´óÏó´«Ã½

Remind me another time

Comments

1. At 03:35 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Fed Up wrote:

   Don't think so but let's see. 15:39

2. At 03:41 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Mark Drew wrote:

   I don't think they are speeding up. Haven't you read the blog where suggestions have been made to enhance the speed of postings. Shame on you Edgar the Unread

3. At 03:55 PM on 17 Nov 2006, wrote:

   Perhaps Roger, Robin and Lisa are whipping the blog moderators, hence the speed up in posts appearing.

   Fancy!

4. At 03:58 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Fed Up wrote:

   OK I'm convinced.

   What's more time is going backwards.

   Last one posted at 15:39
   Logged in at 3:35 pm

   Hmmm

5. At 04:18 PM on 17 Nov 2006, whisky-joe wrote:

   Re: Strapline.

6. At 04:21 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Fed Up wrote:

   Disregard last opinion. Revert to first one. Gone s l o w again.

7. At 04:23 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

   Eddie, it's nearly an hour since you asked to be reminded another time, so I am reminding you. After all, you clearly don't have anything more important to do now that you've sorted out what's on this evening's programme. Tell us about Fridays in your office please. You can cover the part about how you all get trolleyed and write ridiculous things in the newsletter, even though we already know - everything's better from the horse's mouth after all.

8. At 04:31 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

   Fed up
   don't be
   at least your posts get there
   Although if this one also doesn't I shall have something of a philosophical conundrum....

9. At 05:16 PM on 17 Nov 2006, wrote:

   Ho ho Margaret your a profesional politician you should know it would make news.
   If you have somthing to say have some principles and say it.
   You and I both know the Iraq war was wrong and so was Tony

10. At 05:32 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Single mothers to check out new boyfriends? What a way to start a new relationship!

    "You had me checked out .... bye!"

    Mary

11. At 05:39 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Whisky-joe, you are a true Macallan, nay a Talisker, a Highland Park, a Lagavulin!

    Here's a "cog o' gude swats" fer ye.

    But you should know Eric never reads poetry (sniff).

    btw, what's that about Friday cars? Is this another clue?

    I know about POETS Day...

12. At 05:40 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Ok I just tried posting a comment here, but I can't.

    So this is a test!

    *crosses fingers*

    Mary

13. At 05:47 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Well, frogsters, they're using blog comments on that n-word

14. At 05:52 PM on 17 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Well, well, well.

    To have one's words read out is indeed an honour and strokes the ego, but the VOICES!

    It should have had a deep southern accent, y'all.
    xx
    ed
    

15. At 05:59 PM on 17 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    Oh well done everybody who got read out! What an intelligent lot you sounded - if I didn't "do" the frog already, I'd be sure to drop by!

16. At 06:10 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Just posted on the beach about our fellow bloggers getting read out tonight!

    I felt all warm and fuzzy and proud! Well done chaps.

    Mary

17. At 06:20 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    Marymary (12)
    I wouldn't have a problem with a potential partner checking out my history to make sure that I was no danger to her children. Whilst I am against ID cards etc I do believe that a woman should have some measure of protection against these type of sexual predators. By checking to make sure she is not accusing simply utilising all available information to ensure the safety of her children.

18. At 06:41 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    I heard you all on PM, and was leaping around the kitchen pointing SO's ears in the direction of the radio - this is SO the Sceptical remember.

    Shhh, I think we're getting through to him. He thinks we just chat....

19. At 06:47 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Mrs T (17) I understand your point of view and it sounds eminently sensible. However, I am a defence lawyer with some considerable experience of dealing with allegations of child abuse and I doubt very much that many of the women who are vulnerable to the "charms" of abusers are likely to do these checks. I can't go into detail but it's all part of the grooming.

    Let me put it this way, you fall in love do you even think about the potential of your new boyfriend/girlfriend being an abuser? It sounds like a good idea but in practice it doesn't strike me as particularly practical or useful.

    Also, what if boyfriend comes back as not on the sex offender's register. Does the woman sit back and thank her luck stars she's got a good man and relax her vigilance. There are many cases of men being found out as abusers who have fooled people for many years.

    In my view these laws are an effort to kid ourselves that we can make life risk proof. We can't and it's dangerous to think we can.

    Mary

20. At 06:47 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Bill'n'Ben wrote:

    
    Hello all,

    Well I've just recovered from the back injury after falling off of the chair.

