´óÏó´«Ã½

Should I

Comments

1. At 10:16 AM on 30 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   I'm glad that you;ll be featuring soem comments; have only just managed to have a glimpse and Mrach duties mean I can't fully digest whats going on....PM - an all round media experience, wonderful

2. At 10:30 AM on 30 Mar 2007, Carl wrote:

   Last nights programme was a Triumph... or was it a Ducati? But the balance of stories, guests and opinions was superb. The comments about the British male attitude to women were most touching, and Ken Clark proved he is indeed a wise man of politics (and I vote labour). I had hoped that the gorilla story would have led to Eddie 'losing it' as with the chimp story earlier, but then you can't have everything. Motorbikes doing so much overtaking, and weaving in and out of traffic, oh not forgetting the guy that got nicked at 152 MPH on our local bypass may contribute to those appaulling accident figures. As Steve Berry so rightly said there is so little rubber in contact with the road. How about bigger wheels, or tricycles?

3. At 11:02 AM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

   If I were cruel, I'd say you'd have to grown it first! :) But then, I can't talk, being follicularly challenged nowadays... Any chance we can have the corpsing from this week as a soundbite? (I'd also like to hear the Golden Joystick moment again. That's a classic almost of the scale of the Parma Ham incident...)

4. At 11:13 AM on 30 Mar 2007, Fiona wrote:

   What about going for Posh's new look instead?

5. At 11:34 AM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

   How would you get the lager into your head? Surely this isn't advisable

6. At 11:35 AM on 30 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   I think he'd look rather cool.

   And, if Eddie agrees, I'm happy to show why.

7. At 11:51 AM on 30 Mar 2007, Owen Dunn wrote:

   Technical stuff, so er, forward it on to the people who know if you've no idea what I'm saying! I've just noticed that the blog RSS feed has stopped including the whole post, so this one ends "I discovered a colleague of ours..." Any chance this could be fixed, pretty please?
   

8. At 11:51 AM on 30 Mar 2007, whisky-joe wrote:

   Eddie,

   I've seen Beckham's haircut. I think the council did it!

9. At 11:55 AM on 30 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   I've done a ittle mock up which I've sent to Eddie for his consideration.

   If he doesn't mind me sharing it with other froggers, I can link it - but only if Eddie doesn't mind.

10. At 12:13 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Bob Beacham wrote:

    Should a woman with a 3 year old child be on front line active duty in the Persian Gulf? Surely the child's well being is paramount? It's not the Army's fault - they no doubt lay themselves open to being sued for tens of thousands of pounds of our money under gender equality legislation if they give her a home posting so she can be with her young child. The whole thing has gone much much too far. I think it is very selfish for women to put their career above their children in this way.

11. At 12:24 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Okay, Bob Beacham, so what about the many women who have children because that is the wish of their partner?

    And, incidentally, what about fathers? Are they also being 'selfish' in putting their careers above the needs of their children and wives?

    Come on, Bob Beacham, we live in the 21st Century.

12. At 12:35 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Bob (10): Why should the child's well-being be paramount when it is the mother on the front-line, and not the father? I think it is selfish for ANYONE to put their career above their children, when it comes down to it.

    
    And if that view offends anyone, leaves a bad taste in their mouth or whatever, then so be it.

13. At 12:43 PM on 30 Mar 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Ah Ted Heath... He had a great band.

14. At 12:50 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Bob Beacham (10), Consider this:

    Should a man with a 3 year old child be on front line active duty in the Persian Gulf? Surely the child's well being is paramount? It's not the Army's fault - they no doubt lay themselves open to being sued for tens of thousands of pounds of our money under gender equality legislation if they give him a home posting so he can be with his young child. The whole thing has gone much much too far. I think it is very selfish for men to put their career above their children in this way.

    I could write sixteen paragraphs about equality, children's rights, sex discrimination and the views held by dinosaurs about the roles of men and women, then six more about the armed forces and the rights and wrongs of miltary intevention. But, know what, I'd really rather just do something else and try to forget that views like yours exist.

