´óÏó´«Ã½

Coming this month on the blog....

Comments

1. At 02:03 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

   Thanks

2. At 02:23 PM on 18 Dec 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

   It'd better be Parma Ham. You big tease!

3. At 02:25 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Whisht wrote:

   Photo of Lissa? oddly I actually respected her desire not to do this, and was glad for her when the calmour went away, but hey ho!

   its either that or Eddie's gonna blog "hugs to all the female froggers" and there's gonna be some kinda hysteric frenzy in the pond...

   I'm going up to the safety of the shallow end (suits my thinking anyway)

4. At 02:39 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

   Parma Ham ??

5. At 02:40 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

   Oooh! Pressies! I wonder what it is!

   Mary

6. At 02:42 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Belinda wrote:

   An hour-long special about planning permission for polytunnels?

   I'll plump with the Lissa photo - although Lissa, I respect you either way as I think you are great. Edwina too.

7. At 02:54 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

   Or 10,000 photo's all in one gallery !

   I'll still settle for a slice of mythical Parma Ham please

8. At 03:06 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   I’d rather it not be anything from Parma. What about Siena?

9. At 03:23 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Susan Orty-Boyden wrote:

   Eddie,

   Is it a Christmas Day PM programme? Are you going to do it?

10. At 03:29 PM on 18 Dec 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    Do tell.
    

11. At 03:46 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Carl Goss wrote:

    Great!! The PM naked presenters and newsreaders calender!!
    I love July!

    In more somber mood... I must have driven past the two last bodies at Levington only the day before their discovery. It really has put the wind up all us Ipswich lot... the town is not the 'same' place at the moment. I can only say what I've always felt, Vicki Hall's murder surely must be linked. She was last seen alive on the corner of her road in Trimley (in fact only roads away from today's activity) How her family must be feeling right now.

12. At 05:04 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    
    New workplace hazard: Secretarian violence.
    Solar flares blamed on Global Warming

    Presidential Civil Liberties
    Advisory Panel Holds First
    Meeting in Two Years
    Under heavy surveillance.

    Blair backs Israeli policy: "If you don't like the election outcome, hold another election and keep doing it until you get the desired result."
    xx
    ed
    

13. At 05:36 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (13) : Ooh, where did you become so cynical?

    Take me there immediately!!

    ;o)

    Fifi xx

14. At 05:58 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Carl: I know just what you mean. We live close to where Sarah Payne was found, and Jane Longhurst (not the same spot, mind!). We drove past Jane's resting place the evening her body was burnt, saw the remains of the fire plus police activity, and drove by the next day (we cannot avoid it). Both these deaths are now a few years away, but they still haunt me. My only consolation (and it will apply in your case, too) is that the deaths didn't occur at those spots. But I think of poor little Sarah being driven around in her killer's van, and, of course, we don't know where she was actually slaughtered.

    Unfortunately, rural areas have to expect that they will be used in this way sometimes.

    I hope they've caught the right person. I hope, too, that he confesses and thus spares the families the torture of a contested trial.

15. At 06:50 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    I did actually publish his MySpace profile Helen -- but it wa censored or didn't appear. I won't try again though.

    Just search for his name in Myspace (UK) it's about three pages in. Not much on it and hasn't logged in since October

16. At 08:02 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (12) Just brilliant, but I don't think he would take the same tack if Brown doesn't get elected. On that note, can we avoid Brown being elected? It isn't so much that I might mind him as much as I mind a shoe-in.

    Johnnie (15) my post about MySpace was on this thread wasn't it? It isn't now so guessing I've done something controversial which is very exciting!

17. At 08:04 PM on 18 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    laptop died froggers. wine spilt all over it. am coming to you via my nintendo ds. not sure if this will work

    mary

18. At 08:51 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    It worked mary, as will laptop when it has dried out! Is it upside down over a tea towel or similar?