    Even "she who must be obeyed" looked in amazement as B&B came on. "Is that you?" she said, she did have an idea cos that's what the sound systems called. "It's a pity you don't speak as well as that" she added, deflated or what?

    See you at the beach.

21. At 07:31 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Oh B&B, SO's, what would you do with 'em eh? Ah, what would you do without them though.

22. At 07:52 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Trevor Smith wrote:

    With reference to the supposed "Sale of Honours" scandal.
    If anyone believes that honours have not been sold or promised in any British parliament, then they are sadly mistaken.

    If the current case proves to be unfounded in the courts, shouldn't the Scottish Nationalist MP who first raised the issue be charged with wasting police time? The cost of the investigation should then be borne by the SNP.

23. At 07:58 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    Marymary. I am not a defence lawyer nor have any experience of this field. You undoubtledly know more about this than I will ever know. I am simply saying that if some potential partner felt the need to look into my background I would not feel offended or threaterned in any way. I agree that, potentially, the very people that are most at risk are the very ones who will not/would not utilise the service, in principle I do not have any objection to it. It may be a panacea but in some situations a panacea can be a very effective treatment.

24. At 08:31 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    The danger is that it is a panacea. How long into a relationship do you progress before checking someone out? And do you tell the person before or after? And how do you tell that person that you are doing this? And in the meantime are your children safe?

    And if the person is a sex offender but isn't registered, do you know feel safe? Should you?

    Oh I could go on and on, but instead I'll repair to the beach wrapped in my knitted sarong and sucking my glass of white wine.

    Come and join me

    Mary

25. At 09:03 PM on 17 Nov 2006, whisht wrote:

    just hearing people being read out!!

    Ed I - gosh, you're trying so hard to be en-un-ci-at-ted

    ;¬)

    no idea what you sound like in "real life" but give the guy a break and be thankful that your thinking is heard on air!

    along with everyone else! you're being read out as you're being informative and intelligent and this should get more merit than just a "well done" in my view (says a alot about me....)

    Actually this is subtle, but the blog is getting as much airtime as emails and callers. that's good. and although I may be a blogger I don't want anyone else discouraged from contributing.

    Eddie (and I don't expect a personal response) what was the editorial decxison as to reading out/ responding to comments? I hope trhey're alll taken as equal and featured either in quality or volume or whatever....

    aww.... I'm tired and giving up on this one....

26. At 09:47 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Would anyone else advocate diverting funds from nuclear weapons renewal to the NHS, so as to fund drugs for Alzheimer’s sufferers and the like? Is this too sensible an idea?

    P.S. I’m still trying to work out whether either Bill or Ben is mute, as the comment on the radio today seemed to have ‘I’ as opposed to ‘we’. I hope this isn’t impertinent.
    Doctor & Hackenbush

27. At 10:48 PM on 17 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Dr Hackenbush I would advocate that funds should be diverted from the Iraq fiasco to all sorts of things much more deserving. But as someone who fears dementia (for no other reason that I'm getting older) I cannot believe that NICE are being nice about this drug.

    Does anyone else think that the drug is not "sexy" because it tends to be for older people?

    Mary

28. At 11:12 PM on 17 Nov 2006, p.Elliot wrote:

    well well, goodness me what a day it's been.

    marymary quite contrary,
    How does your garden grow?

    You'll be a Scots then my dear -- like me.

    As a lady who's never had the oppurtunity to be courted the situation has never arisen.

    My Dear, Trust is everything. As my dear sister Anne always reminds me:-
    
    The wolf micht loss his teeth, but never his nature

    Nite nite me dearies xx

    p.Elliot

    
    

29. At 11:42 PM on 17 Nov 2006, wrote:

    p Elliot (28) . Oh G*d, Mrs Doubtfire's been on the gin again. Go to bed AT ONCE before you say something you'll regret in the morning. There are wolves out there...

30. At 12:06 AM on 18 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Re: Whisht (25) and all froggers.

    I have to say, it is nice that Eddie takes the blog so seriously.

    At the end of the day we are a small handful of, often whingeing regulars moaning on if our comments are late, and filling the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogspaces full of 'the beach' type stuff,

    and bless his cotton socks he takes time to e-mail our gripes to Robin, Head of Blogs', with comments like:-

    Fifi said this,

    BigSister wanted,

    Jonnie wondered,

    BillnBen etc. etc,

    when he probably should be devoting time to honing the real 3+ million listeners.

