´óÏó´«Ã½

Dear Newsnight

Who would benefit if a potential leadership challenge by John Reid is harmed?

Has he received the full backing one would expect from cabinet colleagues?

Anyone noticeably reticent in their support for him?

Any briefings from 'unattributable sources' that are not helpful to him?

Just some thoughts

best wishes
Bob Goodall

Thought this worth a read

Definitely agree with this one



THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF( ARIZONA ) AND HE KEEPS G ETTIN G ELECTED OVER AND OVER A G AIN.
>
> These are some of the reasons why:
>
> Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the "tent city jail" to save Arizona from spending tens of million of dollars on another expensive prison complex.
>
> He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
>
> He banned smoking and blue films, magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but " G " movies. He says: "they're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave."
>
> He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.
>
> Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
>
> He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.
>
> When asked why the weather channel he replied: "so these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs."
>
> He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
>
> He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
>
> With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed- wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
>
> On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. "This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace," said Ernesto
Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go "It's inhumane."
>
> Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. "Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves."
>
> Wednesday he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: "It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your d4mned mouths!"
>
> Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

> Sheriff Joe was just re-elected Sheriff in Maricopa County , Arizona ..

>
>
>

Its criminal justice v lawful justice... approval and disapproval and the power of compulsory and warning action....with proportional action that is effective...

...v impulsive behaviourist vigilantes of social economic fighting, peer group pressure, and levelling..

... whose inferior socialism breaks down the care broad tolerance and trustability of lawfulness...

...the selfish self serving pride system..of Thatcher-kind on strike to the miners or the economic deceit or par-liar-mentarian nature of blairism leads people into criminal selfishness and pride through violence betterment peer group pressure and misrepresentation and lying and defeat of others into facetious failures of others for revenge evenness competition and envy...

economic pride fights the proud worthy and fortunate...

and the "conservatives" think their opinions are worth more than the jobs to be done..and the blairites believe they are better than it their duties of care..

We need forward thinking...the toolkits of leadership ...voluntary choices...of people proud to do the right thing and knowing and allowed to go for the right ways to be popular by their own applications and work ethic..the facts about them they are keen to show off...not the thesis and opinions of others...

More to be said..what are the media manifestos...??? [a 15 minute opinion]

HOME OFFICE CRISIS

The crisis not only continues, but deepens. Home Secretary John Reid is now faced with the fact that the head of the Youth Justice Board in England & Wales, Professor Rod Morgan, has quit his job in protest at prison overcrowding.

John Reid is under fire on several fronts &, having been Home Secretary for 9 months, it is time for him to take the rap instead of blaming his officials, an unfortunate tendency that will not endear him to his staff.

The likely effect on Mr Reid's leadership chances will be the need to reassess whether he is leadership material. The evidence suggests he is not up to the job of Home Secretary, let alone Prime Minister:

(1) Mr Reid has admitted the Government has acted "unlawfully" over the detention of young asylum seekers, in itself a shocking admission.

(2) The jail population (80,002 as at today): Mr Reid has failed to deal with prison overcrowding, which has been caused by an overuse of prison, not by an increase in crime. Furthermore, the injudicious use of remand, whereby far too many people are held in jail while awaiting trial (despite being innocent until proven guilty), has added to the problem of overcrowding.

(3) In July 2006, Mr Reid suggested that certain prisoners, in particular, women & the mentally ill, should not be in jail & that measures would be taken to reduce their number. The net result would be to release tens of thousands of prison places, which would obviate the need to provide 8,000 extra places at a cost of £800m. The Home Secretary has failed to turn his words into action.

I want this Joe Arpaio guy to take over from John Reid.

Gay Adoption survey from ICM

Um ....
Have a close look at the percentages.
Apparently some people are in favour of gay adoption but are NOT in favour of adoption by female couples or male couples.
Am I missing another type of gay partnership?
Or have ICM included some folk who thought that 'gay' meant jolly happy in the irst question?
;~>

Why does everyone on Newsnight cow - tow to Kirsty Wark? Giants of the broadcasting world quail before her mediocrity. As a fellow Scot, I find her approach agressive yet lightweight. She is all preparation and no inspiration. She lacks agility of mind and, as for her accent . . . it is grating in the extreme. Has she ever been witty? Ever? We deserve better than this and it is sad to see her absolute power sweeping all before her. Go on ´óÏó´«Ã½ - topple her from her pedestal and replace her with a talented person.