19. At 08:59 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Stewart M wrote:

    Mary (16) Looks as if it works! I have managed to read the blog from my mobile phone but trying to post with a phone keyboard was too difficult. I have a nice bluetooth keyboard that should talk to the phone but works a wonder with my PDA.

    Have you broken the wrist strap on your nintendo yet?

20. At 09:10 PM on 18 Dec 2006, admin annie wrote:

    I drove past a site where they had found a murdered teenager once, it was between where I lived and the home of the friend I was visiting. I hadn't realised I would go through the wood, but we did, including a lay-by where they had parked the Forensic Van and there were several police cars and men wandering about in those paper forensic suits. I felt quite sick and wished I wasn't quite such a fan of crime fiction. It's one thing to read about ithese things, but quite another to actually come up against it.

    I was also at school with Lucy Partington who was one of Fred West's victims. It was pretty awful when they identified her, and I hardly knew her really. I can't imagine what the families go through in this sort of situation.

21. At 09:12 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Photo of Lissa or Parma Ham, definitely.

    Just a 'hello' would do me...

22. At 09:20 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Colin McAuley wrote:

    I sincerely hope that you do NOT do another "Window on your world" again until you possess the capacity to do such a thing properly! I sent my photo at approximately 5:30PM (your time, as I am in Canada) on the 5th of December, and have yet to see it!!! When this combined with the numerous multiples of the same photo already posted, I am left questioning your capacity to mount such a project. I wonder if this is the way all things, even remotely connected with government, work in the UK?
    It is not even completely clear where to view the photos, for I gather that there are way more pages than the 17 listed on your blog!!!!!!!!!!!

23. At 09:43 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Eddie, is it the golden joystick incident?

24. At 09:59 PM on 18 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Colin (20), The ´óÏó´«Ã½ may be funded in a unique way but it's something of a stretch to blame the government for Eric's carrying on... :-)

25. At 10:21 PM on 18 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Colin (22) ineptitude aside, PM is not remotely connected to the government, I could explain the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s public broadcasting remit but you'd be asleep in a nano second. I also think Eddie put his hands up to not knowing what they were doing, or how many of us would respond. I know this has irritated others more than I.

    I would also like to make a serious point about escaping a blame culture here please (the only bit of jargon I have taken to BTW!); people do make mistakes & they need to be allowed to.

    As it happens, another WOTW would likely go without a hitch, but it is far more likely that something new will be attempted, which everyone is once again clueless about... could be groundbreaking though.

26. At 11:56 PM on 18 Dec 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    Colin - I don't think it was intended as a big sociological study or project (correct me if I'm wrong!) but as a genuine interest in what we were all up to at 5pm. And the response was a squillion times greater than they expected.

    Personally, I don't really mind if mine ever gets posted or not but I think it's fascinating looking at the mixture in the response, and at how people interpreted the remit. I love reading some poeple's comments and explanations and get a bit bored by the length of some!

    And yes, this IS how most things work in the UK!

27. At 12:20 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Aha, Colin, I see you are in Canada. Perhaps the uniquely British way of looking at such situations has passed you by there? (Though I might not be best qualified to speak,as a non-Brit myself) But I think this is the general feeling among the froggers...

    !. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a National Treasure.
    2. PM is a National Treasure.
    3. Eddie is a National Treasure.
    4. Sometimes we moan about any of the above, but that does not affect their status of aforesaid National Treasure.
    5.The National Treasures are all on a steep learning curve re the technology.
    6 Sooner them than me.
    7. They will muddle through in the end.
    

28. At 12:41 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Annasee,

    Seconded! I couldn't put it better!
    xx
    ed

    Helen,
    I am at a complete loss as to when Our Leaders are going to realise why the Palestinians elected Hamas in the first place. I hold no hope for Brown, Cameron, or any others, Ming would be the best in an age where TV charisma ain't the be all and end all. Alex Salmond has more sense of humour than the rest put together and a bit of the giftie as well.

