Malpractice making perfect sense

On the way to deliver another Scholarly Activity workshop in Manchester, I've found in today's papers yet another victory for reason and common sense dressed up as some sort of attack on Christianity by sections of our more reactionary press.

Happily for those of us who believe that only evidence based treatments have any credibility, Lesley Pilkington has lost her appeal against getting struck off by the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy for professional malpractice, or in other words trying to "cure" homosexuality with a combination of counselling and prayer.

This so-called reparative therapy considers the sin of homosexuality to be an illness which can be put right by supernatural implorations, and even apparently asked a patient if any of his relatives were Freemasons, although how this could be connected wasn't explained in court or in Mrs Pilkington's post hearing interview.

She did however say that "counsellors with traditional views are being closed down": a statement I hope is a refection of our legislators' efforts nationwide . She's entitled to her views, no matter how irrational they are, but they have no place in a professional, scientific arena, and certainly should never be foisted on what might be very vulnerable individuals.

Newsflash: 30 pieces of silver replaced by a pen

Idly flicking through the television channels while the cricket's rained off, I've come across what appears to a be loop of adverts aimed the elderly, the infirm, the very poor, the unemployed and in this case: me.

In amongst this heavy rotation of lawyers, loan sharks (do some people really think 1750% loans are a good idea?) and bingo there's good old Sir Michael Parkinson telling the over 50s how to cover their funeral costs and get a free pen. Apparently over 790,000 people have agreed to partake in a scheme that promises a limited lump sum on death, even though contributions are not.

This static nest egg won't rise even when you've covered it, but your payments continue until your last breath, so suppose you pay £20 every month and live to 94? It's not hard to see that you'll pay out over double what you'd get back, but if you unfortunately died at 93, neither you nor your dependents would get anything.

Not exactly a good deal, and one that any reputable insurance company could easily improve on, but perhaps Sir Michael doesn’t see it that way.
Maybe he really believes in this "investment".
Maybe he even has one himself.
Maybe he really is so in need of whatever AXA are paying him that misleading the elderly doesn't bother him in the slightest ...