Fixing erectile dysfunction blog.

The EU summit which begins in Brussels today is the focus of comment in papers across Europe.

A decisive summit

“Europe at the day of reckoning”, says Italy’s La Repubblica of the summit, at which leaders will attempt to hammer out a deal on the proposed European constitution.

The paper ponders the possibility that the summit could end in stalemate due to the deep divisions over national voting rights in an enlarged EU.

The road to Brussels is littered with the bodies of failed projects Liberation

“That would be an implicit declaration that Italy’s EU presidency had not prepared adequately for a possible agreement,” it says.

France’s Liberation recalls that “the European Union’s brief history is peppered with crises”, while “the road to Brussels is littered with the bodies of failed projects”.

The paper likens the EU member states to “a group of tenants who quarrel bitterly at their annual meetings… before reaching compromises on running the building in which they are condemned to live together”.

Euro-warning

Austria’s Der Standard carries an article by the head of the EU Convention on the Future of Europe, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, and his two deputies, Guiliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene, in which they warn against a watered-down constitution.

Spain and Poland are not interested in giving shape to Europe but in obstructing it Sueddeutsche Zeitung

“If a bad compromise on a rump constitution is agreed, Europe would get bogged down in impotence and inefficiency and it would inevitably be condemned to break out of this situation only as the result of a crisis,” they write.

The authors insist that most decisions should be taken on the basis of a “double majority” of half the member countries and states representing three-fifths of the EU’s population.

“This rule protects small states, which are in the majority, but it also ensures approval by most EU citizens,” they observe.

Germany’s Berliner Zeitung believes that Poland’s opposition to the double majority provision is unwise.

It argues that even if Poland were to win the day, its ally Spain would soon turn into a competitor, for example when it comes to the allocation of funds for the farming sector.

“Then at the latest Warsaw will probably realize that it would have been better if it had approached European issues less emotionally and more pragmatically,” the paper concludes.

Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung says Spain’s and Poland’s stance shows that these two countries are intent on obstructing Europe’s development.

It points out that the double majority system is designed to prevent deadlock in EU decision making.

“Thus Spain and Poland are not interested in giving shape to Europe but in obstructing it,” the paper says, adding: “what a show of inadequacy by these supposedly so proud countries”.

‘Brick walls’

It is a clash of two visions of a united Europe Rzeczpospolita

“The field for manouevre is very narrow - somewhere between the brick wall erected by the Polish Sejm and that erected by the German Bundestag.”

The paper also warns against letting past wounds hinder progress. “We might tie the hands of our negotiators with the rope of our fears and incantations… but what about the next step?”

Rzeczpospolita sees the tensions as “more than just a dispute over voting rights”.

“It is a clash of two visions of a united Europe, based in the completely different historical experience of the last two generations of Poles on the one hand, and the Germans and French on the other.”

Gazeta Wyborcza is clear on what the political jostling is all about.

“For Poland, the stakes are about our position in the EU,” it says.

View from Madrid

Spain’s ABC headlines its front-page article “The European constitution, between Poland’s veto, Spain’s opposition and strength”.

Its editorial states that “the spectre of failure is real, but it will be a collective failure by the 25, led by Italy.”

“Critics of Spain’s defence of its legitimate interests should remember the disloyalty on the occasion of the failed application of the Growth and Stability pact by France and Germany,” the paper says.

El Mundo’s front page states that Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria “Aznar will possibly reach an agreement to save the European constitution”.

It feels “reaching a consensus on relaunching the European project, more affected than ever by divisions over Iraq and by France and Germany’s lack of respect for the EU’s founding treaties, is as important as the division of power.”

This is echoed by El Pais, which carries “Aznar committed to putting aside the distribution of power in order to save the European summit”.

Its editorial, “Spain’s burden”, says of the summit that “it isn’t its capacity to block anything that gives a country a European or dimension that is of interest, but rather its capacity to establish alliances and bridges regarding major projects.”

