大象传媒

is on a flying visit to Ireland today as part of the junket for his new film , which goes on general release this weekend.

I got an interview with Oliver Stone this afternoon, which we'll broadcast on Sunday morning at 9.00 am. You might expect a triple-Oscar winner to be slightly aloof; the Stone I talked to is extremely easy-going, articulate, engaging and thoroughly good company. Which, alas, is perhaps more than one could say of his new film.

Is this his most un-political film for quite some time? Stone doesn't think his 9/11 rescue drama is "un-political" at all -- he thinks those making that claim are missing what is right in front of their eyes. The film stops far short of a criticism of the Bush administration's post-9/11 foreign policy; but that's because the film is entirely about the attempt to rescue two Port Authority police officers -- a true story -- and the action begins and ends on that single day.

It is a staggering and tragic fact that only twenty people were recovered alive from the rubble of the World Trade Center; and Stone's film certainly memorialises the extraordinary bravery of those who risked their lives in that rescue operation. But those looking for a film which asks political or moral questions in the context of the 9/11 attacks should probably look elsewhere -- for example, Paul Greengrass's superb film, .

Yesterday saw another key moment in the history of Northern Ireland's gay and lesbian community when two serving police officers tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony at Lisburn Registry Office. This is the first time two PSNI officers have entered into a civil partnership.

Last December, Northern Ireland became the first part of the United Kingdom to permit civil partnerships. Since then, 105 couples here have taken advantage of the new legislation giving them rights and responsibilities akin to marriage. On today's Talk Back, the mother of one of the officers described her pride at seeing her daughter taking her vows at the ceremony, and talked to me about the personal journey she has made with her daughter.

In the office this morning, we predicted a massive response from listeners -- that's what happens when we touch on any subject even remotely related to a lesbian or gay topic. And that's what we got. We could easily have dropped every other story and simply lined up callers for the full 90 minutes. This is were producers come into their own, taking editorial decisions about when to move to another topic or include other items, while doing justice to the public's obvious interest in one particular story -- and taking those decisions during the cut and thrust of a live programme.

Yesterday's speech in the Assembly by the DUP's George Dawson, in which he challenged section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998) -- describing it as a "charter for the persecution of those who hold a Christian worldview" -- also provided the basis for an extended and wide-ranging debate about Northern Ireland's human rights legislation, and whether some politicians are proposing a pick-n-mix approach to equality or merely arguing for the freedom to express a view that is increasingly counter-cultural (at least at a Uk-national level).

A couple of issues stood out from this debate for me: an urgent need for both sides in this dispute to encounter each other more personally, beyond stereotypes and labels; and an equally ugent need to find appropriate language that avoids demonising or anathematising the other side, so that a responsible and informed discussion can be pursued. But hey, at least we're talking, right?

Many people have contacted me in response to Friday's programme, which featured an extended with "Sinead" from Belfast who was repeatedly raped and stabbed by a 15-year old youth eighteen months ago. Sinead was speaking for the first time about her ordeal, and about the Court of Appeal's decision last week to extend the perpetrator's sentence by two years -- bringing the full sentence to just seven years. Sinead's story will cause many to raise questions about our current tarriff and sentencing policies, including the 50 per cent remission rule, and the reduction in sentence allowed in cases where a perpetrator pleads guilty.

Sinead's account of what happened to her on St Patrick's night, 2005, was harrowing beyond words. Many listeners texted and called to say how moved they were; some who were driving said they were unable to leave their car until the interview finished; others that they simply wept while they listened. I had the same reaction; it was one of the most disturbing interviews I've ever conducted.

Sinead is in the news again today, since it's emerged that the anonymity to which she is legally entitled was accidentally breached by the. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr, has launched an investigation and apologised to Sinead for the procedural error which left her personal details on the Court Service website (apparently for at least four days) until shortly after my interview with her ended on Friday. Stephen Gordon of the Sunday Life spotted the error and called me after the programme to bring the matter to Sinead's attention; he wrote a front page story in today's edition of the paper under the headline "In the Dock". The seriousness of this breach of anonymity cannot be underestimated.