Mangel the mail by all means
But don´t butcher our ´óÏó´«Ã½!

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is fab, beucase it´s one of the only things that is left wing (if it is) and that isn´t Murdoch owned.

I think it goes a long way to holding us all together, one of the things that keeps one of my favorite pastimes Earl Grey sipping with the latest newsnight after work alive. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ reminds us that there are some more refined things in life, and that anyone can be refined from whatever background. It´s part of the English soul and the only reason why it can provide the standard for all broadcasters is that it is paid for and is what it is. It´s a wonderful national institution in a multicultural world, our heart as it were.

AND:
It keeps the gentleman in British
A role model for us all
For God´s sake
If you axe the ´óÏó´«Ã½
The others´ll grow just as tall!

Post script to my previous article.
I sent a copy of this to Tony Blair's office, I did get an acknowledgement, but that's all so far.

Kirsty Wark would not allow Dominic Grieve to finish any of his replies to her questions. So no Governmant minister would appear. This does not mean that an Opposition spokesman should be prevented from giving complete answers on a subject of very high importance. A new low in ´óÏó´«Ã½ interviewing.

Funny how all this discussion on the future of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ only comes after the new contract.

Anyway, no matter how interesting it all is, there is a strong posibility that the licence fee may not even be legal under the human rights act.

As I understand it, making it illegal to access any live broadcasts without having paid the TV licence fee first is censorship under the act. As others have said "Its like having to buy a copy of Pravda before you can read another newspaper!"

The exception is where it is deemed necessary for the purpose of raising funds for public service broadcasting.

It is very doubtful that enough of the output of a large multi-national broadcaster, like the ´óÏó´«Ã½, would qualify to make this loophole legal.

Bye Bye ´óÏó´«Ã½?
Answers on a postcard please.

godricbj

So according to Newsnight tonight, it now looks as if Blair will cave in to the majority cabinet view in favour of granting NO exceptions to the law on same sex discrimination. If this means the resignation of Ruth Kelly, no one will miss her.

More importantly, if it means that Catholic adoption agencies will close, so much the better. I find it incredible that in this day and age, we entrust such a weighty responsibility to ANY religious grouping.

We British tend to criticize the French a lot, but at least they have got their act together as a secular state - viz the debate about the wearing of headscarfs, veils and other religious symbols in schools and places of work where uniforms are the rule. In France, because the country's institutions are secular, it simply isn't allowed.

´óÏó´«Ã½ = Timeless beauty in broadcasting

And a wonderful addiction to newsnight blogging.

I think that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be kept as it is, I do not think that it is too big. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has done this country a great service as well as abroad especially during the war years which I think should be remembered by all who criticise. Many families with relatives abroad while serving their country in past and present conflicts relied on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for news of and sending messages to their loved ones. I may be in a minority but I think overall the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is good value for money giving good interesting current affairs programmes which particularly interest me, without being constantly interrupted by adverts. Keep up the good work all who are involved in making the ´óÏó´«Ã½ what it is.

I think the way you treated Paul Dacres comments just proves his point.

You just cant see it can you.

Look back and see how you treated the Tories when they were in govenment and compare how you treat Labour when there is a similar problem its chalk and cheese.

You have a left wing bias and give Labour an easy ride all the time by comparison.

Your sneering piece about Paul Dacre's critique of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ beautifully illustrated his point.

I've always supported the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and licence fee but I no more.

