UK FA talent transfer programme

pitch2podium@UK SportPitch2Podium is a new and exciting programme created by UK Sport, the English Institute of Sport (EIS) and our partners within the football authorities (Football Association, Professional Footballers’ Association, Premier League and Premier League Learning, The Football League, and League Football Education). The aim of the programme is to provide young footballers who have

last stage of preparation for Beijing Olympics

Bright idea@Straits TimesOlympics-Singapore swimmer uses hi-tech method to dazzle@Reuters

Political tricks

Politicians have always been experts not just at outright lies, but also at clever mind games such as push polling , straw man arguments , weasel words ( want some examples?) and the politics of fear. It's important to be aware of these methods as awareness and understanding of how they work is the best way to defend against them.

However, one method that works particularly well - a method related to the politics of fear - is very simple: opinion presented as fact (OPAF).

OPAF is rampant in politics. Often the claims can be subtle or malicious enough to seem true, and a favourite trick is to use exaggerated or embellished evidence that seems to corroborate the claim. In other cases however, the accusation or observation is simply based on strong dislike or even hatred.

It never ceases to amaze me that people take some outrageous claims for granted.

Let's take one random example of a ridiculous claim.

"The XYZ party is a party of drunk drivers".

The chances are such an OPAF is being stated because of one or two news items about members of the XYZ party being arrested for DUI. However, with liberal media being what it is and psychological elements such as the belief confirmation bias , people often lose perspective of quantity. They can begin to truly believe that the actions of two people can represent the actions of two thousand people.

The antidote is simple - ask for genuine evidence that the majority or even a significant portion of the party have been caught DUI. When such evidence cannot be presented, ask why somebody is stereotyping a whole party for the actions of a tiny fraction. In short, simply point out the truth - the accuser is using OPAF.

So how can we take a moral high ground and rise above OPAF? Simple, use citeable, credible evidence whenever making factual claims. Of course, not everything on the net is reliable evidence for use in a debate. However, the wealth of information is such that a credible source relating to almost any topic can be found if the user looks hard enough. Government sources (despite their obvious vested agenda) , the Election Commission web site , broadsheets or Berliners such as The Times or The Telegraph (though again, there is an NUJ vested interest) and scholarly papers are just some examples of credible sources that can be used. Credible sources such as these add value and respectability well over that of OPAF to any educated person.

Of course many other sites - such as my own here - are not neutral. But some non-neutral sites can offer useful links or at least present logical arguments against OPAF. A cognisant person should be able to detect the difference and discriminate accordingly.

Don't forget to cite your sources. At the very least, a mention of the web site (not just a link, but an actual sentence stating the site's name and source) should be used when copying chunks of text or any other situation where he writer could even risk being seen as using plagarism or simply when sources are likely to be scrutinised or queried. For citing academic works such as books, use one of these styles.

Again, a simple link with no description is not enough and would be considered very poor taste.

Using such evidence should help you wade through the murky swamps of politics, but take heart! At least we have a swamp to wade in. Less than half The World's nations live in a democracy and fewer still have a democracy as mature as ours. For all its many faults, the UK political system remains one of the best.

The judiciary stuns the government

You read it here just days before the new wave of big stories. In fact, I was so spot on that just eight days after my blog, Samak highlighted the issue himself.

And now we have the SC decision upholding the charges against Youngyuth of vote fraud.

The comminque by foreign minister Noppadom concerning Preah Vihear is declared unconstitutional. (The cabinet could be impeached by the 49% appointed senate).


And health minister Chaiya Sasomsup disqualified from his post by the Constitutional Court.

It's also worth noting the former charge was initiated by the Election Commission and the later by the post -Thaksin NCCC line up.

The courts are now reeling off a series of verdicts on various cases that is heaping pressure on the government and there are more to come. The ongoing charges against Thaksin and his family could change the face of Thai politics.


Judges in Thai courts are selected by a Judicial Commission panel of senate appointed experts (remember the senate is 49% appointed itself) and serving judges. The choices must be submitted to His Majesty the King for formal selection and approval. The junta of 2007 increased the retirement age of judges to sixty five and oversaw the dissolution trial of Thai Rak Thai.

salivary IgA is the key of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI)

Saliva holds the key to reducing upper respiratory illness in athletes@Loughborough UniThe study involved 38 athletes from the prestigious America’s Cup yacht raceThe study was carried out over 50 weeks and subjects were from a top yacht crew preparing for the 32nd America’s Cup (2007). Athletes provided weekly saliva samples and rated their level of fatigue, while their sailing and training load

UK Centre for Coaching Excellence will be open

UK Centre for Coaching Excellence to open at Leeds Metropolitan University@UK SportThe Centre will be the first of its kind in the United Kingdom and will benefit up-and-coming coaches in a wide range of sports to help them reach the top and help drive a legacy of sporting success for British athletes.The Centre will focus on four areas of development:* High Performance: for coaches of athletes

Unruly TV stations and mad doctors

PTV is a TV station set up by affiliates of Thai Rak Thai and PPP (People Power Party) initially to voice opposition to the junta, and now to counter the reasonably successful campaign by the PAD (People's Alliance for Democracy). The PAD are led by Sonthi Limthongkul who is the owner of ASTV. As such, ASTV supply almost 24 hour coverage to PAD activities. The PPP obviously see the resurrection of PTV (it was closed down for unclear reasons during the junta's rule) as the ideal counter strike.

There's just one problem. It is a blatant and shameless constitutional breech. One of the (few) plus points of the new constitution is that it clearly states people in positions of political power cannot hold a financial interest in any media outlet. It's a progressive, positive rule.

So how can Chaturon (former TRT leader) and Jakrapob get away with this?

The Nation:

Amid growing pressure from PTV's opponents to ban the station's broadcasts, Phachern Khampho said such authority actually lies with the National Broadcasting Commission, which will be established in the near future.

Great, so it's goverened by a group that does not yet exist and, if the National Telecom Commission is comparable, will not exist for some time yet.


Still, hopefully someone will lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court.

*************

Another interesting side show is Democrat MP Malinee Sukwenworakij's bizarre rant in Parliament claiming that Samak suffered mental deficiency. MP Malinee claimed that Samak's behaviour such as glaring at reporters displayed evidence of mental sickness. Malinee went so far as to hold up a book entitled "Sick people that ruled the world" (Samak hardly rules the world does he?) which apparently includes Hitler as one of its case studies.

Samak rightly responded that her medical licence should be reviewed as no doctor should be diagnosing people in Parliament.

Malinee responded by claiming she was speaking from personal opinion. If that was so, why did she need to cite her qualification as a doctor to back up her arguments? I doubt many medics want to be dragged into the circus of Thai politics and I personally would not want a GP who is so childish as to do such things. I have no love for Samak and I wonder myself if he is not a cymbal short of a drumkit, but Dr Malinee is just as bad.