    Luckily he seems to do justice to all the media outlets.

31. At 12:28 AM on 18 Nov 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    Annasee My Dear,

    How nice of you to crawl out of the woodwork,

    Now my dear, I'm sure your lovely little attempt at humour could clense me drains, I will bring to your attention of a lovely story my sister Anne often tells.

    I've not goy the time to relate it now -- especilally you my dear but suffice to say,

    Confronted with a story about Jock who trades his cow for a magic harp

    (Wonder who that could belong to)

    that brings him great fortune and even greater pain, Gavin would just as soon hold onto his cow.

    Annasee my dear, as my Dear Sister Anne often recites,

    As the auld cock craws the young one learns.

    Night my Dearies

    p. Elliot
    

32. At 12:36 AM on 18 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Gosh it's late Annasee,

    Busy brekkie in the morning -- loads of masonic types in :-( -- sorry) ;-)

    To bed me thinks,

33. At 01:08 AM on 18 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Well done to everyone who was read out - bizarre how excited I was to hear familiar names.

    Marymary, I have been thinking exactly those things - but you articulted them perfectly.

    Mrs Trellis. I admire your stance but think that it isn't quite the point - in light of Marymary's comments - and that most blokes probably aren't as relaxed and pleasant as you anyway.

34. At 02:13 AM on 18 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Hope you've gone to bed by now Jonnie - not still up watching Children in Need?

    However, I must agree with your point about the inordinate amount of time that Eddie spends on the Frog and Froggers. We are exceedingly appreciative aren't we all?

35. At 02:37 AM on 18 Nov 2006, Mr. I. Kew wrote:

    whisky-joe, Thank you.
    I'm more knowledgeable but
    Sadly, no wiser.

36. At 06:19 AM on 18 Nov 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Marymary, thank you for your clarity and all those sensible reasons to oppose yet another law. All too often, it sees to me, laws are being dreamt up by people who a. don't think through all the issues and b. haven't looked at existing law. This must waste so much parliamentary time when MPs could be at home with their families not creating trouble for all of us.
    Oh yes, good morning everybody. Have a great weekend.

37. At 04:18 PM on 19 Nov 2006, wrote:

    I agree with MaryMary: it's a little too easy to bring in a law and expect that to take away the problem.

    Look at ASBOs. They were brought in to curb adult violent behaviour. They were to be used sparingly and never on children except as a last resort.

    What happened? Certain parts of certain cities are knee-deep in ASBOs, most of which are on children, and now kids are nothing unless they've got one.

    Has the antisocial behaviour rate gone down? No, it's gone UP! Because now there's a prize, called an ASBO!!!

    People with something to hide can change their identity. The checks won't work.

    The Police are already struggling to process the checking they now have to do on anyone going to work with children.

    This isn't a no-brainer. It's a proposition made by someone not using his or her brain.

38. At 09:01 PM on 19 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Hi,
    I decided that you all have such interesting names that plain old Helen would not suffice. (I don't recall how the sparkles came about exactly, but there my bf knew 2 Helens at the time, & I did apparently. The other Helen got something equally lovely.).
    marymary, very interesting that you are a defence lawyer, with regard to our Megan/Sarah's law thread (is that the right lingo for a blog or is that just chat rooms?). Anyway, you all seem a nice bunch, & lovely of Eddie to take us all so seriously.

    I was wondering today, after someone announced that teenagers should not be called sex offenders for having sex with each other, what anyone else thought? In the social care arena we look for duress, otherwise becoming a schedule 1 offender would be remarkably easy, as well as remarkably time consuming if all were operating to the letter of the law. It does seem a bit nuts that the register is so wide ranging in the scope of offences it covers?

    Oh & don't get me started on ASBO's, they criminalise so subtly if a breach is a criminal offence, & just send a message to young people that we don't like them. Our local constabulary have taken to arresting young people who don't disperse, under a dispersal order, without giving them time to do so, there must be a box to tick there methinks…
    Bfn

39. At 08:49 AM on 20 Nov 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Rosalind (36)

    TAWY

40. At 11:15 AM on 20 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    HelenSparkles. I thought that police officer was very brave for saying what he did. It is clear that young people do have consensual sex with each other and that there is a danger of people (young lads) ending up on sex offender's registers for doing what many do. This will often happen because a parent discovers that their daughter is having underage sex. Nobody will blame a parent for wanting to protect his or her children but nobody wants their sons to be stigmatised in a way that could potentially destroy their lives. Now, add that to the potential for checking out your new partner and what have you got - blighted lives. There is no subtlety (sp?) in our approach to this sensitive issue.

