Glass Box...
Don't want to speak too soon as we're not off the air yet...but that wasn't as bad as it could have been!
You don't know how bad it could have been - you heard it as it was. Thoughts? Criticisms?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
If you hadn't already said in the Newsletter that you were doing a story about the first female gondolier ... I'd have suspected either a 'filler' or
APRIL FOOL??????????
Fifi
I liked the bird song...
I didn't get a chance to listen to all of tonight's programme. I'll try to do a listen again and see if I've got any comments to make later, if that's okay?
FFred
Quite a heavy one this evening but as usual, handled with your usual aplomb. Glad of the gondolier feature for a bit of light relief. Simon Weston is always inspirational, so thank you for his interview.
yup,
a thought does occur, especially today, as this is the first *entire* PM i've been able to hear without a single interuption whatsoever for nearly a fortnight, and that is, that I am singularly unqualified to comment in the glass box, if what I understand the glass box to be, is a reflection on the balance between items, between clips, live interviews etc.
Anyho, I appreciated the level tone, the patient questioning, the professionalism, but as to what was in / out ??? hmm.
Simon Weston was good. The private gondolitta - could be a novella by Arturo Perez Reverte.
Now I'm waffling.
n-n
xx
Re: The Big Drug Story....May I suggest that all PM Listeners read 'Gangster Capitalism' by Michael Woodiwiss - as you may learn something about the drug trade that would not normally be said in the mass media per se...and about the nature of how Modernity really works...and for a little light relieve you could even read how an ex-Colonial serf walked on water....me!!! Born Port Stanley and only had 6 years formal education at the Darwin Boarding School..Goose Green....www.amazon.com.
Brian V Peck
It would have been nice to hear what the Home office had to say about the art story. Ossian made some good points, and I heard what the spokesperson had told you - but it would have made a more balanced interview to have someone on the line from the home office.
Apart from that minor observation a great programme.
On the midwife story, I heard the lady on the phone talking about her fourth baby! My SO's sister is just about to have a fourth baby.
I think people who have more than two children should have a tax slapped on them, perhaps that would be one way to curb the population a little.
Sounded good to me, Eddie, especially the bit about the waitress! By the way, isn't a female gondolier a gondolière?
Adrian
Ooooh Jonnie - now what about people who have more than one pet, hmm? Any extra tax due then?
Actually, I think you'll find that people who have more than 2 children have been so heavily taxed in the sleep department that they'll have very little left for years to come. They pay a high price for their indulgence!
Not knowing there was going to be a glass box tonight, I didn't take as much note as I would otherwise of the variety, etc. of the items, but the programme maintained my level of interest throughout and nothing struck me as poor or jarring.
One thing, though, that I was thinking at the beginning of the programme, with your lead story, was how very difficult it is for you - broadcasting at a time of high listenership, yet with two flagship news programmes preceding you and grabbing the deals as they find them - but with things like court cases (like tonight) drawing to a conclusion as the afternoon progresses - to craft a programme on the hoof that will satisfy and reflect the day's events without parodying items previously broadcast during the day.
And, Lord Mair, I think you and your team manage this very well. Neverthless it's something that we, the listeners, need to bear in mind in your defence when we listen at 5.
[Okay, am I now forgiven for the Becks haircut?]
Annasee
Well as SO has just said to me. I/we are the one's being taxed to pay all the education fees.
More than one pet!
Blimey - tell me about the fees I pay to Tesco's in pet insurance for one dog and two cats - let alone all the vet fees! - sorry Gossipmistress, but I'm at least helping to keep you in business, and unlike midwives, we have enough vets.
All I'm saying is that I think - these days - two children are enough.
There really isn't an argument against this I'm afraid.
Four children indeed!
Acksherly Jonnie... the population is ageing and there certainly is an argument that, in the UK, we need people to be having more children in order inter alia to become the workforce to support the pensioners of the future. It's not the only solution (there's the use of immigration, for instance), but it is one of the arguments out there. In global terms, of course, population growth is problematic, but it's not a simple issue with no counter arguments.
Jonnie (7) Tried to reply to you last night but got a bizarre error message. I was trying to say - I agree, and we tried to get the Home Office on, but it seems the minister who was speaking on this was only available on a mobile phone (see one of my previous postings). THEY decided not to put him on in those circs. I put in a line about their view into our interview, but of course it's not the same.