This evening's Newsnight poll on gay adoption, showing that a substantial majority of those polled favour gay adoption, misses the point entirely. Whether or not the Catholic Church ideally wants to ban all gay adoptions, that is not its position in the present controvery. Its position is the much narrower one that its own agencies should not be required to handle gay adoptions. Gay adoptions can be dealt with by a myriad of other bodies who have no religious objections to homosexual practices, or who believe, as Roman Catholics do not believe, that a child is just as well off with two practicing homosexuals as it is with a married couple. But quite apart from any religious considerations, the Sexual Orientation Regulations in their effects will prohbit their publication if any empirical findings did show that children suffer from having two parents of the same sex. Let us just see how many research grants will be forthcoming on this subject from now on. Unjust discrimination looks like an Enlightenment issue. It isn't. The provenance of using the police powers of the state to make everyone toe the same religious, moral and intellectual line was, on the contrary, what the Enlightment reacted against. The sanctions of the Inquisition were incomparably more severe, but the mind set was the same. The question at issue has not been 'how many people approve gay adoption?' It has been 'how many people who approve gay adoption think that those who don't approve it should be forced by the state to facilitate gay adoption?'--a totally different matter indeed. One wonders for how much longer the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will consider it legal to post a comment such as this, or even treat it automatically as something it has to report to the police.

Is the better judgement not to listen, not to watch, not to pay attention, not to act?? some think so..some are judges, MPs, ministers, even prime ministers...

Rationalities, priorities, economics...policies ....

Even in court some magistrates don't pay attention...is that the better judgement??

A good program discussing issues not fixable anytime soon. I take it there will be fewer peerages from the ranks of the senior Home Office staff in the 2008 Honours List?

The only reason prisons are full is an easy one to grasp.The liberial elite started tinkering around with the justice system in the 60s from the likes of Roy Jenkins,the then home secretary.He removed the ultimate price for a criminal to be sentenced with death by hanging and replaced it with life inprisonment.Today a life sentence can be 7 years.I know its barbaric and i personally would not advocate the reintroduction of hanging,as i am sure there are more humane ways of dispensing with a serial killer or an evil minded psychopath whose crimes are usually punished with a room and board with television and phone cards and human rights lawyers fighting for his rights for pornography and all the agencies set up in the name of rehabilitation for the lag so that when he gets his day of freedom he does not go and re offend and blight his community with his(or her) presence,oh and all funded by the law abiding taxpayer.We are not getting a good deal out of this British justice system and its mostly geared up for the criminal.What about the victims or the potential victims who have very little other than a police force that resembles more a social worker in drag than the protector of the decent and lawabiding.Lets not forget the misery that crime creates and the needs of the criminal should not be of our main concern,they broke a contract to be lawful and they have been getting away with it for years only because of the mind set of the woolly minded liberials desire to help and rehabilitate the "unfortunate" lag.Someone needs to say that by the way,as i have not heard a word about victims of crime, just that prisons are full and john reid may have scuppered his chances at leadership.Judges are snookered and cannot sentence a pedophile to time in jail because they are full to capacity.This ineffective,no sorry,clinically incompetent govt did not see it coming,but the rest of us did.What needs to be done is,reduce the agencies that caters for the"needs"of the criminal and the savings that is made,build more prisons in the meantime,take a look at how the Texans deal with prisoners and the suggestions from brian @2 regarding arizona.Yes am a hardliner.sorry but thats the only way forward.

kirsty wark not witty eh?

elaine @4.has a problem with kirsty wark,i am intrigued as for me kirsty has all the nesessary attributes.She is a very good interviewer and deals with guests on newsnight with vigor not unlike paxo and she cannot be a day over 30 so she has time to grow and develop i am sure,as for the charge that she is not witty,what do you want,maybe joan rivers could fill in for kirsty,a newnight special,a comedienne interviews the great and the corrupt,first up to be grilled by joan rivers is that tricky chappie,the one who told us all about the weapons of mass disception,drum roll...tony blair."well hello tony or should that be prime minister tony?,has cherie had any botox work done lately or is she gonna go hog wild and have the full face stretch?".
let it be,
elaine @ 4,retract your claws as jealousy is a painfull thing to witness ,and if you want some wit, can i suggest a comedy club..

When are we going to get rid of the biased Kirsty Wark? Her interview last night with Michael Crick on the Home Office debacle, in which she allowed him free rein, followed by her interview with Grieve, the opposition spokesman was a beautiful demonstration of bias. Grieve was not allowed to complete an answer to the questions she asked him and her aggression was palpable. I switched off.

Is it really worth commenting on such a pro Labour programme as this. It is supposedly apolitical ... but , KWs contribution last night.. was blatantly anything but.So the answer to my own question is a big NO. Lets hope that the editorial team will be censured appropriately!.
If this comment is moderated it will prove my point...if only to me.!!