    O Wad som powr the giftie gie us
    To see ourselves as ithers see us.
    It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
    An' foolish notion. -- From the Burns Unit

    Scotland may get lucky next may.
    xx
    ed

29. At 09:24 AM on 19 Dec 2006, Humph wrote:

    Appy (21)

    Sorry to tell you this, Ap, but I think that you are going to be out of luck again. Although a simple hello for you has indeed been requested more than once, Mr Mayor also says that it happened. Past tense!

    Still, you know what they say: "If at first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixith . . . zillionth time you don't succeed, try and try again!" Keep at it, Appy!

    H.

30. At 09:36 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (28);
    I hope that the Scots do declare their independence. Then the Westminster government can stop the block grant on the Barnett formula. They could simultaneously remove both Westminster MP's from Scots constituencies and Scots from representing other countries constituencies (like, umm, Tony Blair, there's an immediate bonus).

    Instant and permanent Tory government for England and Wales and a tiger economy to go with it. Hoorah!

    Meanwhile the economy north of the border will collapse under the cost of supprting the public sector workforce, currently 23.4% of the Scots workforce as a whole. And that doesn't include civil servants, local government, public bodies or public corporations.

    Government spending on services per-capita in England was £5940 in 2003/04. that in Scotland was £7346, nearly 25% greater. The Government's official measures of fiscal need (including the age distribution of the population, road lengths, recorded crimes and numbers of sub-standard dwellings) clearly show a per capita need in Wales far higher than that of Scotland, yet the Barnett formula allocates the higher amount to Scotland.

    A quote from Lord Barnett himself;
    "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."

    Will you stand in the local elections on this manifesto? Please!

    We often hear about the Scots 'keeping North Sea Oil tax revenues'. That's fine, since the block grant returns that plus a lot more to Scotland from the English economy. And with the decline in those revenues Scotland will find that itself in financial freefall within years. They need the fiscal prop provided by Westminster.

    That's why even the windbag Salmond will never push through independence. He knows that despite all his fine rhetoric there is no prospect of actually doing it. Scotland cannot afford it.

    Si.

31. At 09:43 AM on 19 Dec 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    I fully endorse Annasee, and even though I keep harping (sorry, Annasee!) on about my own piccie, I am confident that it will - eventually! - appear.

    The main issue arose, I think, from the mega-underestimation of the response of the listeners. Now, this is a very British failing, as our track record on building projects, etc., etc., has demonstrated over the last decades.

    However, the naive, yet eccentric, ingenuity of the PM folk is also another British trait, and one that I both love and thoroughly applaud. Witness the wind-up radio, the Beagle space experiment, etc., etc. But from this naive, eccentric ingenuity many gems of true genius have grown. And, to my mind, the WoyW experiment has the seeds of just that.

32. At 10:05 AM on 19 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    A rousing ‘hello’ to anyone who doesn’t feel sufficiently welcomed by Eric.

33. At 10:34 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Perfectly put Annasee.

34. At 11:04 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Dr H - I notice you appear to have almost completely taken over the "Recent comments" section. What does this say about you?
    Either :
    you are very powerful or:

    You have too much time on your hands!

35. At 11:15 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Si,

    We may get the opportunity to see who's closer to the truth of things:

    "But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within it's local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by it's individual proprietor.

    Were we directed from Washington when to sow, & when to reap,
    we should soon want bread.

    It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular,
    that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all."

    --

    xx
    ed
    

36. At 11:18 AM on 19 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Exactly so.

37. At 11:46 AM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (28) aren't we supposed to be flogging democracy as a universal concept, isn't this how Hamas came to be in power, & you are absolutely right that our esteemed leaders should examine the reasons they have been elected rather than throwing their toys out of the pram. I am not sure I like what Hamas stands for all of the time, but I definitely like the stand the electorate took by voting them in, some people are not bowed by US hegemony.

