Gene Shalit’ Winston**, it shows a worrying bias against a very common type of male scientist; bald ones! As someone who expects to be a bald scientist myself very soon, I find this follicle-based discrimination quite alarming.

FASHION: Although I see a number of stories related to my area of expertise Neuroscience, this is to be expected as it is by far the coolest of all sciences. But other sciences are equally as important (but not as cool), so it is perhaps not fair to feature programmes and articles related to only to what the general public would find the more interesting. A greater range of sciences should be given more public exposure. Here are some possible titles.

· Pile-on the Nylon: an in-depth look at synthetic molecules (with James Corden)

· How now, Brown Cow?: an investigation into the impacts of technological developments of the last 50 years on the process of intensive farming (with Vernon Kay).

· Winning Smiles: The ins-and-outs of standard dental procedures, featuring a contest where contestants answer questions based on what happens in the show in order to win the ability to jump to the head of an NHS dentist waiting list (with Jonathon Ross)

· Text-tiles: interactive programme where viewers can text/email questions to a panel of leading experts in the field of construction and durable materials (with Ulrika Jonsson)

· Bother Down Below: A celebrity develops serious haemorrhoids and then goes undercover to reveal what really goes on in a typical proctology clinic (with James Corden)

‘FILLER’ SCIENTISTS: Although all scientists have trained to earn their titles, some are less credible than others. These scientists shouldn’t be treated with the same respect as others, lest it give the impression that their views are highly valued in the scientific community when they are in fact figures of ridicule.

Over the past year alone, BBC Scotland’s prestigious ‘Fred McCauley Show’ has had a guest ‘scientist’ to discuss topical issues they knew nothing about, and the BBC Radio programme ‘Moments of Genius’ even had no-name scientific wannabes making contributions alongside individuals such as Attenborough, Fry, Winston and Goldacre. This is not a wise use of license-payer’s money ***

I hope you will consider my comments carefully before rejecting them completely, which you really should do eventually.

Yours Sincerely


Dr Dean Burnett

* = It is, I’m just kidding. Honest!

** = All these people are brilliant and their hair is well good and that, my comments are fuelled by the burning resentment harboured by all this with significantly receding hairlines.

*** = Yeah, it was me on each occasion.

StumbleUpon.com

Social Network sharing gubbins