“According to a new study” is a phrase that should set your bullshit alarm ringing. Journalists don’t in general understand either the methodology or conclusions of published studies and instead seize on the most lurid parts of the accompanying press release. So, with that in mind, here we go:

According to a new study, cycling a lot can affect your fertility if you are a man. The latest study to suggest this is reported quite well here: Elite cyclists ‘risk infertility’.

The conclusions are sensible: “the average man cycling to work would be unlikely to suffer fertility problems because of their time in the saddle.” and “40 years ago cycling was much more common but there is no evidence men then were less fertile”. So there’s nothing to worry about, right?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My first son was conceived with the aid of a lot of expensive medical help (IVF to be precise), the reason: poor sperm motility and morphology. My second son was conceived the regular way. The only difference between the two pregnancies was that I’d stopped cycling after the first sperm tests.

My anecdotal evidence has no scientific weight at all but I would suggest the following things may be true:

1. 40 years ago saddles were a lot different to now. Lightweight racing saddles give you little room for manoeuvre (men, you know what I mean). A poor posture can lead to numbness and discomfort that lasts most of the day as I have found myself. If this is happening to you then consider the other long-term effects that might also be happening. Sort out your posture.
2. A short ride over bad roads (e.g. central London) might inflict damage equivalent to many more miles over a triathlon course. I believe that a modest amount of inner-city commuting might be the equivalent of 186 miles a week of triathlon training.
3. If your fertility is borderline anyway then it might take relatively little additional damage to make it noticeably more difficult to conceive.

The conclusions of the BBC article are sensible but do consider the personal risks to you rather than the general statistical results.

Also: none of the studies I’ve seen have ever investigated the effects of stopping cycling. From my own experience this had a positive effect on my fertility, but that’s not science. Please could somebody do a follow-up and investigate this aspect too?

Annoying journalistic habit note

How come the study talks about training amounts above and below 186 miles? Isn’t this a rather arbitrary figure to use for the study?

Yes, but of course the study was from a more enlightened country that uses OSI units for measuring distance. 186 miles is 300 kikometres. So the study drew the perfectly acceptable conclusion that around 300 kilometres a week was an amount that might contribute to infertility.

Converting this to exactly 186 miles is ridiculous for two reasons:

1. The original figure is stated to one significant figure. The equivalent imperial distance would be, say, 200 miles a week.
2. I am relatively aged, and I remember being taught metric units at school. Why oh why do we have to assume that people only understand our grandparents’ units?

Come on, journalists of Britain, most of us are not geriatric or imbeciles.

The rehabilitation of Keynesian economics that I mentioned here seems to be continuing. The fifth of my publicly-funded infrastructure projects now seems to be falling into place: Olympic Village to be fully funded by taxpayers. Just the Olympic Village for now, but all the developers are in poor financial shape and nobody will be surprised when the government steps in to bail out other areas of the project.

One of the other projects I mentioned was a high-speed rail link to the Midlands and beyond. Interestingly, Network Rail have announced today that they would like to electrify the existing Midland Main Line and finance it themselves. I don’t know what effect this will have on the business case for a new high-speed line – maybe the upgraded existing line will do the job?

I’ve decided to separate my thoughts on the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to another channel: This is not a riot

I think it’s OK to mix up a bit of cricket whimsy in with more technical posts about software development and social media, but religion and politics should probably be somewhere else.

For the record, I believe that the late decision to add the words “a constable” to Section 76 of the Act was a serious error. Most police officers are fair, honest and responsible. A very small minority sometimes aren’t. It is essential that members of the public can produce evidence of police misconduct on the rare occasions when it happens. The Act gives the power to any constable to prevent documentation of his actions and that is wrong.

That’s all I have to say on the subject in this place.

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

I took a reduced item to the till at my local Tesco this morning and they said it had been mispriced. They refused to sell it to me at the price on the yellow sticker even though it would have been straightforward to do so.

I told them this was an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (barrack room lawyer, me?), but all they did was take the item off me and try to destroy the evidence by defacing the price label with a pen. I considered summoning a constable or making a citizen’s arrest.

This then, is the secret of Tesco’s massive profits. Fraud^[1]. The spirit of Lady Shirley lives on!

Footnote: I believe the reason for their refusal lies in Tesco’s IT systems. Doubtless the bar code on the yellow reduced sticker is linked to an actual stock item with a sell-by date. The system would alert management that an item had been reduced before its correct date and the employee responsible would feel the full weight of Sir Terry’s wrath. Fearful of this, they would rather annoy their customers.

[1] I am not a lawyer. If I was I definitely wouldn’t accuse Tesco of fraud – I’d be too scared of their libel lawyers. Good job nobody reads this.

