Is a philosophical perspective on health possible?

[Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]

...the principle will have to be that suitably ancient one: ''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'' Who will watch the watchers..." Who ''will'' edit the editors?

Hi all,
I have read the whole discussion, and I want to make it explicit that what follows is the result of long reflections on the preceding exchanges.

Constables have a greater role than we realize.

Someone creates a new article or a new section. S/he's alone, or works with 1 or 2 collaborators. Other citizens respond. Here's where constables are crucial, and where (I believe) they should be called -- even preemptively!

The encounter must be managed very cautiously. The discussion must remain focussed. Important fact checks must be discussed either on the article's talk page, or on other CZ pages, but it must be clear where!
I also see that there is undeniable hostility that constables could deal with more aggressively. It may come in numerous shapes and forms. But the point that all these instances of hostility have in common is that they become obvious to most observers who take the time to understand what's been written before. Especially constables, whom I wish to salute here. You are the hope of Citizendium.

I see a role for constables for two apparently innocuous situations.
1. Lengthy talk page contributions. When we clash with something, it is a normal reaction to clash equally strongly, with many kinds of counterarguments and other rhetorical methods. I'm doing it right now (minimally, I hope). Most people do. Constables should not censor this, but they should guide the process. Otherwise, ultimately, anything new gets rejected (i refer in particular to Matt's recent intervention on those who object to death to articles; btw, it's typical Wikipedia warfare).
2. Sub-topics. In talk pages, there are many instances where sub-sub-topics become, strangely, extremely important. This is a general rule! And the interesting point is that it's where debates on "who's the expert" become so very important. Why is it so? Because (as I can tell because I'm an expert of non-expertise and non-editorship) experts want others to think that they can prove they're right on a number of topics they claim to be under their field of expertise if they can win their point on the point of their choice they are likely to win. This a general and profound problem with the vague definition of experts in CZ. It's better than nothing (than Wikipedia) but it's still very naive. The role of constables, here, is to enforce the ethics of deliberation. They can easily tell where distractions are introduced by experts. They can encourage collaboration: if one expert feels that some sub-topic is profoundly crucial, why not transport the debate where (on what page(s)) it will be properly, expertly defended?

More generally, CZ is suffering from the lack of people who can understand the long term goals of CZ. Do you realize that the contributions of an author like me, if they are dealt with appropriately, can make CZ the most popular AND authoritative resource?
Perhaps I seem too personal or emotional. I rephrase: experts treat other experts as authors. CZ has repelled many authors and some experts. Why? Because constables are not present enough. And I emphasise that I'm not asking anything new. I'm asking for more consistency. And for a recognition of the actual efforts of constables.

['docmartin' (Dr Martin Cohen)]

Should Martin be allowed to start an article about Alternative medicine from a philosophical perspective... absolutely.  Should it replace the CAM article.. absolutely not.  Can they be integrated... sure.  They have to.

Re. this point and 'pro-Howard' as I occasionally am! Howard characterised two incompatible approaches to 'Alternative Medicine', and I agreed to adopt that charcterisation for the pages, formalised in this link on the (Howard-selected name) page of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, viz:

''The emphasis on this page is on the scientific, legal and practitioner issues. For an overview of the philosophical and cultural dimensions, see also Alternative medicine (theories). ''

I see no reason why two conflciting approaches cannot be developed 'in parallel' as it were, live on the CZ site, as long as the exponent of the 'scientific' approach does not take it upon themselves on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to heavily edit the page putting forward the issue from the 'philosophical' one.

Now Pat has started to rework the scientific page to make it more of 'an overview' including no doubt some of the philosophical and cultural dimensions. But this obviously creates problems of duplication. To some extent, it is better to agree to 'formalise' the differences and allow pages to diverge than to ignore the reality of incompatible paradigms. How incompatible? Well, look at what happened to the Alternative Medicine (Theories) page. It offers neither a guide to 'scientific, legal and practitioner issues' nor any sort of ' overview of the philosophical and cultural dimensions' - but merely became a mish-mash of contradictory points and claims.

ps. Re. Pierre-Alain and more active Constables - I don't think Howard's (even if clothed as 'whimsical') raising of holocaust comparisons is appropriate here ?...