‘Unfair’ voting, and God

Sweden’s Aftonbladet is in no doubt about voting in the Council of Ministers, headlining its editorial “Germany is right”.

The good Lord can put up with a lot, but there is no reason to make Him a Euro-enthusiast Berlingske Tidende

“In the long run it is entirely unfair that a German citizen’s vote should be worth less than half as much as a Pole’s or a Spaniard’s”, the paper says.

It adds that the rules of the Treaty of Nice are “technically difficult and complicated to explain to citizens” and “make the EU difficult to manoeuvre.”

The paper welcomes the EU proposals on simplifying voting as “more straightforward” and “simpler”.

Meanwhile, Danish daily Berlingske Tidende makes a different plea ahead of the summit: “Keep God out of the EU constitution”.

“Europe has a Christian heritage in its baggage. There is no reason to hide it”, it says.

“But God should not be written into the new EU constitution for that reason”, the paper argues, adding that: “The good Lord can put up with a lot, but there is no reason to make Him a Euro-enthusiast.

The European press review is compiled by BBC Monitoring from internet editions of the main European newspapers and some early printed editions.

This election is no exception. Nearly six weeks before the ballot, a fierce battle erupted after it became clear that vetting committees under the unelected and highly Council of Guardians (GC) had disqualified more than 3,500 of the 8,000 or so would-be candidates nationwide, the majority of them believed to be reformists.

The speaker of the outgoing, reformist-dominated Majlis, Mehdi Karroubi - a moderate reformist whose election credentials were approved - accused the GC’s vetting committees of planning the disqualifications systematically in order to ensure a conservative victory.

Some hardliners have made it clear they would like to see the reformists, whom they regard as little more than traitors pandering to the West, eliminated from political life.

Threats, bluffs and bargaining

The mass disqualifications issued by the GC on 10 January represented the opening bid by the in a campaign of pressures, threats, bluffs and hard bargaining that is now under way.

Mr Khamenei alone has the authority to resolve a deadlock

It was a high bid indeed. At this stage in the 2000 general election, 758 would-be candidates were disqualified out of 6,860 who registered nationwide. While the this time are somewhat higher, the number of disqualifications is nearly five times as many.

On Friday, the council reinstated a third of the candidates, but this falls far short of the full reinstatement demanded by reformist MPs, 80 of whom are themselves on the blacklist.

The reformists are obliged to make as much noise as they possibly can, to try to maximise the pressure they can exert, through leaders such as President Khatami and Mr Karroubi, on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the GC itself.

Arbiter’s role

It is Mr Khamenei who will act as the fulcrum around which the balance settles. He alone has the authority to intervene in case of deadlock or a danger of tensions exploding out of hand.

His influence with the GC cannot be gainsaid - of its 12 members, he appoints six outright, and the other six (although endorsed by parliament) are appointed by the head of the judiciary, himself a Khamenei appointee.

The outcome of the poll is by no means certain - the Iranian electorate has in the past produced many surprises, not least the landslide election of Mr Khatami himself in 1997

Ayatollah Khamenei is not a power figure with an independent base in his own right. His authority is drawn from his position, but in reality he is an arbiter trying to balance conflicting pressures and use his influence to persuade or dissuade.

While the reformist side can try to maximise pressure, the decision is ultimately in the hands of the right wing, which holds much of the real power.

The question is whether it really intends to go for broke and cripple the reformists in advance of the polls, or whether the pragmatic, moderate conservatives can persuade the leader and the GC that a compromise must be sought.

Thrown into the balance on the side of moderation will be the argument that the wholesale elimination of reformist candidates could force those who want change to move outside legal frameworks, with potentially violent consequences.

A one-sided field would also be highly likely to produce an extremely low voter turnout, raising an immediate question of legitimacy for a minority right-wing government.

That in turn would be expected to put the regime under increased international pressure and isolation. Both the US and the European Union have already expressed concern over the high level of disqualifications.

Pragmatic trend

If the GC stands rigid, it could well leave President Khatami and his reformist administration with no choice but to resign, with further consequences for Iran’s international position.