Henry McDonald also details the breach of anonymity in today's . In addition to launching an investigation and apologising to Sinead, the Court Service say the identity of the perpetrator, who is now 17 years old, can be revealed. He is named by both Stephen Gordon and Henry McDonald in their reports today.

My dashing around continues today. I'm off now to visit the poet Medbh McGuckian at her home in north Belfast -- and to see the books she lives with. I've been reading Medbh's poetry since I was a teenager, and was a member of the writing circle she ran when she was writer in residence at Queen's University. I'm expecting her walls to be lined with a sizeable library of Irish poetry. But then I expected Noel Thompson to have a massive collection of books about Irish politics when I visited his home yesterday, only to find that he doesn't enjoy reading books about Irish politics (since, as a political journalist, he's living the story) and that he likes to read novels in French.

In a very moving interview, live on today's programme, Fr Paddy McCafferty recounted his experience of sexual assault at the hands of a priest -- and expressed his anger at the way he, as the victim and survivor, has been treated by Catholic Church authorities since breaking a 20-year silence about the abuse.

Fr Paddy alleges that the abuse took place while he was a seminarian. In 2003, he wrote to his bishop, Patrick Walsh of Down and Connor diocese, and told him that a priest still in pastoral ministry within his diocese abused him repeatedly. The bishop did not reply to his letter. Two months later, Fr Paddy wrote again; this time he copied a letter he had just sent to the alleged abuser. The bishop replied and requested a meeting. Fr Paddy was given the impression by a senior priest that the police were informed of the allegations. But he has not been contacted by the police in the three years since; indeed, he claims, he has been "blanked" and ignored by those in responsible positions within the church. The alleged abuser is still a priest under the authority of the diocese, but is currently not in active ministy. Fr Paddy wants the church to laicise the priest; he would also like to know if the police were informed about the allegations three years ago -- and, if not, why not?

Plainly, we invited Bishop Walsh to contribute to the programme; he declined. Instead, I was given a single-sentence statement to the effect that the bishop regards conversations between himself and his priests as confidential.

Reading between the lines of that statement (or between the words, since it's a single sentence statement), one might conclude that the bishop is unhappy that a priest has gone to the media with criticisms of the church's response to an accusation of abuse -- particularly since the priest was essentially throwing down a gauntlet. For his part, Fr Paddy regards the clerical mishandling of his case, and many others, as a "scandal within a scandal".

The Pope has just released a statement apologising to Muslims for any unintentional offence his comments have caused, and expressing respect for Muslim believers and their faith. Will this be enough to quell the storm?

According to , the Turkish government has asked the Vatican to reconsider Pope Benedict's planned visit in November since they are unable to guarantee his safety. Security at the Vatican itself has been as protests continue to spread through the Islamic world. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped forward to defend the Pope: she claims his comments have been widely misunderstood.

Angela Merkel also came to the Pope's defence when she argued that the EU Constitution should recognise Europe's Christian heritage. The Pope's campaign for a special place for Christianity in the EU constitution has drawn criticism in the past from both secularists and Islamic commentators. Benedict Turkey's membership of European Union on the basis that it "belonged to a different cultural sphere", adding that its admission would be "a grave error against the tide of history". And it is said that the Pope had reservations about his predecessor's efforts to reach out to the the Islamic world. When John Paull II toured Syria in 2001, he visited a mosque -- the first pope to do so.

Why have Benedict's triggered the inter-faith equivalent of an international incident? In a homecoming visit to Germany, the Pope gave a at the University of Regensburg, where he once served as a professor of theology.

The lecture explores the relationship between rationality and religion; and the Pope was drawn to an illustration. The 14th century "erudite" Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was engaged in a dialogue with an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam; and in their seventh conversation, the Emperor turns to the topic of holy war. The Pope summarises the exchange that followed in these words: [the Emperor] "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The Pope then continues: "The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

This passage in the lecture raises two significant concerns:

1. Does the Pope agree with the Emperor's characterisation of the Prophet Muhammed? If he doesn't, why doesn't he make clear his concerns about mis-characterisation? Given the extremely sensitive nature of this subject at this time, a clarification would have helped.