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Should Martin be allowed to start an article about Alternative medicine from a philosophical perspective... absolutely.  Should it replace the CAM article.. absolutely not.  Can they be integrated... sure.  They have to.

Re. this point and 'pro-Howard' as I occasionally am! Howard characterised two incompatible approaches to 'Alternative Medicine', and I agreed to adopt that charcterisation for the pages, formalised in this link on the (Howard-selected name) page of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, viz:

''The emphasis on this page is on the scientific, legal and practitioner issues. For an overview of the philosophical and cultural dimensions, see also Alternative medicine (theories). ''

I see no reason why two conflciting approaches cannot be developed 'in parallel' as it were, live on the CZ site, as long as the exponent of the 'scientific' approach does not take it upon themselves on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to heavily edit the page putting forward the issue from the 'philosophical' one.

Now Pat has started to rework the scientific page to make it more of 'an overview' including no doubt some of the philosophical and cultural dimensions. But this obviously creates problems of duplication. To some extent, it is better to agree to 'formalise' the differences and allow pages to diverge than to ignore the reality of incompatible paradigms. How incompatible? Well, look at what happened to the Alternative Medicine (Theories) page. It offers neither a guide to 'scientific, legal and practitioner issues' nor any sort of ' overview of the philosophical and cultural dimensions' - but merely became a mish-mash of contradictory points and claims.

ps. Re. Pierre-Alain and more active Constables - I don't think Howard's (even if clothed as 'whimsical') raising of holocaust comparisons is appropriate here ?...

I don't know where to start with some of the inaccuracies here. First, if one looks at the history of the page "complementary and alternative medicine", it was never "Howard-picked". It was originally "Alternative Medicine", and I pointed out NCCAM and other authoritative sources that use CAM as having a different meaning than AM alone, and got agreement from another Citizen(s) before changing the name. I did add material and move out some material that was mutually agreed as partisan, but my major effort on that page has been adding the taxonomy and then adding small articles for topics redlinked from it; essentially being sure there was sourcing.

In this particular area, my main effort has been [[integrative medicine]], where a suggested scope -- that I knew was not enforceable but could work by consensus -- was written as clearly and succinctly as possible in the first paragraph. I also mentioned things that I thought were distractions, such as whether a technique should be included -- when the article's emphasis was on how real-world integrative medicine practices organized themselves.

As far as the Niemoller quote, it was about not speaking out, and a direct answer to "you didn't have to collaborate." It was not whimsical, but deadly serious, and is widely used not only in Holocaust related situations, but where people failed to act in a community interest. From across the pond, you might not know of the Kitty Genovese case, but it's another classic. NIMBY, or Not in My Back Yard, is another example of rejecting something one claims to be a good, but taking to responsibility for it.

Please do not characterize yourself as pro-Howard, or anti-Howard. I suspect it is generally a good rule for people to comment on how someone feels affected by the statements of another, as they can't really know. Characterizing someone's thinking, as opposed to their words, is often a bad idea in a text-based electronic medium.

I will simply say that the philosophical aspects come across more as an attack on other philosophies than having a clear impact on (C)AM. There are cost-effectiveness, safety, and efficacy comparisons between CAM and conventional medicine that clearly are not philosophic.  The article [[vitalism]], for example, does very much deal with theories of many forms of CAM, yet it has been ignored. I am working, in the sandbox, on some more specific CAM method articles, and they are focused closely on the theories of the method rather than the ills of Western society.

There were assertions about the history of public health, and they were simply wrong. There were unsourced indirect references from clearly biased sources, and I inserted well-sourced opposing situations directly quoting the primary source. And this is making a mish-mash?

[Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]

There were assertions about the history of public health, and they were simply wrong. There were unsourced indirect references from clearly biased sources, and I inserted well-sourced opposing situations directly quoting the primary source. And this is making a mish-mash?

Are you talking about what you did to the miasma / public health text?

[Matt Innis]

I see a role for constables for two apparently innocuous situations.
1. Lengthy talk page contributions. When we clash with something, it is a normal reaction to clash equally strongly, with many kinds of counterarguments and other rhetorical methods. I'm doing it right now (minimally, I hope). Most people do. Constables should not censor this, but they should guide the process. Otherwise, ultimately, anything new gets rejected (i refer in particular to Matt's recent intervention on those who object to death to articles; btw, it's typical Wikipedia warfare).

