For those few resilient readers who have weathered the year-long storm of open access posts at Reciprocal Space and still look in here occasionally for reports of the libel reform campaign, there is good news. Within days I should be able to remove the Libel Reform Campaign button from my web-site because late yesterday afternoon the Defamation Bill had its final reading in the House of Lords.

This week it is the turn of the House of Commons to investigate the UK policy on open access. No-one seems to be quite sure if they are co-ordinating things with the House of Lords, which was looking into this issue only last week, but on the plus side at least all these inquiries mean that OA remains a live topic. I made a submission to the House of Lords committee — outlining what I thought were several key points. Many others did the same.

This week the Guardian made the astonishing revelation that a man who is heir to the throne by an accident of birth and who is the representative on Earth of precisely no-one has been enjoying the right of veto over government legislation. I think this might be a good time to strap on our democratic boots and make our way to Parliament.

Regular readers of this blog will be probably be aware of the ongoing campaign to reform the libel laws of England and Wales. These laws have pernicious effects in many aspects of public life — including science and medicine. They place a dangerous constriction on the freedom of scientists and medics to engage in robust debate on matters of public interest.

I was banging on last week about how scientists should use words rather than guns during public engagement. Words are safer — and often more effective. But they are not completely safe. In fact, they can sometimes be rather dangerous, especially when used without due care and attention in England and Wales, where the libel laws take a keen interest in the words of any unsuspecting author.