2. Why doesn't the Pope include an example of Christian holy war -- the Crusades -- in a discussion of violence as a vehicle for religious conversion? Medieval muslims did not have a monopoly on the notion of Jihad or Holy War.

After this morning's phone-in show -- with a steady flow of callers again preoccupied with the rates hike controversy -- I headed off to record a few more interviews and work on other items for the Sunday programme, including an interview with Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams, who's just back from the and the US. In fact, he came to our studies directly from the airport. Mr Adams assured me, contrary to some media reports, that the US government has no issue with his decision to accept an invitation from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. You can hear that interview at 9.00 am on Sunday on 大象传媒 Radio Ulster.

Between interviews and other work, I kept an eye on developments in what the shorthand journos at the Beeb are calling "the Pope story". With every update, the debacle surrounding a lecture by the Pope at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday threatened to become a massive . Right now, it has the potential to create as great a stir as the "" story. If, like me, you prefer primary sources to second-hand summaries, you'll find the full text of the Pope's lecture .

I'm still trying to work out how such a plainly contentious -- and curiously injudicious -- quotation made it into a papal speech. One of my news colleagues wondered if the pope had forgotten that he was pope for a moment -- after all, when he was a professor of theology, he could have flown all kinds of kites without his words being reported in the press. I ruled out that hypothesis in the belief that public statements by the pope are always carefully scrutinised by advisors, and they would surely remember that the pope was the pope. Wouldn't they?

I spent the mornign making house calls -- first to the home of novelist and playwright , then to the home of the actor Dan Gordon. I took a with me to record interviews for the next series of The Book Programme. At the end of each programme, I door-step a well-known personality to take a look at their book collection and see if it's possible to read a person by their books. It's a fun item, and I always enjoy the interviews. Today was no different. Annie and Dan were charming and generously allowed me to invade their privacy as we traipsed through their living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms and any other room accommodating a bookcase. I was surprised to find that Annie and I share a fascination with Richard Nixon -- and, like her, I've no idea why I find Nixon such a compelling subject (it certainly isn't his politics or his social skills). I'll be dropping in on Noel Thompson on Monday.

Stephen Frears's new film, The Queen, opens this weekend across the UK. I saw it at a press screening earlier this week, and everything you've heard about Dame Helen Mirren's extraordinary is true. Michael Sheen deserves as many plaudits for his portrayal of Tony Blair -- though "portrayal" may not be the right word for a near-perfect impersonation. The film explores the meeting of two different worlds in the relationship between the Queen and her Prime Minister, set against one of the most bizarre cultural moments in recent British history -- the death of Diana.

Mirren's Queen struggles with a profound sense of divine right; something that is understandably difficult for a modern audience to grasp in a contemporary figure. Sheen's Blair is a youthful moderniser coming to terms with a curious yet enduring institution. The Queen is stiff and painfully formal; Blair is relaxed and media-savvy. Yet both are changed, they move closer to each other through their competing responses to Diana's death.

Helen Mirren has said that she would be "devastated if the Queen feels that I've betrayed her in my portrayal of her". Nevertheless, I can't imagine the Queen will appreciate much of this. The Royals come across as constitutional automata, a family of psychologically flawed comic characters tragically out of step with the world around them. Don't expect a Royal Premiere.

David Hart prefers to be addressed by his Hindu name "Ananda". He is a convert to Hinduism, currently living in the village of Thiruvananthapuram, in Kerala, India, and has just published a book, , which tells the story of his conversion.

The Church of England bishop of Ely, Dr Anthony Russell, will probably not be addressing Mr Hart as Ananda in any correspondence. The bishop maintains that he didn't realise that David Hart, who is a Church of England priest under his authority, had

David Hart says, "My philosophical position is that all religions are cultural constructs. I am acting out God鈥檚 story in local terms.鈥� So, why shouldn't an Anglican priest be Hindu?

The Anglican priest and theologian has established an international reputation for arguing against the existence of God -- at least in the 'traditional' sense of 'existence' -- and sometimes describes himself as a "Christian Buddhist" or a "religious humanist".