I agree that a constable cannot censor the conversation.  Many times I've watched a situation where a whistle-blower was creating a ruckus on the talk page and, though initially the consensus was that he/she was nuts, the article changed in favor of the screamer when cooler heads arrived.  I have also watched each of you be the whistle-blower on one page and the roadblock on another.  A more aggressive constable would have to block everyone at some point.  The bottom line is that contributors have to take some responsibility for the project. 

2. Sub-topics. In talk pages, there are many instances where sub-sub-topics become, strangely, extremely important. This is a general rule! And the interesting point is that it's where debates on "who's the expert" become so very important. Why is it so? Because (as I can tell because I'm an expert of non-expertise and non-editorship) experts want others to think that they can prove they're right on a number of topics they claim to be under their field of expertise if they can win their point on the point of their choice they are likely to win. This a general and profound problem with the vague definition of experts in CZ. It's better than nothing (than Wikipedia) but it's still very naive. The role of constables, here, is to enforce the ethics of deliberation. They can easily tell where distractions are introduced by experts. They can encourage collaboration: if one expert feels that some sub-topic is profoundly crucial, why not transport the debate where (on what page(s)) it will be properly, expertly defended?

I actually did try this on Alternative medicine (theories) with some success I think.  When I saw a conversation more interested on the style of the talk page, I moved the conversation to the 'How to use talk pages' discussion page and Howard and I carried on a conversation over there that Derek joined and helped clarify.  This might help in the future and I would consider making this common constable practice if it works well enough.

[Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]

I see a role for constables for two apparently innocuous situations.
1. Lengthy talk page contributions. When we clash with something, it is a normal reaction to clash equally strongly, with many kinds of counterarguments and other rhetorical methods. I'm doing it right now (minimally, I hope). Most people do. Constables should not censor this, but they should guide the process. Otherwise, ultimately, anything new gets rejected (i refer in particular to Matt's recent intervention on those who object to death to articles; btw, it's typical Wikipedia warfare).

I agree that a constable cannot censor the conversation.  Many times I've watched a situation where a whistle-blower was creating a ruckus on the talk page and, though initially the consensus was that he/she was nuts, the article changed in favor of the screamer when cooler heads arrived.  I have also watched each of you be the whistle-blower on one page and the roadblock on another.  A more aggressive constable would have to block everyone at some point.  The bottom line is that contributors have to take some responsibility for the project. 

But in the case they don't take enough responsibility (deliberately or not)...
I'd like to know if you agree with the following. Say you have a whistle blower who expresses a variety of concerns, creating a huge amount of text, would it be advisable to guide the process by creating ==subsections== and ===subsubsections==== on the talk page to deal calmly with complicated and lengthy collections of criticisms? Are Constables entitled to say things like:
please respond to the question or tell why you won't;
be clearer and more concise, so that everybody can understand, so that we don't have to archive the talk page because it's too big, etc.

2. Sub-topics. In talk pages, there are many instances where sub-sub-topics become, strangely, extremely important. This is a general rule! And the interesting point is that it's where debates on "who's the expert" become so very important. Why is it so? Because (as I can tell because I'm an expert of non-expertise and non-editorship) experts want others to think that they can prove they're right on a number of topics they claim to be under their field of expertise if they can win their point on the point of their choice they are likely to win. This a general and profound problem with the vague definition of experts in CZ. It's better than nothing (than Wikipedia) but it's still very naive. The role of constables, here, is to enforce the ethics of deliberation. They can easily tell where distractions are introduced by experts. They can encourage collaboration: if one expert feels that some sub-topic is profoundly crucial, why not transport the debate where (on what page(s)) it will be properly, expertly defended?

I actually did try this on Alternative medicine (theories) with some success I think.  When I saw a conversation more interested on the style of the talk page, I moved the conversation to the 'How to use talk pages' discussion page and Howard and I carried on a conversation over there that Derek joined and helped clarify.  This might help in the future and I would consider making this common constable practice if it works well enough.

I applaud your methods, and I hope it will become common constable practice!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

There were assertions about the history of public health, and they were simply wrong. There were unsourced indirect references from clearly biased sources, and I inserted well-sourced opposing situations directly quoting the primary source. And this is making a mish-mash?