Reformists like Mehdi Karroubi (2nd left) may gain from sympathy votes

Mr Khatami has promised to stay true to his pledge to safeguard the rights of the people to elect and be elected. He has dissuaded top officials from resigning now, and tried to call off the MPs’ sit-in, on assurances that the GC would exercise moderation.

If those assurances prove misplaced, he would feel doubly obliged to stand down.

Some hardliners - who believe ultimately that authority comes from God through the leader, and not from the people - would undoubtedly be prepared to shrug aside such concerns.

But the recent trend in Iranian politics has favoured the pragmatic conservative moderates. The crisis late last year over the country’s nuclear programme was resolved - at least temporarily - with their support and that of the leader for compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the real hardliners were obliged to stifle their strident objections.

If that trend prevails, a reasonable number of reformist candidates would be re-qualified and allowed to run.

Reformist leaders have said that in such a situation, they would expect to win at least half the seats.

Sympathy vote

Even before the current crisis, the reformists’ electoral prospects were not looking bright. Many reformist officials feared a repeat of last February’s local council elections, which saw widespread popular disillusion reflected in a massive abstention - voter turnout in Tehran itself was around 12%.

As the conservatives can always count on a bedrock vote of regime loyalists, they regained Tehran city council and others.

The mass disqualification could win a sympathy vote for surviving reformist candidates - though it also underlines the impotence that has been forced on them by right-wing during their years in office.

Looking for silver linings in a decidedly black cloud, some reformist leaders said that if the current situation produces a parliament heavily influenced by pragmatic conservatives, it would be a major reformist achievement as it would take power away from the real hard-liners.

The outcome of the poll is by no means certain even once the list of candidates is finalised. The Iranian electorate has in the past produced many surprises, not least the landslide election of Mr Khatami himself in 1997.

All recent national votes have shown at least a solid 70% favour reform and that is unlikely to change. The huge and unpredictable variable is how many will bother to vote. Many people have said they would not - but a late swing back, as happened in Mr Khatami’s second election in 2001, can by no means be excluded.

PSA, or prostate specific antigen testing, is often offered to older men as part of private health .

However, a UK expert writing in the British Medical Journal says it should not be widely used as it is not clear whether it actually benefits patients.

Men testing positive do not fare better than those whose cancer is only spotted when symptoms emerge, it is claimed.

The prostate gland is found in men near the bladder, and makes an ingredient of semen.

Prostate cancer is the most common in men, and often, by the time symptoms arise in aggressive cases, it has spread beyond the gland itself.

This makes it far harder to treat successfully.

Cancer hint

The PSA blood test looks for a protein produced by prostate cells - higher levels suggest either a benign prostate enlargement, or perhaps the presence of a cancer.

However, it does not confirm cancer - a man needs to have a biopsy operation to make sure - and the test is often wrong.

At present the one certainty about PSA testing is that it causes harm Professor Malcolm Law, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine

Another problem is that prostate cancer is often a relatively slow-growing disease of older men - who, if left untreated, would die with the disease rather than of it.

A positive PSA test can mean that many cancers which could easily have been left untreated with no ill effects for the man are removed by surgeons, creating unnecessary risk - and a chance of disabling side-effects such as incontinence and loss of sexual function.

‘Unproven value’

Many experts in the UK are that the PSA test is worth giving to apparently healthy men.

However, some firms routinely offer the test to men over 50 years old.

Professor Malcolm Law, from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London, wrote in the BMJ that public health authorities should not advocate tests of “unproven value”.

He said: “At present the one certainty about PSA testing is that it causes harm.

“Some men will receive treatment that is unnecessary - and the treatment will cause incontinence, impotence and other .

“In one study over two-thirds of men receiving either radical prostatectomy (surgical prostate removal) or radiotherapy were affected.”

Breast advice

He is also critical of breast and testicle self-examination advice - suggesting that this advice also leads to unnecessary treatments.

Self-examination advice has now been dropped in favour of breast and testicle “awareness”, in which people are urged to be alert for changes, rather than actively seek them out.