If an atheist can be an Anglican priest, you might argue, why can't a Hindu? On the other hand, I doubt very much that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be asking Robin Eames to set up a Commission to investigate the matter. A gay priest who believes in God, it seems, is more controversial in Anglican circles than a straight priest who does not.

As I write, the city that never sleeps is waking up. Manhattan commuters will soon begin their journey to work, just as they did five years ago. Flags across America will fly at half-mast. Ten thousand 9/11 orphans will think about their lost parents. Silence will be kept at the exact time of the first attack on the Twin Towers. And people what they were doing when they realised what was happening. I, like many others, watched the second plane crash into the south tower live on television, just seventeen minutes after the north tower had been attacked. At that point, we all knew this was not a tragic accident, but a co-ordinated terrorist action -- perhaps even an act of war.

Today's describes the Ground Zero site as a "hole in the city's heart". Five years on, the rebuilding work continues, but the site remains "a sinkhole of good intentions" as we wait for Freedom Tower complex to appear. Three years ago, Governor Pataki promised that the Tower would be in place by the fifth anniversary of 9/11, along with new train terminals, a vast piazza, and the Wedge of Light memorial. In the words of the Times' understated lament, "None of this has come to pass."

One business leader has spoken of the "anemic pace of rebuilding" at Ground Zero; that strategic sluggishness risks becoming itself a metaphor for our struggle to come to terms with 9/11 and the still-unresolved disputes in the middle east that fuelled the attacks. New York is not the only city with a hole in its heart today.

I lived for a time in New York, and when I first arrived in that vast city I quickly learned to rely on the Twin Towers. Wherever I was, the towers of the World Trade Centre, like a compass, would point south and give me my bearings in Manhattan's urban maze. Five years after the outrage that removed them, the world is tragically still in need of a compass.

On Monday, the busiest city in the world will come to a standstill, millions of people will stand silently in respect and remembrance, and church bells will toll to mark the moment when the attacks began -- attacks that have changed the world in ways we are still trying to understand. I'll be marking the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks tomorrow with Peter Grant, who joins us live from Ground Zero (yes, live: it really is the city that never sleeps), and examining the global implication of September 11th with two former foreign policy advisors to Tony Blair: George Joffe and Paul Rogers. I'd be interested in your views on how 9/11 changed everything; and your sense of the distinctive challanges facing the post-9/11 world.

I'll try not to make this read like a diary entry -- or maybe that's the point of a blog. In any case, it's been an impossibly long day. It started with the phone-in show this morning, and the continuing debate about Lawrie Sanchez's future as Northern Ireland manager. The Belfast Telegraph's sports editor Stephen Beacom came in for some criticism from listeners (that's putting it mildly) about his reporting of Sanchez. Some of the criticism was patently unfair; it's the job of a sports writer to analyse and criticise management decisions where necessary.

The programme ended at 10.30 am and I stayed behind the mic to record an interview with the author of a new book -- a massive tome -- on the . Then I was off to finish reading Ian Rankin's soon-to-be-published new Rebus novel, ; I was to interview Ian at 3.00 pm for the next series of the Book Programme.

I finished my prep in time to pop into a packed studio 1 and catch the final half-hour of Talk Back's 20th anniversary programme. David was on form, as ever; the studio guests included many regular callers and contributors; and the Daily Mirror presented him with a terrific mock-up front page featuring pictures of David Dunseith and his predecessor, the late Barry Cowan. After the programme, the party continued with lunch, speeches and a birthday cake. I had to return to a studio to record a debate about between the Tory MP Anne Widdecombe and Mark Leech, editor of The Prisons Handbook.

Then it was back to the Talk Back party, to hear Tim McGarry celebrating the programme with a very funny speech (the Hole in the Wall Gang began as writers of occasional political sketches on the programme). After toasting David and his team, I was back to another studio to record a discussion about Anglican-Jewish relations, with Rabbi David Rosen and Bishop Michael Jackson (no relation).