Are you talking about what you did to the miasma / public health text?

More with respect to Burton Goldberg being used as a vague citation to positions of the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, and papers in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Since the Goldberg references could not be explicitly identified, I did a few minutes of sourcing and found direct links to WHO, CDC and NEJM primary sources and put those in.  My citations often partially or completely contradicted Goldberg. Fancy that.

To a lesser extent with John Snow, yes. That happened in several phases. First, there was an apparent assertion that good public health actions in the 19th century were driven by miasmas and other vague things. I offered a first counterexample of John Snow and Florence Nightingale, who both, in the 1850s, used specific observations and statistical analysis in developing public health (and intra-hospital, but still population-level) guidelines.

The response was that claiming that such analytical techniques were used in the 19th century was scientific "revisionism", with no sources, and that no one in the 19th century had any idea of dealing, in individual cases, with dealing with infectious disease in patients. I first responded with a full quote from Snow, explaining his disproof of miasmas in 1831.

Now, if one assumes the only way that can be done is with loosely defined parenteral antibiotics, a limited case can be made, although Paul Ehlich's studies of dye sensitivity led him into specific drugs, although I agree salvarsan was not available until 1910. It was clearly based on 19th century research.

As far as others in the 19th century that dealt, on an individual level, with infectious disease, just to mention a few,

• Antisepsis: Lister and Semmelweis,  one accepted and one tragically not
• Passive immunization against specific organisms: Pasteur (rabies), von Behring, Roux and others (Cornyebacterium diptheriae)
• Identification of Vibrio cholerae and using it to specifically deal with epidemics of cholera, Koch
• Postulates and epidemiology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Koch
• Specific aniline dye sensitivity of microorganisms, leading to an antimicrobial for Treponema pallidum in 1910: Koch
• Active immunization for Clostridium tetani: Ehrlich

Yes, these are some of the things apparently dismissed as "scientific revisionism".[/list]

[Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]

There were assertions about the history of public health, and they were simply wrong. There were unsourced indirect references from clearly biased sources, and I inserted well-sourced opposing situations directly quoting the primary source. And this is making a mish-mash?

Are you talking about what you did to the miasma / public health text?

More with respect to Burton Goldberg being used as a vague citation to positions of the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, and papers in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Since the Goldberg references could not be explicitly identified, I did a few minutes of sourcing and found direct links to WHO, CDC and NEJM primary sources and put those in.  My citations often partially or completely contradicted Goldberg. Fancy that.

Alright. I wasn't involved with the Burton Goldberg business.

To a lesser extent with John Snow, yes. That happened in several phases. First, there was an apparent assertion that good public health actions in the 19th century were driven by miasmas and other vague things.

So you think that the following is vague?

The germ theory for cholera was finally established, although earlier changes in the sanitary environment, called for by the erroneous miasma theory, had actually done much to reduce the transmission of disease. London provides an example of how useful a wrong theory (miasma) can be for addressing an epidemic (improvement of air, solid waste and water supplies), in this example cholera.[11]

(UCLA school of public health quote)

[Matt Innis]

But in the case they don't take enough responsibility (deliberately or not)...
I'd like to know if you agree with the following. Say you have a whistle blower who expresses a variety of concerns, creating a huge amount of text, would it be advisable to guide the process by creating ==subsections== and ===subsubsections==== on the talk page to deal calmly with complicated and lengthy collections of criticisms?

I think that is a good idea.  I would prefer each criticism to have its own section.  I think any contributer could copy the text (notice I said copy, not cut) into that format for the sake of easy readability provided they are not not taking anything out of its context.

Are Constables entitled to say things like:
please respond to the question or tell why you won't;
be clearer and more concise, so that everybody can understand, so that we don't have to archive the talk page because it's too big, etc.

That would be something I would expect an editor to say, preferably on the user's talk page, but I allow it on the article discussion page.  If there are only authors at work, they should contact an editor for his/her help.  None withstanding, the EIC, and as a last resort a constable can make a call, but only if it is starting to become a behavior issue.  Most of the time, this activity causes someone else to lose their temper and they are the ones that get the {{civil}} tag.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

There were assertions about the history of public health, and they were simply wrong. There were unsourced indirect references from clearly biased sources, and I inserted well-sourced opposing situations directly quoting the primary source. And this is making a mish-mash?