Dr Chris Hiley, Head of Policy and Research at The Prostate Cancer Charity, agreed that PSA screening was not worthy of recommendation by doctors.

She said: “We’re not in favour of PSA screening.

“We can measure the harm caused by prostate testing - unfortunately we can’t measure the benefits.

“Men considering taking a test like this should think very hard and get good advice about whether it is suitable.”

If you would like to comment on the Tackling Tomorrow’s Tearaways programme, then click here to find an email form.

Then simply fill in the email form, complete with name, e-mail address, town and country and hit the send button.

Due to the high number of e-mails we get we cannot guarantee to publish every single message we receive. We may also edit some e-mails for legal reasons and for purposes of clarity and length.

The views expressed on these pages are not necessarily the views of the BBC.

The e-mails published will be reflective of the messages we have been sent.

I feel it is important to acknowledge the benefits of early intervention and working with these young people who often live in difficult . While this may not justify their behaviour I feel it is important to support and give them a chance to become valuable members of their community. By refusing to intervine and not investing at the early stages greater problems will be in store for the future.
Steph, England

The problem is that these kids are allowed to get away with murder (sometimes literally). They should be punished for the crimes they commit. We should invest in a building program of prisons in this country. Lock them up for 10 years and once they have finished their punishment, then and only then begin and education. If they are not willing to start learning how to behave after a few years in solitary then they remain in prison until they do. We need to get tough on criminals and not pamper them. Most of us work for a living and we should not have to pay for these scumbags to have a good time and laugh at the rest of us law abiding citizens.

Regardless of what social background someone comes from we all have the chance to go to school and learn. Children in Africa would kill to be able to go to school, our kids have it too easy. I speak as an ex-teacher by the way.
Dave, Wales

What exactly was the purpose of your programme on YIP’s? Billed as how the govt is to tackle delinquency it seemed to concentrate purely on the ‘rights’ of kids to know whether others had labelled them as delinquents - as if the labelling were the issue!

The behaviour of the kids you filmed was truly frightening particularly on the estate in Essex and the idea that this would be altered by rap lessons was utterly laughable. Immersion in a criminal narrative form will deflect from the valuing of criminal acts, how exactly?

And yet the truly self evident cause of parental deficiency and neglect were hardly touched upon let alone pursued. Take Mary, for instance. What were we supposed to deduce from her example? That she was so damaged because her parents spoke French or her step dad once cut her hair for bad behaviour. The hair cutting is disturbing partly in and of itself but mainly because its likely to be indicative of parental failure or abuse, but not a hint of this.

And so back to the poor youth worker who mutters careful platitudes about parenting being difficult and is then pursued about the real issue of whether little Johnny or little Mary knows they are in the Top 50 delinquents in the area.

Even the bit about the GRIP programme which offered ’straight talking’ about parenting did nothing of the sort. So why did X truant or why did Y set fire to things? Not an iota of a suggestion was offered and yet a blind man could have pointed you in the right direction. Clearly something was not right in those families. Yet it was kid gloves all the way. The Holy family was not to be after all.

I am not suggesting the family is the only cause of delinqeunt behaviour. There have been lots of changes in social attitudes and culture that have a bearing on how young people act…but to ignore the family as a prime concern when everything about your proramme pointed in that direction was more than disappointing. It left your proramme empty and vacuous and gave the viewer the despondant feeling that if even so called brave investigative journalism can’t get to grips with this most important of social ills ,then no one ever will.