Then, quick change of topic (mental flexibility helps in this job), I was talking to the creator of the Inspector Rebus novels. As ever, Ian gave a wonderful interview; and the book's pretty good too. In this one, we find Rebus at last year's G8 summit in Gleneagles (where he manages to collide with President Bush on his mountain bike). When he created Rebus in 1985, Ian decided that the novels should tell his story in real-time, as it were. Rebus is now a year away from retirement, which makes this the penultimate novel in the series. Ian isn't ruling out a new series featuring Rebus's side-kick, Siobhan Clarke. I tried persude him to bring to Rebus to Northern Ireland at some point during the final novel -- and since Ian's wife is Northern Irish, he might be tempted. Rankin's early espionage thriller Watchman includes a Belfast theme, of course; but wouldn't it be fun to see Rebus cross the Irish Sea?

A year to the day after Northern Ireland in a World Cup qualifier, Lawrie Sanchez should have been celebrating the team's biggest win for two decades. David Healey's hat-trick last night at Windsor Park secured a over Spain, and silenced the home team's detractors after their humiliating 3-0 defeat by Iceland last Saturday. But Sanchez's management decisions at the weekend earned him so much criticism, much of it entirely over the top, that he refused to turn up for the post-match press conference last night, and is declining all bids for an interview.

Kate Hoey MP, the former sports minister and a fanatical NI supporter, told us today that Lawrie Sanchez was coping with a family bereavement -- his mother-in-law's funeral is planned for tomorrow -- and he is entitled to some space. The difficulty he now faces is that, by not giving an interview, Sanchez has made himself, rather than the game, the story.

Some of the sports pundits I've talked to today sense the presence of a cover story, and now there is speculation that Sanchez may have talked to the IFA's Howard Wells about in the aftermath of Saturday's defeat. We're expecting to her more from the IFA, perhaps later this afternoon. So, I started the day on the radio asking: "Will he (talk) or won't he?" Now the question is: "Will he (walk) or won't he?" And they say a week is a long time in politics?

Speaking of which, Tony Blair says he's an avid football fan (though all politician's seem professionally required to make that claim). It looks like he may have time to attend a few more games in the near future. Jack Straw attempted a deflection this morning by assuring us that Blair's attendance later this month at the Labour Party's annual Conference will be . The Prime Minister is about to make a statement, in an effort to end the damaging public debate about when he plans to step down.

So it looks like Sanchez may not be talking because he's thinking of walking; while Blair is talking to avoid walking.

Ian Huntley tried to last night. He was found unconscious in his cell this morning, having apparently swallowed an overdose of anti-depressants. Having taken the place of as the most hated person in Britain, an icon of evil, it is extremely unlikely that Huntley, who is 32-years old, will ever be released. The High Court ruled last September that he will serve a minimum of 40 years before he can even be considered for parole. I can frankly understand why he would wish to end what must be a thoroughy miserable life -- serving a sentence without any realistic hope of parole, facing assaults from other inmates, re-living forever (one must imagine) the moment when he crushed two young lives and destroyed his own.

One listener texted our programme today to say, "Let him die. He's scum. That's what he deserves." Others were similarly less than sympathetic. One can understand the rawness of those reactions to his suicide attempt: Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman would be celebrating their 14th birthdays this year had Huntley not murdered them in cold blood and burned their bodies in an attempt to destroy forensic evidence.

There weren't many voices today ready to quote : "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." There won't be much tolling when Huntley dies; whether that is through natural causes or at his own hands.

And yet if human life is valuable, all lives are surely valuable. It may require a superhuman effort for some of us to see Huntley as human, but that is what he is. Someone loved him once, someone cries for him still. Don't we lower ourselves to the level of those willing to erase a human life when we forget that he, too, is a human being?

Could a referendum campaign be the answer? Saira Khan, who made her name as a contestant on The Apprentice, was on the programme this morning talking about her new brainchild, the campaign. She'd like to see referenda used more often in the UK: it will re-engage the public in politics by giving us a more direct line to government decisions. It's an approach to direct democracy that's already being tried in other countries, such as Switzerland and Poland, and in some American states.