Are you talking about what you did to the miasma / public health text?

To a lesser extent with John Snow, yes. That happened in several phases. First, there was an apparent assertion that good public health actions in the 19th century were driven by miasmas and other vague things.

So you think that the following is vague?

The germ theory for cholera was finally established, although earlier changes in the sanitary environment, called for by the erroneous miasma theory, had actually done much to reduce the transmission of disease. London provides an example of how useful a wrong theory (miasma) can be for addressing an epidemic (improvement of air, solid waste and water supplies), in this example cholera.[11]

(UCLA school of public health quote)

I don't have the URL in front of me, but if that's the page I remember looking at, two paragraphs above it is a discussion of how Snow refuted miasmas, starting in 1931. I may have the links in [[John Snow (physician)]], but read his oration to the London  Medical Society.

In no way was miasma involved in Snow's epidemiology. Other 19th century bacteriologists discovered and knowledge of the specific bacterium, Vibrio cholerae. Fillippo did it first but seems to be ignored, but Koch was certainly using it.

I'm honestly not sure what point is being made here, or by what felt like a dismissal for "revisionism". It may well have been that some public health work was done in reaction to miasmas, but it certainly was not the only reason considered in the 19th century. I have no idea of who wrote what in that article, but my subjective reading is that it actually doesn't say much about the theories of alternate medicine, but it has a lot of condemnation of contemporary thinking, and calumnies about conventional medicine from people who make just as much of a living with advertising alt med as Big Pharma does in TV marketing of drugs -- just a difference in scale.

(Could we try to cut back on the quotes of quotes of quotes? I'd do it now, but I'm in my coat waiting to go shopping as soon as someone gets here.)

[Larry Sanger]

... 'Alternative Medicine (Theories).

This page was explicitly set up to offer a different way to approach health issues - its aim was to take a broader view than that of contemporary health science, to consider how different ages, different cultures and different groups have looked on human health and how it relates to the universe.

There is a serious problem with this--that you may define a topic in the way you have, and indeed that, given your specific chosen topic, you must do so if others are to join in your project.  These assumptions are incorrect.  Topics are defined not by the declarations of (in this case) self-appointed editors, but by the word in the topic title.  And perhaps more to the point, we do not "set up" articles to "offer a different way to approach" any issues.  To do so is almost explicitly contrary to our neutrality policy.  Our articles are written in such a way that they can be collaborated on by everyone, and (in part for that reason) they cannot "offer" an "approach" with which anyone would disagree.  This is what our neutrality policy says, Martin, and as I have told others in the past, if you are finding you disagree with it, you should probably exclude yourself from the project.

Now, please do not misunderstand.  I am sure that some will be tempted to misunderstand, maybe you yourself will, so let me take the time to put aside a misunderstanding.  I am not saying that we should not have any discussion in any article about "how different ages, different cultures and different groups have looked on human health and how it relates to the universe."  What I would say, however, is that "Alternative Medicine (Theories)" is a mighty strange name to give to that topic.  I would have thought "comparative and historical theories of medicine" or just "sociology of medicine" would be appropriate.  By the way, I should think intellectual history and sociology are first and foremost the field that studies this--certainly not philosophy.  There is such a thing as philosophy of medicine, but "how different ages, different cultures and different groups have looked on human health and how it relates to the universe" does not describe the content of the philosophy of medicine -- it describes something like the comparative history of medicine.  If you want to write an article on the history and philosophy of medicine, then do so; but call it "history and philosophy of medicine," and don't write it from an "alternative" perspective, but instead neutrally, as they might here.

The question of this forum, "Is a philosophical perspective on health possible?" is rather misleading as a way to get acceptance for the article you were trying to add to CZ.  Of course a philosophical perspective on health is possible.  But an affirmative answer to that question does not by itself (1) permit you, a philosophy editor, to add yourself as an editor over general health articles, or (2) create an article titled "alternative medicine (theories)" and then declare what philosophical perspective shall be expressed by the article, and then complain if others do not allow the article to proceed to express that perspective.

I'm sorry to be so brutally honest, Martin, but you did, after all, take this action with little discussion in advance (as far as I know), in contradiction to CZ policy, and then proceed to complain about your treatment here in the forums.  About the latter next.