38. At 12:10 PM on 19 Dec 2006, admin annie wrote:

    Simon, I htink if you have a closer listen to some of Mr Salmond's comments you will find that he considers Scotland certainly can stand on its own two feet economically. As I am not an economist I cannot comment intelligently on this so won't comment at all.

    However , I think you are assuming that only economics count. It may be that very many Scots are prepared to pay a fiscal price so that they are not tied to England and can develop their own politics and culture as they used to before the Union.

39. At 12:35 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Since this seems to be the 'democracy' thread, I'll venture what I just sent to WATO:

    My friends,

    As I drifted awake this morning to the closing moments of the World Service, I heard the usually excellent Jeremy Bowen talking about the problems in Palestine, and closing by noting that Israel "has been under fire since 1948." I started awake and shouted at the radio, "Since the creation of Israel turned two thirds of the native inhabitants into refugees in their own land!" Then I realised I was only shouting at a radio.

    I can't believe it that we're reporting Blair's support for the overturning of democracy in Palestine as straight news.

    We demand an election, and then refuse to speak to the legitimately elected representatives. Stand by while an occupier arrests half the elected ministers, and then support calls for another election. What madness!

    And, does anyone expect that any new election is likely to be more legitimate or produce a result more agreeable to Bush, Blair and the Israelis? Have they failed to realise what made the Palestinians elect Hamas in the first place?

    It's truly beyond belief, but it seems Blair, like Bush is "Not going to be rushed" into accepting reality.

    Salaam, etc
    ed

    (5th attempt after malicious posting warning
    :-)

40. At 12:41 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (35);
    and that way lies US-style pork-barrel politics...... and a Civil War fought over states-right vs. central control. Slavery only became a central issue half-war through the US civil war.

    I'm all for people being allowed to run their own lives, but with as few layers of government bureaucracy above them as possible.

    And the greater the number of elected officials at every level the greater cost to the electorate and the more risk of single-issues hijacking the agenda, to the detriment of the many.

    Sparkles (37);
    I'm also uneasy at the western democracies spurning Hamas, representing the expressed will of the Palestinian people. We can't espouse democracy but ignore the result when it doesn't suit us.

    But then I'm also uneasy at Hamas refusing to adopt the expressed will of the international community, via UN resolution, that Israel has the right to exist, within due boundaries. (I run the grave risk of kicking Ed off on this topic again, sorry).

    I'm also amazed that, once the Israelis remove themselves from immediate contention as an object of hatred, the Palestinians renew their internecine hatred of each other. The only thing that stops them slaughtering each other is when they can unite in slaughtering Israelis. Leave them to it, and the last Palestinian standing can have the Gaza Strip.

    The Israelis must love it, watching their enemies shooting each others children. When will they ever learn?

    Si.

41. At 12:52 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    BTW froggers,

    The malicious posting warning is truly malicious itself, because if you follow its link (so helpfully provided) you're likely to lose your carefully refined vitriol and have to type it all again.

    However, there is the 'back' button, and a wise person then saves the dripping vitriol to a handy and always open 'notepad'.
    :-)
    xx
    ed

42. At 12:54 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    admin annie (38);
    Salmond is an economist by training, so I'm sure that he knows what he's about.

    It's quite possible that they would be willing to pay that price. But I wonder what the price would be? I had heard some figures at the time that the Scottish parliament was being created.

    You may recall there was that undercurrent that *perhaps* the SNP would take a majority and vote for independence. The calculations were that the base rate of Income Tax for Scotland would have to rise to between 40 - 45 % in order to pay the bills!

    If it ever gets to that point then we ought to hear this argument renewed and hopefully the real figures, whatever they are, will be revealed. I can't believe that (if those figures were anywhere near correct) the Scots electorate would vote 'FOR'.

    It's worth pointing out that tax revenues from the South-East of England support the overall English economy. And that revenues from London support the South-East. And so on down to the City of London and the Square Mile. The entire British economy rests on the performance of the economy of London.