15. At 01:02 PM on 30 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Not sure where to post this but have just read the newsletter and it has prompted me to ponder....where will the money that Network Rail have been fined actually go?? To the victims of the incidents? In fact, that goes for most corporate fines - where does the cash end up? Anybody know??

16. At 01:05 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Belinda, I think you may be indirectly suggesting that Service personnel should not have children.

    On bikes, are we talking about motorcycles or the earlier discussions about 3-speed gears?

    I do hope valuable news time will not be wasted on Becks' hair; there must be something going on in [insert country name (Andorra-Zimbabwe) here].

    "Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them."

    I, the author, confirm that I have approved this comment.

    Signed, VH

17. At 01:09 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    Right On, Appy!
    xx
    ed
    Darn! Premature exclamation again!
    

18. At 01:21 PM on 30 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Bob (10) -

    As has frequently been said on this blog everyone is entitled to their opinion and frank discussion is always a good thing. However I have to agree Big Sis, Belinda and Appy; the sex of the parent who serves on the front line is irrelevant, likewise regards the one who (if at all) stays at home to raise children while the other parent works (if we're talking about whats considered a 'normal' family - but thats a serperate subject).

    From my point of view if someone is equipped, trained and able to perform the duties that put themselves forward for than thats that.

19. At 01:34 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Vyle aka Mr Tickle (16), I haven't heard about Mr Beckham's hair anywhere except on this blog!!

    Ed (17), You'll get a reputation for being premature soon! ;-)

20. At 02:35 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    Actually I think Bob Beacher (10) has raised an interesting issue. or two.

    Being away from your child and deliberately putting your life in danger is "selfish".

    1) I've never heard of anyone in the armed forces who puts their life on the line being called selfish before - that's interesting. It's normally that they are in the "Service" of the country. anyway a moot point I'm sure..

    2) I'm obviously with everyone else that equality is equality and if its selfish for one its selfish for both.

    
    Now, no one seems to be looking for a solution to all this and it seems obvious. Keep the child with the parents and keep the parents at the service of the country.

    BRING THE CHILD TO THE FRONT LINE

    In fact this could be a requirement of all Generals and indeed all Forces personnel should take their children to the front line.

    Think of the benefits:

    Spending on protective equipment would go up as no politician would want the ickle ones to get hurt, or so publicly orphaned.

    Decisions about Rules Of Engagement would be really really well thought through (especially if the Americans adopted this)

    Winning "hearts and minds" would be child's play - literally!! Think of the soldiers carrying round their kids and the smiles on everyone's faces - "hey, my kid's just like yours! maybe we're not so different huh?"

    Going to war would excercise the minds of politicians even more than usual (no bad thing surely?)

    
    Thanks Bob - I think you've really made me think through the issues to some kind of resolution.

    Now, how do I get that petition thing at Number 10 started....

21. At 02:45 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Ah fiddle-sticks, I was trying to write a message that wouldn't annoy anyone. I failed sadly.

    
    Vyle, I suspect my point, badly expressed at best, is in response to Bob's assertion that a child's welfare is paramount - that I cannot disagree with. However he then continues to imply that the child's welfare should only be of concern to a female parent and not a male parent when it comes down to career options. That I disagree with - hence my comment about any parent putting their career first being selfish.

    I wasn't referring to the armed forces and the mortality of then having children, but mostly about parenting in general. I apologise if it came across badly, it was not my intention.

22. At 02:59 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Fiona wrote:

    Whisht (20) excellent idea! I will sign your petition.

    Belinda (12), while that is all well and good sadly in real life often you don't have the luxury of making that choice. I would say that people who put their career ABOVE their children are few and far between. In the vast majority people have a career as a necessity to provide for their children and family, and because society needs people to work in order to function. Are you suggesting for example that Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc should give up their careers if they have children? As Vyle says you do seem to indirectly imply that service personnel should not have children.

    Anyway I also agree wholeheartedly that the gender of the person serving on the front line is and should be irrelevant - they should all be treated as equals.

23. At 03:03 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Eddie, now that our dear friend has done a mock-up, the answer to your first question is, in my opinion, NO. Well, not unless someone is paying you loads of money to do it.

