About ten months ago, I wrote about how Lily Allen was wrong, and how those disagreeing with her were wrong too. The subject was the survival of the music industry, how it had got itself into such a mess, and how it might extricate itself from that situation.

One of the major circulation newspapers in the UK is about to be put behind a paywall, to much furore amongst a certain group of people. Caitlin Moran wrote an opinion piece about how she was in favour of the move (registration/payment may be required, oh the irony!), but whilst I think she makes some good points, I think there is one area that she doesn't address entirely, and that's the paywall itself.

Historically, newspapers have given away a lot of their content for free online. I remember the early days of the web, when newspapers had little to no web presence, and I never imagined that one would be able to read the whole newspaper for free via the world wide web. In the heady days of the mid-late 90s, the internet, and specifically the web, was an exciting new frontier for both people and businesses. As we saw with the dot-com boom and bust in the stock markets in the early 21st Century, there was a lot of investment, and very little strategic thinking.

Newspapers ummed and ahhed about how much of their content should be made available, and whether it should be free, but competition led them to a position where almost everything they published was given away for free. Undoubtedly, the fact that this was technically possible was of great interest to organisations that previously only had once-daily access to their audience. Newspapers became instantly more aligned with television and radio, able to cover breaking news, and change their coverage in reaction to events.

Invigorating and exciting as this may have been, the papers were setting themselves up for a fall. The music industry failed to react to illegal content, choosing not to make easily downloadable content available to consumers. This conditioned a generation that downloading music for free was normal, to the extent that it isn't even really a social faux pas, let alone a legal one. Newspapers, by giving their content away for free, devalued their product in the same way.

There is a whiff of gunpowder, and a bleeding foot in all of this. Unlike the music and movie industries, there was no illegal activity undermining their sales, no scanning and republishing of their content. They walked into this situation of their own accord, which they are no doubt regretting as an industry. Of course, there's no guarantee that it would happen any differently even if they had their time again. However, what's done is done.

The problem I have with paywalls isn't the concept of paying, but rather that it seems to be an attempt to put the genie back into the bottle. In every media industry that has had its business model impacted by online sharing, there has been a distinct failure to change attitudes. Hectoring and harrassing lawyers' letters haven't diminished the number of people downloading music or movies, and as I outlined previously, I believe it is better to appeal to people's inherent laziness than to their sense of fairness, particularly when that fairness is expected by large corporations. If the real victims are abstracted by a company, we can easily forget those who are really affected.

The price of these paywalls will, I believe, doom them to failure. I am not so interested in the content of The Times as whole that I am prepared to consult them for all my online news, as I would surely want to, given the price I'm expected to pay. The ability to read stories and angles in different papers is part of what makes the "news experience" so compelling online. That's not to say that I wouldn't pay for content. For example, I'd happily pay, on a per issue basis, for a downloadable copy of a newspaper to read on my phone/e-reader/mobile device, one that didn't need connectivity for me to be able to read the content. Price point is key, but that's a definite market there.

Paying for content on the conventional web is a tougher nut to crack. A paywall in the conventional monthly/weekly subscription-sense is probably doomed to failure. There are just too many other options for news to make paying for them worthwhile. A per-article micropayment model is undoubtedly more appealing, particularly one that was adopted across several news organisations. Possibly a low monthly subscription (of the order of £1) that included a number of articles "for free", and then a monthly bill based on the number of articles read above that quota. The money would then be distributed to the content providers, and would generally encourage competition amongst the newspapers to provide compelling content. Free articles, charging for a group of articles as one (a "supplement" if you will) and other promotional tools would all be available to publishers.

Pie-in-the-sky? Maybe, but a drastic move like this is likely to be the only way that news organisations can "monetize the web" (ugh!).

People will pay, but only if it's easy, and only if the price is right.

I'm the perfect candidate to argue with Mr. Collins about homeopathy. I've always been a science-minded person, I've recently started a physics degree part time, and I've kept relatively up to date with the latest research and debate on the topic.

I don't want to though. And not because "it's pointless", or because "it's not worth the effort". I don't want to because, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure how.

From all the available evidence (I couldn't resist using the phrase), Andrew is a polite, intelligent, articulate man. He's always, within reason, been open to discuss his opinions, from homeopathy to the NME's coverage of Morrissey's slightly shameful appropriation of racist imagery.

Like anyone, in fact like all of us, he brings prejudices to any discussion. By his own admission, he's naturally suspicious of consensus and "power", by which I infer he means large corporate entities. This world view is not at all unusual, and not necessarily at all unreasonable either.

So why does "science" (and I hate to refer to a methodology as a group, or corporate entity) have such a difficult time putting its point across? One of the advantages of the internet is that we can see how lots of people choose to interact with each other. Some people are rude and dismissive of Collins' opinions, whereas some people engage politely. What I don't really see is any great understanding or empathy for the other side of the debate from the "scientists".

I find that slightly worrying. The communication of scientific concepts in generally not well done in the media today. Of course, the mainstream media are notoriously bad at misunderstanding, misrepresenting and downright distorting science in their reporting. Equally, there are plenty of nonsensical press releases from university departments, often financed by "big business", whose primary purpose is securing the sponsor's name in print. This clouds the issue, and doesn't help provide the intelligent layman with a framework to assess the news and views put in front of them,

Homeopathy? I can't say I'm that bothered about it. There's no evidence to suggest it works, and frankly it doesn't merit any more serious scientific attention (which is why it doesn't really get any these days). Is it a bit embarrassing that Boots sell it as an efficacious treatment? Yes. Would I rather that the NHS directed the millions it currently spends on homeopathy elsewhere? Yes.