    The former 'Red' Ken knows it. That why he doesn't lambast capitalism now that he's in charge. His ability to run the place and pay the bills depends on keeping the City happy.

    Si.

43. At 01:01 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    , The Israelis are far more efficient at killing other folks' kids.

    "Due boundaries?" Israel is the only nation without recognised boundaries. Which would you recommend? The partition ones, the green line, or those suggested by the route of the ''

    Another take on the

    Enough! Grrrr!
    
    ed

44. At 01:13 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Perhaps an independent Scotland would do away with (which can be easily avoided) and tax the immovable things, like property?

    For example, a very popular spring water is produced on an estate where the absentee Arab owners are practicing 'clearance' in the twenty first century - tenancies are not filled when vacated (encouraged). Shooting parties are another source of revenue, but the vast acres incur no tax liability.

    I once helped unload many crates of Scottish spring water at an Irish venue. Truly, the Desert Arabs are selling water to Ireland!

    xx
    ed

45. At 01:52 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Ed (44);
    you'll perhaps remember when a previous Labour government had a top income tax rate of 98%? Those who had money left the country in droves and took it with them. Our brightest and best went abroad and many never came back. It was called the Brain Drain.

    Levy a tax on people simply because they own property (the economics of envy) and they will sell up, realise their assets into cash (any income from which isn't taxed, because you've abolished income tax) and leave. Scotland's elite would vote with their feet and depart for easier climes. Or they will find useful loopholes to climb through, because they can afford the best accountants. It was always thus.

    One way or another the revenues won't stack up and another method will have to be found. Like taxing peoples savings towards their retirement pensions. Oh, that's already been done, hasn't it?

    Once you've scared the taxpayers away, who pays the bills?

    Why does this elementary lesson always seem to need re-learning?

    France (like Scotland) employs a quarter of its workforce in the public sector and every economist out there can see the crunch coming for it's public finances. The nation cannot afford the work-related pensions for all those people. But successive governments will not tell the people the truth, because the electorate don't want to hear about it. They cannot rasie taxation, because the nation wiould strike and force a climb-down. So they blunder on towards collapse. Would Scotland go the same way?

    Incidentally I am not a property owner, thanks to my divorce and near-bankruptcy I can't afford a mortgage. So I'm not approaching this from the point of wishing to protect my own position.

    Si.

46. At 02:14 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Simon,

    Property doesn't move and is rather hard to hide. Follow the link, and perhaps do a bit of research on the thinking of Henry George and his successors. In most of the jurisdictions in which I grew up, property was taxed and such taxation was the principle revenue stream for local government, instead of depending upon grants (and attendant strings) from central government.

    As to income tax, the more one has, the easier it is to put it out of reach. If the absentee landowners did convert their (devalued) assets to cash, the new ones might be local folk. What a revolutionary idea!

    2/3 of Scotland is owned in less than 1300 ownerships. There are 19 million acres in Scotland, which is tree and a half acres percapita, yet most Scots own no land, and my family of four, immensely privileged on 8 acres are still below our quota of 3.5

    Big landowners used to reply, "Ay, but a good deal of my land is useless mountaintops and moorland," but now those bits are sporting wind turbines and generating revenue.....

    xx
    ed

47. At 04:04 PM on 19 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Ed (43) Back to this subject again? Recommended Israeli borders? You know what I'm going to say:

    "Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the western sea." Deuteronomy 11:24

    That's not absolutely recognisable, but nearnuff.

48. At 04:46 PM on 19 Dec 2006, wrote:

    Vyle,

    In other words, as my grandfather was wont to say, "I'm not land hungry. All I want is my own and all that borders it."

    
    ed

49. At 11:43 PM on 19 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Humph and Doc, thank you.

    I wasn't expecting one -- just pointing out that one would "do".

    This post will seem very odd to anyone who's forgotten what it refers to... ho hum...