Big Sis (10) - don't worry about not taking as much notice as you might have done. The Glass Box should really be about how you found the programme whether it was a snatched 30 seconds in the background in a shop, or as someone who listened intently to the whole thing. In the "real" glass box, many of the producers and editors have not heard the whole programme because they're still busy making it. Indeed, it's often the case that the people who've heard least are the editor and her/his deputy, who "studio produces". The real Glass Box is vital feedback for them on whether the items they worked on all day worked...and we hope this Glass Box, especially when we get it formalised, will be a vital addition to that. It's already proving very useful. So thank you.
Now will this giant comment get posted....?
I certainly agree that two children are enough for anyone to love and delight in!But I suppose that the long term prospect of a dwindling work force (pension and health provision for us all?) is quite persuasive . However this implies that the future population is all well educated enough to pay taxes .Back to the Education system again.
Just coming to the end of a hugely expensive period of supporting two children through university (don't suppose that's it, yet, though) I'm relieved that we don't have more!
Mollyxx
Now Tone and Gorde give ladies the choice of having "Home Deliveries."
Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda have had "home deliveries for years."
Is this truly "NEW LABOUR"?
Cheers PM team
Hello, I was the editor of last night's programme. There were quite a few things we tried to bring you but failed - mostly for logistical reasons. One was an interview with Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. He was supposed to be going into our Johannesburg bureau after his hospital appointment. Sadly, though he was delayed and never made it in.
We were also disappointed not to get a Home Office minister to talk to us about criminalising the possession of non graphic images of children.
Finally we spent all day chasing Sir Magdi Yacoub whose been growing heart tissue using stem cell research. But he was on holiday.
Hmmm.
We need more children to help fund the pensions and healthcare of our increasingly aging population.
That's a recipe for an uncontrolled population explosion, for so long as the population continues to live longer and life expectancy after retirement increases. The true solution is to strike the balance on retirement age, such that the Government expenditure on the retired section is balanced by their tax income from the tax-paying sector. That would mean the retirement age rising, a popular vote-winner if ever I didn't see one.
Or increasingly higher taxation on the dwindling working proportion. Eventually we'll wind up with one person working, supporting the remainder of the population who are retired. Sounds like Eastbourne, Torquay or Bexhill-on-Sea.
Happily we are told repeatedly that life expectancy will shrink drastically due to endemic obesity and the concommitant plague of diabetes and fatal cardiac disease. So that will help to balance things out then.
Nature is wonderful isn't it? The way it always finds a balance.
Si.
Dr Pollard:
You may well just be making a joke, and that's fine, but taking the nub of the issue more seriously, until hospitals really get on top of the infection issue, I can see that many mothers would prefer to have home births. On the whole, it may well be the most economic option, too.
Re family size:
The real problem over taxpayers financing larger families principally arises in the case of families where the parents rely exclusively, or principally, upon benefits.
There is, however, a rapidly growing imbalance in the nation's finances due to the rising life expectancy. This is even more extreme in countries like Italy. It's a dilemma that can't be ignored, hence recent legislative actions re retirement, age discrimination etc. There's stormy weather ahead on this one, unfortunately/
Ah, Jasper, the perils of current affairs!
It must be galling when things don't go to plan. But then, I guess, that's life.
As a matter of interest, is there a 'rule' on the programme that excludes delayed interviews (e.g. with Morgan T and Sir Magdi Y) from being broadcast the next day/a few days later when the issues have been resolved, or are they just not pursued any further?
A highly appropriate strapline, given the no-show by a home office minister last night. If you're still around LadyPen, well done!
Didn't hear the entire programme last night and wasn't preparing a critique. Like BigSis I wasn't aware of this Glass Box being around.
Heard the first half, more or less. Seemed well balanced. Certainly no sign of any strain over vanishing packages.
I am concerned about the implications of criminalising possession of pictures of children, as suggested by Jasper (15). As a semi-pro photographer, who especially likes taking pictures of people, I often carry a camera and take pictures when the mood strikes me. Am I now to have to consider whether there is a child in the picture and give up if there is?