Frankly all that stayed with me was the truly disturbing images of aggressive and out of control children and a sense of complete impotence.
Dave McHale, UK

I think that the programme was a real eye-opener for all of the parents and teachers watching. Children only get up to mischief when they are bored and as they grow older it gets worse and worse. Thank God for schemes like Y.I.P because I know that if there were things like that going on when I was 13 or 14 I it would have distracted me from things like alcohol and drugs. I don’t agree with rewarding bad behaviour with trips to Blackpool because sooner or later they will have to pay the price for their wrong doings but locking up youngsters will only make the problem worse. Youngsters need to relate to someone who’s been there and done that, so they can learn from other peoples experiences. If you bring in a teenage boy who’s been locked up for however long for dealing drugs or doing robbery they will see that making fast quick easy money only leads to a cell, if you’re lucky, or a grave.
Michaela , Birmingham

After watching your programme I was amazed to see how much the government is putting into young people and their issues. My worry for these young people is their parents. Not enough is being done to try and solve the issues where the parents are concerned. Trying to deal with the young people is treating a symptom and not the cause, I would dearly love to see programmes geared towards better parenting and where they may be making mistakes with their children. I am not blaming parents for their children’s behaviour the young people are for their choices but why is it some of the young people from the same estates don’t behave in the same way as those who get into trouble look to the parenting, it makes it a lot easier to deal with youth than it is with parents. >Amanda Foran, uk

Watching this programme tonight only highlighted to me that schools have a moral obligation to assist children early on, to help prevent future problems. Schools have access to outside agencies to help children at risk, schools should not be allowed to permanently exclude children. They should introduce new policy to include all children and support them positively, by every means possible. But if YIP or others schemes alike help one child then it’s good. But to me the buck stops with schools.

A concerned parent, England

These schemes are good from the point of view that they are stopping children from getting into trouble. But what about the good kids, the kids that don’t cause trouble, the kids that belong to parents that don’t have enough money to take their kids on day trips to Thorpe park or holidays, or even be able to afford lessons on DJ’ing and such like. What is going to become of these youngsters? I have a feeling that these youngsters are going to be turning to petty crime, truancy and such like to enable them to feel IMPORTANT and to be part of this IMPORTANT scheme. So Sir Charles Pollard what do you intend to set up for these kids, the ones that stay in school, the ones that are constantly being teased for being a swat, the ones that get A* Grades. When are these children going to be getting what they deserve?
Sue, England

I watched your programme on teenage tearaways and I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that so much money and work is wasted on these youngsters. If any other person without any background problems did the crimes they commit, they would be prosecuted whereas these youngsters are being treated to Mcdonalds and taken on trips. I’m sure that the law is there for everyone to abide by and it isn’t different for those with certain background problems. So if you do the crime you do the time not go to Blackpool as a reward. Sir Charles Pollard seemed to believe that the legal system on prosecution was not in fact a beneficial punishment but a way to get them into more trouble, so as far as he is concerned the jails we have are of no use so why on earth do we have them and why do other criminals such as murders not get taking to Alton Towers for a day out rather than sent to jail to do the time in which they deserve.
Paul, Scotland

It is shocking to see how the authorities are apparently only interested in people as risk factors and not as human beings. Watching the programme it is difficult not to be cynical and believe that the schemes are more useful in providing jobs for professionals than in solving social problems. Surely, being “tough on the causes of crime” means rejecting a society that does not care for anything except for cyphers and targets on the one hand and commercial profit on the other hand.

If Blair really wants to get tough on crime then he should look deep into the mirror - and then perhaps he will understand that if the government leader has no reverse gear - then why should those with much less have one. Being tough on the causes of crime means being tough on the politicians that have created such a meaningless and worthless society.

Consecutive British governments have pushed Britain down the road of American style greed to an American style society -and now the public are paying the price. New Labour and its Thatcherite policies offer large sections of the public no choice - and from such a position of hopelessness it is no wonder that they turn to crime.

Give people a future, give them something worth holding on to - and they will try and preserve it -but take away their future and they will have nothing to loose. When elected - who would have thought that Blair would have turned out to be the offender he has proved to be?

