Never Seconds, the blog that got shut down

It's not often I post things on both work and personal blogs, or use my christinesreallycross label on posts, but in this case I'm going to make an exception!

This April, 9 year old Martha Payne of Western Scotland started a blog about her school lunches called Never Seconds, documenting her school lunches and how bad they were. It quickly became popular and led to the dinners becoming markedly better (apparently fruit and salad "had always been available"). The blog got taken up by many people including Jamie Oliver, and started getting attention from around the world with people sending her pictures of their lunches. Eventually, she set up a donation page to raise money for dinners in Africa - she's raised over £2000. So far, so good.

Until yesterday, when the local council banned her from taking her camera into school and shut down her blog. I wonder if they thought that would be the end of it and she would quietly go away?  Well some people just don't understand social media do they? So far the story is trending on twitter, it's been on the BBC this morning on the Today programme, bloggers have taken up the story, and the @argyllandbute twitter account has been inundated with complaints.

Rory Cellan-Jones the BBC technology correspondent has written a wonderfully ironic piece about it and social media here.

How stupid have this council been, and how soon will they respond I wonder?  or will they just keep their heads down and hope it goes away?

EDIT  So, Argyle and Bute Council have finally responded and issued a press statement here. No apology, no retraction,  no "we're really sorry we got it wrong". No explanation other than they don't like criticism. So, because they don't like criticism, and they obviously don't understand or get social media, they've decided the best way forward is to shut a 9 year old girl up. Idiots!

Amelia and the refused transplant

The internet, and in particular the growth of social media, has certainly changed the way things come to my attention and the way I can watch and follow the resulting firestorm which often follows.  On Friday evening, I noticed someone I follow on twitter post a link to something he thought was disgraceful. I followed it up, and arrived here. It's a heartbreaking story, written by the mother of a 2 year old child with a serious genetic syndrome being told by a doctor at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHoP) that the daughter is not eligible for a kidney transplant (without which she will die), because she is mentally retarded.  Putting aside any medical reason for the refusal to transplant, I found the story shocking  - the use of the words "mentally retarded" I thought had gone from common use ages ago, and certainly wouldn't be used by a doctor, and the insensitive way the parents seem to have been handled. From the social worker taking a call during the conversation, to the doctor saying that he "had been warned about their involvement with the child". What parent wouldn't be involved with their child - especially one requiring special care?

The reaction to this blog post quickly spread. Other posts followed, there's a post which links to some of them here, a hashtag of #teamamelia appeared on twitter, a petition was set up which last time I looked had over 10,000 signatures and CHoP's facebook page changed dramatically. From a page of compliments about how staff had looked after various sick children, there are now thousands of comments condemning the hospital for their decision. If you Google the hospital a link to this story is the third in the list, and there are hundreds of them, and rising. As I type this, it's just starting to hit the national press in the US.

The hospital's PR department must be wondering what's hit them. How you react to this sort of situation is vital. They have posted a statement on their Facebook page, which in my mind, and many others, says very little and doesn't address the issues. Of course they will be unable publicly to comment on the particular case because of confidentiality.

So, I sincerely hope that this little girl gets the treatment she needs to prolong her life and give her the best quality of life possible, and I hope that public bodies learn the damage that can be done to their reputation by a single member of staff or a badly handled incident which gets blogged or tweeted about.

EDIT: The hospital PR machine has started to respond. They've posted a response on their facebook page.

Christine's really cross again

Just posted this on my work blog, but think its so important, have put it on here as well!

I might be on holiday, but am still in touch with what's going on in the world, thanks to free wifi in many cafes and bars, and as of today, some paid for access in the apartment. So, why I am I breaking blogging silence, on what is really a work blog? Well, it's because I'm really cross, that's why. Today Paul Chambers found out whether his appeal against his conviction for sending a "menacing electronic communication", or a tweet, had been successful. It wasn't. Thrown out on all counts. Too many people have written about it and much more eloquently than I can, but in summary:
Paul was fed up because flight to Belfast to see his girlfriend had been cancelled. Tweets to his 40 or so followers that he might blow the airport sky high. Duty manager at said airport (Robin Hood, how ironic can you get,..), found the tweet a few days later when he searched for the airport. Didn't think it was a credible threat, but passed it to his manager. He didn't think it was a threat either, but passed it to the police. They turned up at Paul's workplace and arrested him. After some hours of interviewing, they decided it wasn't a threat, but passed it to the CPS. The rest is history as they say. You can read the story here.

Today's judgement is outrageous, for so many reasons. Graham Linehan, of Father Ted and IT Crowd fame, has suggested it's because people just don't get social media, and Twitter in particular. Heresy Corner disagrees. Martin Robbins has written a great piece in the Guardian about it.

Is it ironic that the judgement came on the day we remember those who died for our freedom, and one of our basic freedoms, that of speech, is being gradually eroded? I hope this case makes it to the High Court and the judgement is overturned. But that will cost a lot of money. You can donate to the cause here.

Don't know what else to say. Going back to enjoying my holiday, but will be supporting Paul when I get back.