I remember Sarah Smiths interview with John Reid when he was health minister on C4 lunch time news, he reeled off satistics and Sarah got at him like a terrier and thats how I described her and the interview in an email to either the beeb or C4 cant remember now, anyway later that evening on Newsnight Paxman described Reid as an "attack dog" and he lost it.
But the real problems were set long before Reids character fault lines were exposed. Locking up kids instead of dealing with root causes is madness asking for more madness.

Kirsty the doyen of Newsnight ? what had he been drinking?

The polling company took money off the ´óÏó´«Ã½ under false pretences when it supplied the nonesense figures on gay adoption.

a) Approve gay couples adopting 64%
b) Approve male couples adopting 55%
c) Approve female couples adopting 59%

So a) should be about 57% & can't be above 59%.

Please tell us on Monday that you got your (our) money back.

I can't believe you mocked the Daily Mail. Of course the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is full of left-wing liberal types. Also lots of ethnic minorities and homosexuals. Hopelessly feminist, anti Christian, pro multiculturalists. Even the suggestion that you might be impartial is ludicrous. Check out angryharry.com you'll be grinding your teeth.

Don´t see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is left wing in particular. As an instiution I don´t know whether its in favour of eccentricity, true characters and individualism but its timelessness is it´s strength it is what McDonalds is to Americans I think.

My North American friend once told me he had been told that whilst he was away "he would eat at least once in McDonalds and he would love it". I was bored with the Beeb back home but now I watch online abroad and after a hard days work as a language teacher its like my home from home its wonderful. Whatever you say about it, it simply has to stay.

And who said its in favour of European Federalism and left wing values, load of poppycock.

At 05:54 AM on 27 Jan 2007,
vikingar wrote:
The law, rules & my taxes are supposed to get me access to an NHS dentist.

The reality is I cannot, so have to shop around & if necessary go PRIVATE. Same applies here.

I recently had a bad tooth one evening and rung NHS DIRECT to see if they could find me an NHS dentist as the last one locally had closed down. It took quite a long time on the phone answering all the perhaps unnecessary questions but they put me in touch with the local NHS dentistry centre. The NHS centre rang me back with an appointment at the local community hospital dentists department the following afternoon.

A very good service I think !

Mr Dacre is on to something but it's not just the ´óÏó´«Ã½. We are two nations all right. The first of which the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is but part is a detached bossy metropolitan eurocentric political and media establishment,living mentally and usually physically inside the M25 with a hot line to Brussels, whose main product is telling us what we ought to be doing to keep it happy. It has a habit of turning up on Newsnight, is more often found on the left than the right, whatever that shorthand means, and was identified years ago by a distinguished historian as 'a lower-middle-class [with] a university education [without] any outlet for its abilities' The rest are all the striving BC's who live in the provinces, work, pay taxes, get married properly, keep our children out of trouble [most of the time anyway] do a bit of voluntary work and have been and still are prepared to fight for their country preferably alongside Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians rather than Europeans or even Americans. We were identified in 1952 as the New Elizabethans and a right mess we were led into. Whichever party leader can attract those people wil [a] win elections [b] actually achieve things instead of endlessly talking about them.

As for so-called gay adoption the ´óÏó´«Ã½ unerringly asked the wrong question. It shoud have been 'Should the churches be given a conscience clause?'

Polly Toynbee wil rcognise the quote by the way. It's her grandad. I like the 'lower' bit

John Parfitt

Re #29.
As you'fail to see' what is manifestly evident to so many, then perhaps your powers of perception might be improved if you were to add another language to your portfolio: body language.

did I say something wrong or was polly upset?

did I say something wrong or was polly upset?

Ref Gordon #30

Yep, NHS Direct has proved helpful, they should allow people to create accounts so both parties do not have to repeat details ad-nauseum

It is both sadly ironic & rather telling, that the first service available on the new NHS in the 1950's was dentistry [0] has been the most difficult of basic services to get via the NHS in 200 [1-4]

The priority, scope & direction of the NHS has changed.

