´óÏó´«Ã½

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am utterly disgusted - err, I should say I'm not a Daily Mail shouty complainy person, so I won't say 'why oh why oh why' etc. But why has Newsnight started with their report on embryo research with their science correspondent - can I repeat SCIENCE correspondent - in a church talking about this issue, replete with religious imagery and the like? What is the idiot who picked this location picked? The impartiality we should expect from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is immiediately compromised by using stained glass windows and images of Jesus, the exact same ideals and imagery used by those totally against any of this. It's lazy yet sensationalist, tabloid-style tactics.

I have never been particularly moved to email in somewhere like this, and have switched Newsnight off rather than watch a report direct from a church about embryo research. It's like setting a report about Israel from Belsen. Idiotic. Does anyone senior in this show read any of this?

On David Cameron's tax proposals. I have a question: How do these plans square with being green? The Stern review says the developed nations should spend (invest) 1% of GDP to modernise their infrastructure by 2050. 1% is about what the UK spends on higher education - a lot of money. Will Cameron come through on Climate Change or sell the usual Thatcherite tax-cutting rhetoric I grew up with?

Cameron also mentions 'more prisons' - as the country with the largest prison population in Europe, can we really afford more prisons? Does this mean the culture of failure in prisons will continue. Isn't this offering the electorate poor value for money?

Having just watched Newsnight (19 May 2008) and seen the discussion on the nature of human life and when it begins it seems strange to then get into a very different style of debate about the the survival rates of premature babies. Surely, even if only one premature baby survives at 24 weeks or less, this has to be a sign of the individual human life that is present at this age.

My wife nurses premature babies of this age and once out of the womb there is no question that they are a genuine human life, they feel pain, they are - like a full term baby - dependent on those around them to survive, and they are protected by the law.

This question is not one of science it is one of circumstance - should a baby's right to be protected by the law be dependent on their circumstance.

Nick Layton
Director, CathCom

Mr Crick in the kitchen cannot see Adam Boulton doing that panto -so
Let's hope the Government debates "pole dancing" and maybe we shall see Mr Crick doing a pole dance !

Can I start by congratulating your IT dept on the 'new' website that has taken me 40 minutes to register on. Shows that the public sector are still seriously in front when it come to cocking up over budget big IT projects.

Todays and tommorows commons votes were FREE, no whips. Yet paxo and crick both presented them as 'victories' for McBroon.

They would have been better and more fairly placed explaining what a free vote was and what the issues were.

Next we had the obligatory piss take, so called 'piece to camera' by Crick on Camerons speech, complete with 30 year old Maggie footage.

When will you lot realise that you have actually left university, and are not class warriors any more, or does the free food at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ make you feel you are still back in the 60's common rooms?

Has anyone considered this from the saviour siblings point of view. They have free will. What if they choose to refuse to donate blood or bone marrow? Will they be put under enormous peer pressure and a guilt trip, forced to give blood when they don't want to, or allowed to be individuals themselves?

It's easy to let our emotions get the better of us and cloud our judgement.

By the way, I'm guessing the Health Minister Dawn Primarolo MP was being interviewed from Parliament. It just looks like a church.

SHOUTING IN MY BUCKET (about life)

Almost any mechanism, whereby a woman becomes pregnant is now OK with society and law. The law still gets a little jumpy if her impregnator is under 16. At point-of-thrust, the woman may be beyond making any rational choice due to some mind altering substance, may be of any sexual orientation and social class; with or without any maternal ambition or aptitude. Her partner-in-sperm may be equally out of his head; of all sexual orientations or none, genitally classless, and without a parenting clue. They may, mutually, retain no memory of the ‘event’ and the woman may have no knowledge (memory) of father’s name to pass on, regardless of any law.
All the above is more-or-less legal, does not arouse fierce debate in Parliament and, incidentally, condemns thousands to life. Clearly, in any society that REALLY cares about the sanctity of life, the primary right would be the right TO REMAIN UNCONCEIVED. However, in Britain it is: copulate and (so far as the baby is concerned) be damned.

Contrast all that with the bizarre wrangling over abortion, foetuses and cell research! Have none of our simple MPs the wit to see that the VIABILITY of the unborn is irrelevant (in terms of that potential being) to whether you kill or not? There is no logic in the postulate that to pull out a foetus that can’t survive YET trumps pulling out one that can. THAT IS JUST PLAIN STUPID! We send YOUNG men to war rather than the old. We bomb anyone from conception to doddering without resort to some commission for guidance. We force the very old to sit about stinking and rotting because they are only allowed to die ‘naturally’; or, in special circumstances, by DELIBERATE DEHYDRATION! Nothing we do with or to human DNA can ever approach the obscenity of what we do to the ‘already here’ and sentient, among us.

The genie of inventiveness came out of the bottle millennia ago. Flint knappers R us! What can be done, (scientifically) will be done – somewhere in the global village. The two matters we must address, are the need for life-competence in those unfortunate enough to be born, and the very careful selection, from the latter, any whom we deem competent to hold office. This might minimise the impact of the worst excesses of tinkering with life, and that is, surely, the only form of control that has any viability for the future.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ideological indoctrination can be so strong that one is unaware of "belief" and assumes it to be fact.

The natural process is for many to be born and most to be early eliminated.

The lower the animal, the more offspring are loosed to this process.

With civilization, a more selective process can be achieved.

As to a higher philosophical/religious purpose: be aware that one more advanced and populous civilization has long determined that the highest good is to not be born at all.

I really enjoyed the studio debate about the measures passed by Parliament on Monday regarding the future of stem cell research, although I found Jeremy's rather interrogative style of questioning, whilst excellent for evasive politicians, not best suited to intelligent people trying to answer the question and have an open discussion.

Watching Jeremy attempting to ask Philip Hammond about the Tory economic strategy was not an edifying experience. The Tories are saying that they want to live within their means, not borrow to increase debt, rebalance income and spending in a more sensible way and share the proceeds of growth when there is some - that's perfectly clear and a welcome relief to me thank you.
If Jeremy didn't understand that he could have asked your Economics Editor to explain it to him later in words of one syllable rather than having a tantrum on air.

"they want to live within their means, not borrow to increase debt, rebalance income and spending in a more sensible way and share the proceeds of growth when there is some".

That is not a response, it is a parody of a politician on the stump.

Any journalist who did not try to get some specifics out of that should seek other employment!

Its perfectly understandable that no politician can possibly know two years in advance the minutiae of their post-General Election budget.
I could ask Peter Barron 20 times what the Newsnight Budget will be in 2012 and how does he intend to spend but I doubt he'd be able to tell me except in general terms, not even if I beat him about the head with a wet fish.

Excellent Jeremy on Monday night - particularly on the embryo vote, as it gave all sides of the arguement both pro and anti. Doesn't Michael C ever cook? His courgette omlette didn't look very appetising! Ha ha ha :-)