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

I posted yesterday about the value of photographing (and filming) police officers as a way of encouraging them to stay within their legal operating constraints. Since no action has been taken against police officers involved in the G20 demonstrations except when they were being filmed we can conclude one of two things:

1. No police officer acted inappropriately except the ones that were caught on film, or
2. Police officers are rarely disciplined unless they are caught in an inappropriate act by a member of the public or a journalist

If the first is true then that in itself is a testament to the value of universal public documentation of demonstrations. I sincerely hope this is the answer, not the second option.

At 3:50 in the above video a Territorial Support Group officer uses his armoured glove to hit a woman in the face. He then hits her with his baton. Don’t watch the assault, it’s not very edifying. Instead watch the forest of cameras that appear as soon as he starts to attack the woman.

The officer has now been suspended. Who thinks this would have happened without those cameras?

Who thinks that adding “constables” to Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 was a good idea?

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

A person commits an offence who—

• elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
  • a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
  • a member of any of the intelligence services, or
  • a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism

This is a quote from Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. This is the law that people like Cory Doctorow and Graham Linehan are citing when they write that it is illegal to take photographs of the police here in the UK.

Their interpretation is probably correct. Almost any information could be construed as useful to a terrorist. Even easier to demonstrate that it is likely to be useful.

So what happens if you are charged under this Act?

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

A naive person might read this and assume that the burden of proof had been placed on them to demonstrate they had a reasonable excuse. That’s what the law says isn’t it? Well no, says Tony McNulty, The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing during the passing of the Act:

If the defence says, “I was doing it simply for this reason,” as in our law generally, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that defence is not a reasonable excuse and therefore should be put aside.

and then goes on to say

In R v. K it was shown that there must be reasonable suspicion that the information was intended to be used to assist terrorism. Funnily enough, that is why that provision is in a terrorism Act. That would apply equally to new section 58A—the information must be likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing terrorism. Case law has been built up since the Act became law.

So do we trust Mr McNulty? His words are a matter of public record and they should be used by the courts as guidance in interpreting the law (It’s worth noting at this point that IANAL – I am not a lawyer).

The problem is that this clause now includes police officers, who would be responsible for making arrests under this law. If you want a definition of conflict of interest then there it is. It’s now open to police officers to arrest anybody who takes a picture of them by simply stating they believe the picture is likely to be useful to a potential terrorist. No actual terrorist needs to exist, no actual intention to use the photograph for terrorism needs to exist. Just a reasonable suspicion in the officer’s mind that the photograph could be used at any time in the future by anybody for such a purpose.

The Director of Public Prosecutions may not ultimately proceed with the case but the photographer has by now been removed from the scene he wishes to photograph just by the fact of the arrest. The prosecution is immaterial to the police officer, this law is just a tool he can use to remove photographers from anywhere he doesn’t want them to be.

Imagine an occasion where a police officer committed an act that was outside his remit. An illegal act that he didn’t want anybody to know about. An act that he was intending to commit so he removed his identification numbers and put a balaclava over his face. Of course you don’t have to imagine such an act, you can watch it here. Please do so, over and over again, while you think about the powers the police have under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

So let us trust Mr McNulty. His wise words will protect us. You may go out and photograph police officers all day if you so wish, so long as you have the reasonable excuse that not doing so allows them to commit with impunity acts like the one that preceded Ian Tomlinson’s death.

The only reason the police could not use the Act effectively during the G20 demonstrations was that everybody was filming and photographing everything. This is our best defence against misuse of the Act. Photographing police officers is your right and indeed your civic duty.

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

Back at the dawn of time (2006), I wrote a series of posts to record some things I believed in. These were things I believed without being able to prove they were true – naked belief.

I’m happy to say I still hold all these beliefs. Not that I cling to opinions when the facts change – I’m with Keynes on that one. But history has not demonstrated that any of these beliefs are wrong.

In fact, history has started to provide some evidence in favour of some of these beliefs.

Mutual societies

Today news emerged of the Dunfermline Building Society’s failure as a going concern. I claim this actually reinforces my belief that mutual societies should be some sort of protected species.

What went wrong seems to be the the Dunfermline stopped acting in the long-term interests of its members and started behaving as if it had shareholders. Making aggressive commercial loans and approving risky mortgages is not what a mutual society should be doing (unless it’s a mutual society of capital markets professionals).

So my belief is refined somewhat: mutual societies should be encouraged by (for example) favourable tax legislation but their activities should be constrained by some sort of covenant that members are made aware of when they join.

Apocalyptic internet event

You’re mad! was the usual reaction when I tried to persuade the pezzonovanti at my last company that there was a seismic event waiting to happen in the financial services industry.