I had an unpleasant encounter a couple of summers ago at a local village carnival. Public area, large crowd. We were doing the official photos for the organisers (for free, no commercial gain). The photos on the street banners and posters were ours, with our names in the programme. Saw a small child fast asleep in his pushchair, an enchanting picture, so I took it. And the grandfather (for it was he pushing) almost spat in my face. I thought he was going to assault me. Demanded to know who I was, what I was doing, etc. His tirade continued for a short while before I had an opportunity to say anything. Once I produced my business card for him and pointed out our association with the carnival he calmed down and slunk off.
Fact is that if you are a man, especially, and you carry a camera and take photographs in the streets people automatically seem to think that you are up to no good. Most especially if those photos happen to be of children. But it's not the only problem.
Increasingly owners of places use their security guard force to require photographers not to take photographs of their venue. I think the most notorious one in Britain at the moment is the South Bank Centre in London. Simply setting up a tripod there is likely to see a bloke in a uniform putting his hand over your lens and forcing you to leave immediately. Why? I've no idea. It's like a paranoid dictator state, you can't photograph that bridge, monument, building, road, in case you happen to be planning an attack on it.
Interestingly the same often does not apply to snappers without tripods. It's probably because if you see a phot. carrying a tripod then he/she must be a professional. *Ergo* he will sell that photo for reward and, as the owner, you want a slice of that action.
School photographers, like all who work with children, are well advised to get a CRB-check certificate. Without one you won't even get across the threshold. And things like school sports days are camera-free zones these days. Parents are often told not to take any imagery during the day. Schools are petrified that one parent will object to photos being taken of their child. So NO-ONE is permitted to take any photos of ANY child. Farcical if it wasn't so sad.
But can the Home Office say what the reasoning is behind the putative criminalisation of taking photos of children? How WILL school and other *official* photographers operate? Are beaches now to become camera free zones, just in case your happy holiday snap happens to include a child from another family? How will any holiday resort publicise itself as a family venue without photographs showing their beaches packed with hordes of familes having fun?
That way lies madness. The nanny state writ large.
Si.
I thought it was a good show last night - a really nice mix of the serious and the funny.
And since you worry about these things: I don't think that the quality of the phone lines affected the quality of the interviews at all. You had some very strong representatives on yesterday, who knew their stuff and didn't waffle, and responded well to the relevant questioning. At least I felt so. Simon Weston was excellent.
I would never have known that you had problems getting people on air, and even the bird song didn't tip me off. I think this show is great but I am on a caffeine-high at the moment, so maybe my judgement is impaired (not that I usually need an excuse).
Overpopulation: I won't comment on that, as I'll end up getting yelled at.
Jasper Corbett (16) Thank you for that insight into how you attempt to put the programme together. In the light of what you said, it is remarkable how seamless and well-planned the programme always seems to be (give or take the odd glitch now and again!) I now realise that PM is like the proverbial swan, paddling upstream.........PM is a credit to the professionalism of the whole team
I didn't catch the lead story but found the rest of the prog very good and would never have guessed about the last minute hitches etc. The Drugs piece was particularly fascinating; can't remember the reporters name but they way he described the smell etc was particularly effective (although did seem to rely on the fact that listeners would know what cannabis smelt like...) and the bird song was niceky juxtaposed.
The Simon Weston was well judged. He is inspirational but I sometimes wonder if he gets trotted out a little too much. I particularly appreciated thee question about whether he regretted his time in the forces (paraphrased slighlty); its often crossed my mind and his reaction was so honest and enthusiastic it actually made me smile! I was only 5 when the Flaklands kicked off so didn't understand what was happening. The remaining memory I have is being told that the Dad of one of my school friends had been sent out. I remember Neil (the boy in question) being very upset for the next few days and a kind of hush developing around him; everytime I hear something about the conflict all I can see is a small child in a grey jumper crying nest to the school railings. I tgink there may be a message in that.
Oh, one more thought. I often hear things on Today or bulletins and it strikes me that PM would approach things in a different way and get more out of the story. I think was particularly reflected in the Drugs and Pregnancy pieces (ah, the Indian Onion effect!!)
Ok - I'm off now!
Hope that wasn't too waffly!
Re; Dr John Pollard: Very funny :-)
Re: BigSister: So lets all go and live in Italy then - it's more sunny - the wine is cheaper and all those lovely beaches. Eddie could learn Italian and get a job with RAI, and there would always be hot political stories to pursue.