    Another thought on the checking of partners is if a single parent is allowed to check out new partner, won't the father who is not living with the children want to have a right to check out mum's new boyfriend? Isn't it clear that the idea is potentially very dangerous and destructive.

    As for ASBOs I'm not sure that young people do see them as a badge of honour. OK they might brag amongst their friends, but breach one and you could fact up to five years imprisonment for behaviour that isn't a crime in the first place. And many youths who are subject to ASBOs have psychological problems which mean that they cannot understand the orders and have difficulties controlling their own behaviours.

    What about the prospect of neighbours with differing standards of behaviour? Potentially anything could become a crime. It is often stated that this government has created 3000 new criminal offences since they came into power, actually they have created an infinite number of criminal offences via the ASBO.

    Once again it's the idea that life can be improved by legislation. That's so potentially frightening. It takes responsibility away from the community and individuals and puts it in the hands of the State. Add to that the ID issue and ... well can you see where I'm going with this?

    Mary

41. At 12:33 PM on 20 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Vyle (39), I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I'm nosy - what does TAWY mean please?

42. At 03:43 PM on 20 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Mary, I agree with everything you say and it is truly alarming is the number of young people, with learning difficulties or psychological issues, disturbance who find themselves in the CJS. I can't think of a worse place for them than a YOC.

    I absolutely loathe the idea that young people see ASBO's as a badge of honour. It may indeed be true that some brag about them when within a group, but that applies to many other areas of their lives & is anyway often a mixture of bravado & lies. If the premise of ASBO's is to require people to show respect, to whoever/whatever, shouldn't we show young people some respect too and stop demonising them. ASBO's are too wide ranging and too subjective.

    My mum is planning to turn the opera up and find out which of her neighbours find Wagner anti-social!

43. At 04:42 PM on 20 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    Helen, if your mum finds herself the subject of ASBO proceedings I'd love to defend her. Pity she probably won't qualify for legal aid anymore! Another issue that's buzzing in my bonnet at the moment.

    Mary

44. At 10:37 AM on 21 Nov 2006, wrote:

    MaryMary,

    Of the many mistakes of mankind, perhaps the greatest was the invention of writing, which has led to the plague of laws, not to mention the plague of lawyers, Excepting your lovely self, of course, and a number of excellent colleagues.

    Now documents take precedence over the spoken word and prestige is determined by how abstract one's 'work' is. Plato told of how Socrates questioned the value of writing in the Phaedrus dialog, fgor anyone who's interested:

    "If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
    

    And here we all are 'conversing in the most abstract form yet devised...
    xx
    ed
    

45. At 11:31 AM on 21 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    Drinks - 41 - I wondered that too. If you say it out loud and imagine you have a slight speech impediment, you do get something.

    Ed - 44 - I sense a degree of sophistry there - or mischief, at least. To quote Plato quoting Socrates to establish a case against the written word is surely meant to be more amusing than anything?

46. At 01:14 PM on 21 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Actually, it was David Abram quoting Plato quoting Socrates quoting the Egyptian God Toth....

    And if Plato hadn't learned shorthand,....
    xx
    ed

    REMINDER
    The War on Christmas begins the day after Thanksgiving.
    

47. At 01:47 PM on 21 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    JH, nah, wrapped my mouth around it all ways and still have no idea.

    Ed, you scare me. In a good way.

48. At 04:51 PM on 21 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Boo!

49. At 05:03 PM on 21 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    Drinks, if I try to say "tawy" out loud, along the lines of "tawny" without the 'n', the only word that springs to mind is "Tory", but with a bit of Jonathon Ross "rw" sound. Still doesn't sense.

    Ed. Boo-indeed.

50. At 05:46 PM on 21 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh dear, JH, I thought you were being rather cleverer than that ;-)

    I imagine, as it was posted in upper case, the letters stand for something, but can't guess what that might be.

    Ed, Oh!