The British Armed Force, ´óÏó´«Ã½ & NHS are 3 great British Institutions being fatally undermined / tinkered with by New Labour :(

New Labour = great on rhetoric (Blair) but unable to deliver & secure sustainable funding (Brown)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[0]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

But of course Mr Dacre represents a Metropolitan elite, just cut from a different cloth. But equally convinced he is right.
AS for granting religious groups the right to be above the law in some cases, where does one stop? Suttee?

Again we had a Michael Crick piece stirring trouble in the politicos. This is the sort of inane bitching that turned me off 'The World at One', which had been a serious news programme, with items from around the world, then became nothing but Westminster tittle-tattle. All the Home Office ministers refused to appear, you said, flashing up all their pictures, then you show a perfectly good filmed response by the Home Secretary himself a little earlier in the day. I see no sign that Reid wants anything other at this time than to remain at the Home Office to get on with trying to fix it, so why bring up the suggestion of him wanting to become PM? How ridiculously unhelpful to report idiot MPs (who have never been ministers, or probably ever held a responsible management role) saying that a minister who says his department needs serious reform and that he will reform it is unsuited to be a minister! Is a minister committed to reform best replaced by someone fresh who may not be? Only perhaps in the eyes of civil servants seeking to preserve the status quo, or journalists on power trips.

It has been so obvious the Home Office has been unfit for purpose for decades, mainly because of the contradictory issues it encompasses and the opposing views of the people that have been attracted to handle each of those. No one has been able to fix it because they haven't been allowed to get to grips with the problems, before being called upon to make promises after being appointed, or before being sacked or moved on. The reason is that departmental mandarins and their pals in the media (them having such good links due to the topics the department covers) have the knack of never letting the Home Secretary's feet touch the ground. I always remember how the Home Secretary at the time complained that his civil servants made him decide on the assault on the Iranian embassy whilst being driven at terrifyingly high speed into London; a trip he didn't need to make. An old trick straight out of 'Yes Minister'. Reid is a big, solid, bruiser, and just what the Home Office needs for change of that, as long as he heads in the right direction, and judges the advice he gets appropriately.

Two judges not jailing two paedophiles when advised by Reid only to jail when necessary says nothing adverse about Reid at all, but should instead raise why the judges made such comments. If they felt the men should be jailed they should have jailed them. Were they exposing children to danger in order to make a point against the Home Secretary (our judges are supposed to be non-political, but their actions sometimes obviously follow agendas that others know as political)? Why two such cases involving paedophiles in two days in two different courts in two different parts of the country? Were there no similar remarks in other types of cases? Was this action by political judges, or highly selective reporting?

The Chairman of the Youth Justice Board quitting just before his non-renewed term ends, to make a point and cause disruption, sounded like sour grapes were clouding his judgment. This government has taken action against young people who have made other's lives a misery. Behaviour that was too often previously considered something beyond police powers, or were handled by youth courts and "secure homes" in ways that the offenders found laughable, so the innocent just continued to suffer. Especially other young people, who deserve safe lives as much as any other citizen (the Home Office just recently instructed the police to take action against serious bullying where schools won't, or cannot, which they have previously ignored as "just kids being kids", despite killings, suicides, thefts and damage to property), the vulnerable, those in deprived areas - people Labour see as their natural supporters. Can anyone fault Labour for trying to provide them with a peaceful, safe, environment?

The question has to be whether there are more effective methods. The reported allegations were that too many are being "criminalised" unnecessarily, and also that locking them up was often the worst thing to do for their, and society's future. But ASBOs and tagging have a low success rate. and precisely what was mean by "criminalise"? It sounded like it was being used in deviously differing ways. Surely if someone does something that is a criminal offence then they criminalise themselves? Was is it being suggested that some present offences should no longer be illegal? Or was it being used more loosely, to mean the police should ignore some offences, or to mean they should keep no records of more actions, use discretion more frequently? If so, what evidence is there that would be effective? what evidence is there of insufficient use of discretion? In the city where I live detection rates have soared and reported crimes have fallen dramatically, but if you try to report a non-urgent crime by phone you get put to an extension that is never answered. Simple. Is that discretion enough?