Re: Eddie, Thanks for the explanation, although I know you clarified it 'on-air'. I'd have just like to have heard the description from the minister of what was deemed to be tolerated.
I thought Simon Weston was brilliant. It also illustrated something that fascinates me - the different interviewing styles you use. Number 1 is for politicians and other devious types, Number 2 is a more respectful one for 'experts', Number 3 for the light relief stories. With Simon you used number 4, talking to a real person who is saying something worth listening to, you gave him bags of space and it paid off big time.
Jasper, Thanks for letting us know what had to be pulled from the programme last night. It's a shame we didn't get to hear from Morgan Tsvangirai. I try to keep up with what's happening in Zimbabwe, as I used to work alongside a Zimbabwean, and the news he got from his family in Harare even 3 years ago was disturbing. Is there any chance we can include the interview at a later date (if indeed one was recorded)?
Si (20) I certainly sympathise with the situation you describe. I think part of this is the (mainly tabloid) press focus on so-called "Stranger Danger". As I understand things, the majority of child abuse of all forms is perpetrated by adults known to the child. Does this mean that all family photographs must now be stopped? Should I not take a photo of my niece when we, as a family, all get together at Christmas, for fear of being prosecuted? This way lies a society that is emotionally stunted and paranoid....
Simon: Re photographing children.
You're a nice guy and a father, and I for one wouldn't doubt your intentions if I saw you photographing children, but that's because I know a bit about you. And, until a few years ago, I wouldn't have turned a hair if I'd seen strangers snapping the occasional picture of a child as they enjoyed themselves. When I was teaching, these issues didn't generally emerge.
It is very sad that we are now aware that, unfortunately, there is an unhealthy interest on the part of some people in young children as sexualised objects. I doubt that this 'interest' is a recent phenomena - but this is a case where the internet has unwittingly led to increased availability of a commodity which, quite simply, shouldn't be available in the first place. Paedophilia rates appear to have soared in recent years, although this may be because of society's increased awareness of something which the majority abhor. The irony is that detection rates may have also increased through the use of the internet to spread images amonst paecophilic communities!
I was at an Easter play on Sunday, watching my little stepgrandson, and a photo opportunity was provided at the end. I was, frankly, amazed by this as there is such sensitivity these days on this issue.
I'm not sure how we can work our way out of this now. There are some really nasty guys out there, unfortunately, and it is understandable that parents and family members are much more protective of their children as a result of our own loss of innocence on the subject.
To the Eddie Mair Show,
It wasn't too bad, but I thought it lacked a big finish.
Re; Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs)
Yes - something needs to be done about Big Ben!
Jonnie: I'd love to live in Italy, if I wasn't living in England. The culture is one I find very congenial. However, on the issue of falling birthrates, Italians are going to hit serious economic problems one way or another, with falling tax revenues combining with increasing costs for caring for the elderly, if the trend continues. And this in a nation noted for tax evasion!
Wine and sunshine? very nice, too. But growing older in Italy? not so good, I think.
I'm not sure I really recognise the precise interviewing techniques that Peter Jones defines, but I agree that you do match the style to the story and the interviewee - but then that's why you're there.
I do agree with Peter Jones about the Simon Weston piece - enough space and time to allow him to get his thoughts across. It also cleverly allowed the two topics of the Falklands and the Iran detainees to be merged and related to each other.
For the first time in weeks I heard most of the programme and it certainly didn't seem like the "bumpy ride" you predicted in 1647.
I liked the birdsong as well, perfectly describing the neighbourhood.
I have to echo the thoughts of Peter Jones (25) about the interview with Simon Weston - what an erudite chap. Particularly pleased with the amount of time Eddie gave him to answer - not many other programmes would be that brave or polite (Today?).
Re: BigSister: "But growing older in Italy? not so good, I think."
And in the UK?
My mother visited a lady of 100 years old yesterday. She has no funds, the flat was a tip, hardly anyone visits her and social services pop around occasionally to check she's alive.
Jonnie (11) Re paying tax for education.......My taxes go towards paying for prisons. None of my family have ever gone to prison. I gladly pay that tax because prisons are a benefit to society in general. Fair comparison?
Mind the Gap!
Jonnie: Things in the UK aren't that great, I'll grant you, mainly due to lack of funding. My point was that, in Italy, where funding is already an issue and becoming ever more so, things are likely to be even more bleak.