However, I'm not about to take part in an organised "overdose" either. Frankly, I think that comes across as being a bit smug and condescending. There are indeed serious issues around the use of homeopathy, but it's far more important to address why we find ourselves unable to communicate what should be relatively simple concepts. It is a fine line between being forthright and arrogance.

Until we find a better way to express our perspective to people like Andrew, people who are happy to debate and discuss the issues at hand, news stories about the Large Hadron Collider ending the world will keep coming, and scientists will keep getting exasperated about them.

Any ideas?

The internet's broken. I'm not sure if you'd noticed this, but it definitely is.

OK, I might be exaggerating a little bit. Yes, those of you sitting at home ordering groceries, or buying DVDs, or whatever high-tech variation of mail-order shopping is your particular preference won't have noticed the problem. I have though, and I'm on the case.

I hope we're all on board with the idea of putting newspapers out of business, by reading them online. Putting aside the whiff of gunpowder and the soreness in your foot, you still regularly browse the websites of news organisations to get your daily fix of news about the outside world, or celebrity fluff, or some seemingly-meaningless set of numbers that relate to something called "sport".

Most of the aforementioned organisations now partake in a activity I've snappily called "radiophoneinisation" (I fully expect this term to catch on, and that next year the OED will be asking me to pen the definition for their tome). Comments. Fucking comments.

The sort of annoying prat who phones up a radio show to expound their half-developed, deeply flawed ideas on a topic, and is almost never properly questioned by the show's host, is now leaving comments all over major websites. And it's driving me insane.

YouTube is probably the best place to examine this phenomenon. Barely literate twats make offensive remarks, start flame wars, and generally display their ignorance and stupidity like a baboon showing its arse to visitors in a zoo. The primates manage a bit more dignity.

"Yes, well", I hear you cry, "who cares about YouTube?". A fair point. But these inane morons can now be found on every British newspaper website, even the BBC has a ridiculous Have Your Say section on their site (which posed the question, and I'm sadly not joking here, "Should homosexuals be executed?" It was in the context of a story about a proposed law in Uganda, but it was still opening the nutter-door was wide open).

Quite frankly, I have plenty of nonsense to get irate about already. Slow-walking people on the pavement, talking during films in the cinema, cyclists jumping red lights, the list goes on. What I don't need to see, when I'm foolishly trying to find out what's going on in the world around me, is "She's a whore, who cares what she thinks?" from ShitForBrains82. Sure, I could post a comment as a rebuttal, and plenty of people try, but their remarks are washed away in the tidal wave of excrement that's continuously being added.

I blame the government. Mostly because it's easy to heap criticism on whoever they happen to be at the time, but also because they have the keys to the solution. I mean, there are some logistical details, and yes we might have to create something to control internet access for everyone a bit like the Great Firewall of China, but frankly, that's a small price to pay for me not getting mildly annoyed. I'm sure you agree.

We just need to have a basic psychiatric assessment of every internet user in the country. That's not as bas as it sounds, because by "basic" I mean talking to them for 2 minutes, then putting a tick or a cross on a form next to "Are they mental?". We can tack it onto the GPs, they're not doing much apparent from doling out antivirals of dubious efficacy. We can make it Key Stage 42 in schools, so everyone gets assessed going forward too.

If they pass this test, they're allowed to post comments, if not, they're verboten. Easy-peasy. Of course, if they pass the test, they won't feel the need to leave comments. I mean really, have you ever bothered?

Actually, now I think about it, let's just remove the comments section from every website. It's isn't interactive, it doesn't give one access to the "barometer of public opinion", it's just shit.

Ah, I feel better now. Thanks for reading, and do feel free to leave a comment!

In my inbox today at work:

Dear All

As the season of goodwill is now here, many of you may wish to enter the spirit of the season and decorate your desks and working areas. If so, for your own safety, please follow the following guidelines when installing Christmas lights, or any form of illuminated decorations.

• All illuminated decorations or Christmas lights plugged into the floor boxes and mains must be 240 volts. Low Volt transformers may be used
• All of the above must carry a British Standard Kite mark
• All of the above must be fitted with a fused 3 pin plug
• A maximum current rating of 5 amps must apply to the above
• Only one of the above may be plugged into any single floor box, no matter how many sockets are available. This includes when plugged into a multi way extension lead
• All of the above will require PAT testing prior to use, we can arrange that at the Facilities Service Point. Test equipment will be held by the maintenance department who will undertake testing on request at a mutually acceptable time
• All of the lights/decorations are to be switched off when leaving the office in the evening
• We have step ladders available at facilities. Please ask for them rather than using your swivel chair
• Do not hang decorations from or adjacent to lights or points of heat
• Take a look at the following link for HSE Guidelines. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/nov07.htm

If in doubt please call the Facilities Service Point on ext 1444.

Merry Christmas!

Have fun during the festive period, everyone!

Just heard this story breaking where I usually hear new stuff (don't make me use the T word). Edgar Wright, director of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz amongst other things, wrote a lovely blog post about working with the late Edward Woodward several days ago. I read it at the time, and thought it was a moving piece. Edgar's thoughts on the departed Mr Woodward.

It seems that The Times thought so too. Which was nice. Except they didn't ask Edgar if they could use his piece, and to add insult to injury, have sub-edited it in a manner that he feels misrepresents him. Oh dear.

And all this from an organisation that plans to sue Google and the BBC for stealing their content.

Well, it's a new online business model at least. Nick the content, then charge for it.

EDIT - I've just seen via The Guardian website that it was in the print version of the newspaper. Even worse.