But the page has come under something of an onslaught of criticism on the talk page. ...

But most sinister of all is that there has been huge quantities of...

I am tempted to delete this whole thread, because it began in the above highly inflammatory and personalized way.  First, it should have been conducted on the talk page of [[alternative medicine (theories)]].  Putting it here basically is an attempt to dramatize the whole situation, and drama is something we need less of, not more.  Second, insofar as you are not-so-subtly complaining about other respected contributors on CZ, and doing so in a way that (I can assure you) they found to be very offensive, you are actually contradicting CZ:Professionalism.  In other words, you don't personalize debates, and if you have a complaint to make about the behavior of another contributor to CZ, the thing to do is to complain to the Constabulary or to me--not to air your complaint publicly.

If you do, you'll either find your complaints deleted (as they properly should be) or they will blow up into a huge and unnecessary drama, with people storming off in protest, feelings hurt, etc., etc.  That's why we have the rule against personalizing debates.

That's all I have time for right now, but I hope to come back and disentangle this mess further in the near future.

[Hayford Peirce]

That's all I have time for right now, but I hope to come back and disentangle this mess further in the near future.

Thank you, Larry!  I am certainly grateful, and I'm sure that I speak for others in CZ, that you have stepped to make these matters clear. They were, as you say, causing inordinate friction and, I'm sure, you're probably aware that one of our most respected members has left because of them.

[Matt Innis]

First, it should have been conducted on the talk page of [[alternative medicine (theories)]].  Putting it here basically is an attempt to dramatize the whole situation, and drama is something we need less of, not more.  Second, insofar as you are not-so-subtly complaining about other respected contributors on CZ, and doing so in a way that (I can assure you) they found to be very offensive, you are actually contradicting CZ:Professionalism.  In other words, you don't personalize debates, and if you have a complaint to make about the behavior of another contributor to CZ, the thing to do is to complain to the Constabulary or to me--not to air your complaint publicly.

In Martin's defense, as things were escalating on the [[Alternative medicine (theories)]] page, I advised everyone to 'follow the dispute resolution process' and take it to a higher level and off the article talk page.  He did contact the constabulary as did others.  I most likely told them to take it to the forums as well.  Sorry if this was not the proper venue, but the article talk pages were not working as far as I could tell. 

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I am tempted to delete this whole thread, because it began in the above highly inflammatory and personalized way. 

Pshaw. Bring back the code duello. That is personalized.

[Larry Sanger]

First, it should have been conducted on the talk page of [[alternative medicine (theories)]].  Putting it here basically is an attempt to dramatize the whole situation, and drama is something we need less of, not more.  Second, insofar as you are not-so-subtly complaining about other respected contributors on CZ, and doing so in a way that (I can assure you) they found to be very offensive, you are actually contradicting CZ:Professionalism.  In other words, you don't personalize debates, and if you have a complaint to make about the behavior of another contributor to CZ, the thing to do is to complain to the Constabulary or to me--not to air your complaint publicly.

In Martin's defense, as things were escalating on the [[Alternative medicine (theories)]] page, I advised everyone to 'follow the dispute resolution process' and take it to a higher level and off the article talk page.  He did contact the constabulary as did others.  I most likely told them to take it to the forums as well.  Sorry if this was not the proper venue, but the article talk pages were not working as far as I could tell. 

Well, in your defense, I would guess that you were not advising anyone to take their personal grievances to the forums, as if the forums were a more appropriate venue for that.  That really was my main complaint in the bit from me that you quoted: basically, as far as I can tell, Martin attempted to start a "public trial," so to speak, asking for input about the situation in which he felt he had been wronged.

I really think that what people react to strongly is a sense of outraged injustice.  When one party feels he has been wronged, and he has no regular, agreed-upon, just method of righting the wrong, either he "takes the matter into his own hands," or he attempts to seek justice from the bystanders.  Hardly anybody wants to just sit back and take it, and nobody should be expected to do so.  Now, our general rule is that the Constabulary and I handle such wrongs.  But ultimately, that system is broken.  I think it is broken not because there aren't enough constables to do the work of managing disputes, because I think that even if we had five times the number of active constables, the same problems would happen.  I have some fresh insight myself but I won't inflict it on you tonight.