Saira proposes that a referendum should be held on an issue that wins sufficient public support -- if, for example, a million signatures are collected on a petition. We talked about whether that approach might work in Northern Ireland, given the unpopularity of the new rates valuations system.

I invited listeners to vote on whether they would like a referendum on the rates and, in the end, no less than 98 per cent texted in their support for the idea. Saira also said she would be willing to come to Northern Ireland to help mobilise a pro-referendum campaign, if local people got organised and requested her support.

That's a sizeable piece of real estate, the big house on Stormont hill. I bet you're glad you don't have to pay the rates bill for it. Ah yes, but Stormont is owned by the state so it isn't liable to the new Northern Ireland rates assessment. So that's all right, then. But the rest of us are; and as I chaired a rates rant special on the radio this morning it became clear that the introduction of the new system has raised the public's ire. In fact, it seems that more people are concerned about the controversial new rates system than about the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive.

All five local political parties were represented in the hour-long special -- with the SDLP, UUP and Alliance providing their party leaders. We just about managed to avoid rehearsing the arguments for and against the restoration of devolved government at Stormont, and focused on the apparent failings of the new system. Many callers prefered a local income tax system, instead of government's new capital valuation approach; and many were angry that direct rule ministers are introducing a property tax system here that would spell electoral doom if they introduced it in England, Scotland or Wales. We are being treated like fiscal guinea pigs, one said.

Nevertheless, it was the now-suspended Northern Ireland Executive that originally proposed the new valuation system, a system that has been championed by Sinn Fein and the SDLP. That's true; but they also proposed capping and relief measures to avoid the kinds of hikes we are now reporting on a daily basis, where, for example, some pensioners on fixed incomes are being asked to pay double or even triple their current rates bill.

Sir Reg Empy, the Ulster Unionist leader, proposed that the party leaders should come together and campaign to have changes introduced to the system even in the absence of any agreement or progress on the restoration of local rule at Stormont. That sounded like a gauntlet being thrown down. Let's see if anyone picks it up.

I spent some time in studio today with the Celtic captain Neil Lennon, whose been in Belfast publicising his . I watched (through the glass separation) the end of his live interview with John Daly on his Saturday radio show and then recorded a conversation with him for next week's Not the Nolan Show. His reputation as an aggressive player who takes no prisoners on the pitch is one thing, but that's not the person I met today.

He talked movingly about his battle with depression and how medication has helped him to cope with an illness that is as real as any physical illness. He recalled his experience of sectarianism in Scotland and in Northern Ireland -- as a Catholic Celtic player -- and the apparent Loyalist death threat phoned in to 大象传媒 Broadcasting House,Belfast, in 2002 which ended his international career and stopped him captaining the Northern Ireland team at its home game that same day with Cyprus. And we talked about how his attitude to Northern Ireland has changed since. Throughout, Neil was thoughtful and very articulate.

I reminded him of a comment by an English jounalist in 2002, that by leaving Northern Ireland following the death threat, he has behaved like "a big girl's blouse". Clearly not a journalist who has ever received a death threat from a Loyalist paramilitary group.

On the way out of the studio, I mentioned that I have known a number of people over the years who have struggled with depression. Often, they have been very successful and accomplished in their various fields. I wondered aloud if sometimes those who are hard-wired, as it were, for adventurous lives that leave a mark are also hard-wired for those kinds of struggles.

I started trailing my interview with during the morning news programme, Good Morning Ulster: "the woman who says she's a descendent of Jesus is live on the programme today". And at 8.45 this morning, she was on the programme.

But such is the nature of live radio that things go wrong. And so I found myself telling the audience at various points from 9.00 am that they would be able to talk directly to the author of about how her personal life mirrors her new novel's storyline. The calls and text messages starting coming in to the programme before we even went on air.

Alas, technical difficulties in London, which I attributed to divine intervention, prevented us carrying the interview. Which must make this item the most heavily-trailed non-apearance since the second coming. We'll try again next week, I promise. In any case, we were inundated with calls about Northern Ireland's controversial new rates valuation system. One listener texted us this: "Would William please ask the woman who says she's related to Jesus if she has all the family round at Christmas." Ouch.