Turns out I was right, but I’m not claiming to have predicted the sub-prime crisis. My event was to do with data security and it hasn’t happened yet. But the bots are gathering, and they are being expoited commercially in an ever more sophisticated way.

The datapocalypse is coming. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. There’s more than one black swan.

I have been having problems with a Firefox extension that disappeared whenever I upgraded either Firefox or the extension itself. My specific problem was with an extension called Firebug, but I’m betting this affects other add-ons too.

After extensive searching I eventually came up with an answer that worked for me. I’m posting it here so other people might avoid the hot tears of frustration that I cried trying to fix this.

The symptom

You choose a Firefox extension by clicking on the install link, the extension downloads and installs. You click the button to restart Firefox and the extension is simply not there. No error message, no indication why it failed. Just stubborn, passive-aggressive refusal to install. Arms folded, lips pursed, the extension just won’t do what you want. Gah.

The solution

Yes, it’s the old favourite – your virus checker. In my case all I had to do was open the AVG Anti-Virus control panel, double-click Resident Shield and unclick the “Resident Shield active” checkbox. Click on Save Changes. Then if you repeat the Firefox estension install you should find it installs OK.

Don’t forget to turn your virus checker back on afterwards.

Cricket South Africa (CSA) has made a strong move in the war to be the most ridiculous cricket governing body in the world. Don’t forget this is big-league stuff – cricket’s governing bodies are strong contenders for The World’s Worst Sports Governing Body.

Following on from brilliant efforts by the ECB[1], the WICB[2] and the ICC[3], CSA have appointed the likeable Ashwell Prince as the stand-in captain for the next Test Match then relieved him of the captaincy 24 hours later, appointing one of the world’s least popular cricketers in his place – Jacques Kallis.

This is on top of moving him from his favoured middle-order position to open the batting in place of the injured Graeme Smith. And dropping Neil Mackenzie for the crime of scoring 1073 runs in 2008 at an average of 50+.

Moves like this always reveal underlying tensions in the governing body and team management. In this case the arrival of Mike Procter as the head of selectors seems to have been the catalyst. But it’s unfair to blame Procter for this collapse into incompetence. Somebody appointed him (Gerald Majola presumably).

CSA needs to get its act together quickly, or the relocated ICC Champions Trophy will join the long list of international tournaments that have made cricket a laughing stock in world sport.

[1] The England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) quite appropriately conceals the Welsh element from its abbreviation since cricket is a long tail sport in the principality. Notwithstanding this, the ECB have chosen the hotly-anticipated 2009 Ashes series to introduce a new venue to the Test Match roster. One that is smaller than all the other venues on the circuit. One that is not even the largest stadium in its town, or even the second largest. One that is in Wales.

[2] Where to start? The West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) is responsible for squandering the revenue from the 2007 World Cup and Sir Allen Stanford’s brief flirtation with cricket in the region. The result has been white-elephant stadiums in places that ordinary West Indians can’t get to and which aren’t even fit to play the game. CLR James would weep, as should everybody else.

[3] Venal and incompetent, the International Cricket Council is dominated by Indian television revenue making it difficult for it to take a neutral view of world cricket. Incapable of running a decent tournament itself, it tries to avoid blame for other international cricket disasters by disassociating itself from, well, international cricket.

Quick links: Source code | Email address validators head-to-head

I was turning a blind eye to the part of RFC5322 that allows you to put comments within an email address. But Cal H brought it up in an email so I had to bite the bullet.

On reflection I think this was worthwhile. The most common error in email address validators is that they reject valid addresses. This really annoys people who like to put a ‘+’ in their address and find they can’t because registration form won’t allow it.

Why do they like putting a ‘+’ in their address? Well it effectively tags the incoming email for you automatically. Mail sent to first.last+hello@example.com will go to the first.last mailbox, tagged with ‘hello’. GMail will do this for you – try it.

So that’s why I think it’s worth allowing comments. The next GMail might be able to do the same thing or something even more useful with comments:

first.last(notify IM)@example.com

Version 1.6 of my validator now passes all 222 unit tests. So does Cal’s. I see no reason why you wouldn’t use one of these in your project: they are free and they work. Why reinvent the wheel?

RFC nerd notes

Comments can contain folding white space and can be nested. This is the final nail in the coffin for regular expressions that claim to validate email address. Show me a regex that says this is a valid address:

first(Welcome to
 the (”wonderful” (!)) world
 of email)@example.com

A thank-you also to Paul Gregg who allowed me to add his validator to the head-to-head (and added mine to his page). He also provided some more unit tests.

Quick links: Source code | Email address validators head-to-head