Or was it being suggested the offenders' lives should have been changed years before? That doesn't solve the problems here and now. Of course, it is certain that the psychiatric services are grossly inadequate and wrongly prioritised, and should be handling many people long before they get to the stage of needing to be arrested. There is behaviour that is treated as normal for certain people which shouldn't be. For example the earlier offending by the young man now driving prison visitors, and to whom it, astoundingly, came as a shock that he would lose him job if he was sent to to prison. All human beings should be capable of understanding such an obvious cause and effect long before they become capable to committing offences. If they cannot there is a mental problem which needs treating long before dozens of people have suffered harm and the resources of the police, the courts and the prisons have been used. The same - in that the addiction needs treating, and drugs being provided instead of their addiction driving multiple thefts - goes for addicts.

One can blame many people for those failings (not least the offenders), educators, health professionals and administrators, and government health ministers eminently, but not simply the Home Secretary. To do that is opportunistic, point-scoring, scape-goating, and not constructive.

It also distracts from Reid's apparent responsibility for the gross waste of money and invasion of privacy that is the ID Cards scheme, which one might say will criminalise us all. But then that is probably the computer-illiterate, cannot be contradicted, Prime Minister's doing, him having listened to Bill Gates' evangelising on how computers can solve everything and are totally secure.

Why did the "unlawful" imprisonment of young asylum seekers merit so little mention?

Was the author of the book advocating the ´óÏó´«Ã½ be scrapped drunk? He was certainly high on something. Perhaps on being on the ´óÏó´«Ã½? Why bother to publicise the totally partisan views of Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail? The man is unelected, irresponsible, and has behaved like a monster for years. In attacking the ´óÏó´«Ã½ he's either simply jealous or promoting the commercial interests of his already far-too powerful employer, which owns multiple newspapers (all, as with other papers, losing circulation) and websites that are nothing compared to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s. People who cannot understand that the country's population has various, and varying tastes, and needs, and advocate nothing being provided but that which they like at one point in time really haven't progressed from infancy.

I guess poor Martin Bell felt pressed to have at least something to say in the face of such childishness, but just harking on how valuable the World Service is internationally, whilst also, astoundingly, for a former war correspondent, saying there is too much foreign coverage, was very weak. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to have the best brains trying to figure future funding, but neither Dacre nor the two panellists have the answers. It seems to me the answer has to be general taxation, according to ability to pay, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be figuring the political (in the broadest sense) moves needed to make that possible, and suitable.

Thank you for doing an opinion poll on adoption by same-sex couples. The rights of minorities should never be a matter of the popular vote - we get around that by having the people elected representatives who have adopted general principles which then can applied to minorities too - but when the popular majority is on the side of previously despised minorities it is wonderful that a top-of-the-tree editor senses it, commissions a survey, and publicises the result.

However, I don't understand your fixation with using "gay" for both males and females. It is not standard, and likely confuses many. Not least those polled in your survey:

| Newsnight commissioned poll. ICM Research Jan 24-25 2006
|
| Do you think that gay couples should or should not be allowed to
| adopt children? Should 64%; Should Not 32%; Don't Know or
| Refused 4%.
|
| Do you think gay MALE couples should or should not be allowed to
| adopt children? Should 55%; Should Not 42%; Don't Know or
| Refused 3%.
|
| Do you think gay FEMALE couples should be allowed to adopt
| children? Should 59%; Should Not 42%; Don't Know or Refused 3%.

So more thought "gay couples" should be allowed to adopt than thought either "gay male" or "gay female" couples should? Your reporter (Ethical Man, JR), in his voice-over, used "lesbian". Did he break your style in doing that? "Same-sex" couples is a standard usage when one wishes to refer to both gay and lesbian. You might also have tried the public's opinions on adoption by couples in Civil Partnerships and those not. An extension that is strongly related would have been to ask of same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in Register offices or churches that accept them, since the same people who have opposed adoption by same-sex couples blocked equal access to marriage. Their objection is to us being allowed partners.

When the commentary said women were slightly relaxed about the issue, were there figures showing who amongst the public held the opinions that were not shown on screen that we could have, please?

Apropos the absurd support for the Tent City Jail, those who support the idea might like a little more background:

1. Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion, September 2002: "The sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence."

2. Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion, September 2002: Inmate fights were common and often occurred without any intervention by guards. The case presented evidence that violence occurred with considerable and needless frequency…among other things, the Sheriff and his deputies had actual knowledge that prisoners used rebar tent stakes and tent poles as weapons and did nothing to prevent it.

3. Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion, September 2002: Cigarettes, lighters, fast-food, knives and drugs are routinely tossed over the chain link fence and into the tent area. The evidence showed that the Sheriff and other jail authorities knew that contraband of all kinds was 'pervasive' at Tent City.

4. Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion, September 2002: Inmates used fire extinguishers as clubs, and steel rebar tent stakes could be worked free and were easily hidden.

Excerpts from Arizona Court of Appeals hearing where the Court upheld jury verdicts of an earlier Arizona Superior Court Hearing in the case of Flanders vs. Maricopa County. In court, Arpaio testified that he didn't know anything about the constant fights or contraband. The jury didn't believe him. Jurors found, and the Appeals Court affirmed, that Arpaio is guilty of "deliberate indifference" to the conditions of his jail - A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. By law, the Sheriff is responsible for county jails. Because the judgment against the Sheriff was for CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS (Eighth Ammendment) committed in his official capacity, the County is liable as a matter of law.

But then again, I don't suppose for a moment that the foaming-mouthed fanatics who would countenance such a regime would have altogether too much of a problem with this.

No.7 is a sick comment exacerbated by some rather obvious Machiavellian manipulation of political correctness "as a fellow Scot"..oh dear,oh dear.

Why is it that Britain is having a lot of problems with british muslims? Why not muslims in countries like America, Canada, Germany etc kicking any fuss? The muslims should realise that there are other religions too. Why should they have a different law to the rest of the counctry? "When in Rome, you do like Romans do". No one is grudging them to practise their religion but not at detriment to others. Whoever doesn't like Britain is free to go to where feel more comfortable to practise their religions. I think Britain is too linient and should adopt a policy of "Happy to go, happy to stay". In no time Britain is going to turn to a muslim country is care is not taken.I'm proud to be a Nigerian, but mostly proud to be a British and I will always defend that. --Just my own thought

I'm a naturalised African British and came about 25years ago. I feel that there has been a great influx of peopel from all over the world into Britain in that last 25years more than any other country in the World. It has been good because it helps the economy but has been bad for those who just come for the purpose of Social Benefits, which looks like what has been attracting peopele to come. If people come genuely and live a honest life, then that should be fime.

With the prison problem, it shows that the departments are not talking to each other. So what the government needs to do are very simple:

1. Have a system in place that will check when people come in/out and stamp their passports both times.

2. Cancel the benefits for not British until their status is changed.

3. There should be a one system that will monitor when there is a new foreing prisonner in Britain that will inform the police and the immigtation and when released, should be handed over to the immigration for deportation without delay then The Police, Immigration and Prison service updates their records.

Britain was one of the safest countries in the world but not anymore because because we are now living in constatnt fear of this radicals or that radicals including too many doggy people comming into the country - Nobody wants them, at least for anyone in their right mindset and who love their country

keith at @41
you end your comments regarding arizona tent city incarcerated inmates.
"But then again,I don't suppose for a moment that the foaming-mouthed fanatics who would countenance such a regime would have altogether too much of a problem with this".

my answer to your comment is,no i have no problem with that,and i only foam at the mouth with the mindset of people like you who sit there and defend the lawless.experience crime,get mugged,have a loved one killed,and you will lose all need to defend the criminal,trust me,you will.

Mr Wallace (apropos #45),

you assume that I have never been the victim of crime, and in this you are mistaken. I also know many other people who have been victims of crimes, ranging from the minor to the life-changing, and not all or even most of them, I would imagine, would offer their support for such an institution.

So perhaps with that we can move beyond your spurious justification for what would appear (to several American courts, if not yourself) to be a singularly barbaric regime.

I do not 'need' to defend 'the lawless' who find themselves in such conditions; I choose so to do. I simply cannot equate the lawlessness of the Arizona tent City Jail, the appalling violence detailed in my post above, with any concept of justice worthy of the name. When grief and the countenance of (or even desire for) a spectacularly bloody revenge become synonymous with justice, have we not lost something essential? Must crime damage us once, when committed, and then a second time when we permit of and even actively support the conditions described above?

I remain yours,
Keith