Trevor Batten, NL

As a parent of five children between the ages of 10 and 17, I would like to think that if any of my children were on the top 50 list, it would be discussed with me and we could work together to prevent them from offending. I think the scheme sounds good, but if information is been held on under 18 year olds and parents are not aware is data protection not been infringed.
Dianne Snowdon, Tyne & Wear

It is sad to see young people behaving in such a manner and getting themselves into trouble with the police so early in their lives. Youth Inclusion Programmes are a good idea, but I do wonder if they are catching the children early enough. I thought that by the time many of the children came to their attention, it was too late for some of them. The 8 to 12 age group is probably the right age to begin a programme like this. They will benefit greatly at this age before getting into more serious trouble. More attention should be focused on the cause of their many problems. These programmes and the people who run them are to be applauded for trying their best to help the children. It is however a two-way process and the children have a big part to play if they are to gain the best advantages from the programme they are on.

Steve Fuller, England

I thought the programme was very good. I’m only 15 years of age and I think that their should be something like a youth club in my area. Manchester, Cheetham Hill
Zuhaib Hussain, England

I watched your programme with great interest.
My reaction is Thank Goodness for this scheme.
I believe ALL children can be made good, with the right help. I would be glad if all my council tax could fund a scheme like this. Good luck to YIP!
Margaret Freeguard, Devon

I’ve been watching the programme tonight. One of the kids in the programme said they committed crime because they were ‘poor’. If it wasn’t so serious it would have made me laugh - I was in Africa last week and somebody dressed from head to foot in designer gear couldn’t call themselves poor.
David, UK

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published.

So what is nandrolone, and how is it detected in the human body?

Are tests for nandrolone conclusive?

Even though a drug test may indicate that the subject has apparently taken nandrolone to boost muscle growth and increase strength, this does not necessarily prove wrongdoing.

It is possible that the body may naturally create a form of nandrolone, particularly if the subject has eaten large quantities of meat with the substance.

Certain animals may create a bigger risk, particularly horse and boar - and athletes are warned to avoid offal from these animals.

It is also possible that dietary supplements which appear perfectly legal can be broken down by the body to produce the same substances created when nandrolone is broken down.

Again, athletes are warned not to believe everything they read on the labels of these supplements.

A UK Sport report on nandrolone said: “We recommend that the sports community should be reminded they must maintain a high level of awareness of the possible hazards of using some nutritional supplements and herbal preparations”.

The other source of nandrolone is other types of steroid - but these are also banned by world sport bodies.

What are anabolic steroids?

Anabolic steroids are drugs that are usually from the male reproduction hormone testoterone.

They have been banned by many sports because of their danger to health.

Their exact effect on the body is still a matter of scientific debate.

Why do sportsmen take them?

Anabolic steroids can improve the body’s capacity to train and compete at the highest level.

They reduce the fatigue associated with training, and the time required to recover after physical exertion.

They also promote the development of muscle tissue in the body, with an associated increase in strength and power. This is achieved by stimulating the production of protein in the body.

However, some of the increased muscle bulk may be due to the laying down of water and minerals, so the increase in strength may not be as pronounced as expected.

What are the risks associated with anabolic steroids?

Anabolic steroids promote the growth of many tissues in the body by stimulating the release of the hormone testoterone.

By disturbing the body’s equilibrium, anabolic steroids can cause damage to many of the body’s major organs, particularly the liver, which has to deal with breaking down the compound.

There is also a significant risk of damage to the heart, which is made of muscle tissue. Anabolic steroids can lead to an expansion of the cardiac muscle, which can cause heart attacks.

The drugs also promote the growth of bones, particularly facial bones such as the jaw, and the teeth.

There is also an increased risk of cancer.

Other side effects include:

• The development of inappropriate sexual characteristics such as breasts in men, and facial hair in women;

• A deepening of the voice;
• Baldness;
• Male impotence.

John Brewer, director of the Human Performance Centre at the Lilleshall National Sports Centre, said: “The health risks associated with anabolic steroids are as serious as you can get.

“They greatly increase a person’s risk of dying early or of suffering long-term physical problems.

“While the rewards of success in sport are getting greater and greater, the temptation to take anabolic steroids should be offset by the risk of an early grave.”

Are all anabolic steroids detected by drugs tests?

Some sports people who take anabolic steroids escape detection because they stop taking the drugs prior to competition, giving the body time to break down the compounds.