24. At 03:31 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    I didn't actually know you actually had any hair to play with, has the ´óÏó´«Ã½ restored it? I didn't catch it on 'Restoration.....

25. At 03:51 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Fiona (22): Ah bugger it.

26. At 04:15 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Marvellous Whisht! I'll sign too -- presuming it's international rather than unilateral, of course :-)

27. At 04:19 PM on 30 Mar 2007, RJD wrote:

    Belinda (21) - You make perfect sense (and you also did in (12) above.

    Vyle (16) and Fiona (22) I think you infer something that wasn't implied.

28. At 04:39 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    I'll sign too!
    
    ed
    30/03/2007 at 16:44:36 GMT
    

29. At 05:56 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Simon Pitkin wrote:

    Talking of hair. Did you see the Carol Thatcher thing on C4 last night about the Falklands 25 years on form the war (Mummy's War)? Don't you think that in the footage of Carol in her red tracksuit on the plane, going out from Brize, she had more than a passing resemblance to Sir Jimmy Saville. Just add jewelry and a cigar.

30. At 07:44 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    he he

    glad some of you liked my thunking.
    (Val - pah! we're all in my parrallel universe!)
    ;¬)

    I'm now staring at the page that allows one to create a petition (https://petitions.pm.gov.uk/new) ... oooh the temptation.

    Now, these guys have moderators so I think I'm gonna try to craft this so it almost slips through...

    I know some of you are much better than I at this so any help, much obliged...

31. At 08:23 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    Whisht - I like the way you're thinking on this one. It's excellent. Rather along the lines of "the best safety device for a car is a 12 in metal spike that protrudes from the streering wheel towards the driver's chest" - because that would certainly change the driver's attitude to risk. Where do we sign up???

32. At 09:22 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Bob, back up there somewhere:

    Regardless of the age of the child or the sex of the parent, what on earth had the *Army* to do with a member of the Royal Navy being in the Gulf?

    If you've gotta be tendentious, at least pick the right branch of the armed forces, eh?

    Sailors and marines = Navy; soldiers = Army; loonies = Air Force... Sorry. My bias may be showing here. Just don't ask me about the Fleet Air Arm. :-)

33. At 09:51 PM on 30 Mar 2007, wrote:

    witchiwoman @ 15 I too pondered where the fines money would go. As I understand it the fines paid to the Criminal Courts go into the coffers of the HMCS. It is not compensation so it does not go to the victims. There was no reporting as to whether a compensation order was made so I suspect not.

    Mary

34. At 11:30 PM on 30 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Whisht: Be sure you post the link to the petition here once it's been accepted.

    BTW, it may not come up for a week or so (as I found when posting one to save our local hospital).

35. At 12:30 AM on 31 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Whisht - ah but, I didn't say you were out there on your own did I :o))

36. At 12:10 PM on 31 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Should we put up a "Don't let Eddie Mair have a David Beckham haircut" petition too? (Sorry if this is comparatively trivial, but that was the theme of this thread, after all...)

37. At 09:57 PM on 31 Mar 2007, Fiona wrote:

    Belinda (25) and RJD (27) - excuse me but I was only making my own point in return (which incidentally I thought also made perfect sense) - I thought that was allowed? Incidentally my post was written before Belinda's response at 21.

    Anyway, apologies but I simply responded to how I read it. Perhaps I am being oversensitive and took the comment somewhat personally (as a mother who works due to financial necessity)

38. At 11:38 PM on 31 Mar 2007, RJD wrote:

    Fiona - I'm sorry if I sounded a bit brusque - that wasn't my intention. I just felt that Belinda had been misunderstood. I also think your point made perfect sense.

39. At 10:44 AM on 01 Apr 2007, Fiona wrote:

    Thank you RJD. I Was feeling rather over tired and a bit fed up last night so was probably a bit more grumpy than I normally am :)

40. At 11:55 AM on 01 Apr 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Re Eddie's Friday newsletter - maybe the lost FA Cup is in a packing crate on its way to Salford