Italian friends of mine constantly observe how society there is changing in this regard. No longer does every Nona live with her caring chldren, minding the grandchildren, although this is still the case in some households. But families are smaller, flats are tiny, etc. etc. And for the likes of you and I, who have no children, we would have no extended family to provide for us.
But of course we could always get drunk!
Today: I'm probably speaking out of line here but I sometimes feel that the Today team go into interviews with their minds made up, if that makes sense. All questions, answers, interruptions etc seem designed to support their own take on the matter.
PM is more open than that, and, dare I say a naughty word ...unbias? So we do generally gain more information and are able to make up our own minds whether something is 'good' or 'bad' with the person's stance. I appreciate that, as it is a rarity in a time when everyone seems to adhere to a particular agenda. At least in my view.
As for, dare I wade into this?, the elderly debate: It seems to me that once a person permanently loses their ability to earn money for the nation, that person is seen as nothing more than a nuisance by the government and society in general. It's another example of how consumer- and economy- driven our society has become. Pensions - private or public - are simply not large enough to take care of the high cost of basic living nowadays. Or so I think. And I hope that I'm not being rude. :-(
But of course we could always get drunk!
That's certainly my plan.
Re: Gillian (34),
I never actually mentioned an education tax, though I agree that more money for education would be required. As for prisons I'd say they are an unfortunate necessity rather than beneficial for society.
My point is that I think people are being selfish if they decide to have more than three children. Ideally 2.5 but that I'd imagine it would cause a nightmare in the clothing stores. Unfortunately it always seems to be the, oh, how can I tactfully put this -- let's say the people that appear on Jeremy Kyle and Tricia that seem to have the larger families.
Last week there was a Mother in Asda with four children, all under 8 years old, screaming four letter words at her children. You little s**ts, wait till I get you F***ing home. She obviously couldn't cope with them and what effect is that sort of behaviour going to have on the children when they are older. Why did she need four?
Re: BigSister : I accept the last point, however, repeating myself again - two children are fine, three marginally acceptable, but four is downright selfish.
Re: Reverend Green:
If you are on about Big Ben, I can't believe that it's beyond the resources of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to have a simple countdown device monitoring the strike mechanism.
I accept that the proper out times could not be worked out in advance, but I'm sure it would be very easy to give an accurate indication from 60 secs before as to what time the first chime will strike! I don't actually mind the gap but I hate the crash.
Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½ it's what you do.
Re: Belinda (37) I couldn't agree more about the Today programme - I regularly turn it off because of all the hectoring. Eddie seems to have much more success getting answers to his questions (although not always, admitedly) without having to resort to badgering the interviewee.
Jonnie (39) if you don't mind me saying I have to agree with Gillian (34). I think what you actually said was you were paying taxes which go towards education, along with a great many other things some of which we personally use and benefit from and others we don't (e.g. prison...well not so far anyway :)) I have to be honest and say that your argument that it is selfish to have more than 3 children is (in my humble opinion) unfounded. Yes there are families such as the unfortunate lot you stumbled upon in Asda who quite frankly shouldn't be allowed to take care of a hamster never mind bring a child into the world. However they are the minority. Children (and I am probably biased here) are an absolute joy to have - and quite frankly if I could afford to (and time was on my side) I would have 4 or more. It is none of anyone's business I feel how many children a couple decide to have or if they chose to have none. We live in a democratic free society and it is down to the individual to make that choice. Yes you may well have to pay taxes to fund schools you yourself will derive no personal direct benefit from. But how do future doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers become educated - or even exist - if we do not give birth to them and educate them. To quote a somewhat corny song "I believe the children are our future". Yes there is a need to deal with the fact that we do live longer, but imposing a restriction on the number of children couples have? Wrong!! Sorry but had to get that off my chest!
Moving on.....Last night's programme? I'm afraid I didn't catch it all due to having to collect my son midway through. However I also thoroughly enjoyed the Simon Weston interview and liked the space he was given to talk.
Si (20) have to agree it is a terribly sad indictment on society today that there is such paranoia and wish it weren't so. I heard a feature on this on Radio 2 recently and there was some quite unbelievable examples of how ridiculous this has become. I was tempted to call in then and say exactly what you said - should we ban cameras from beaches or theme parks etc just in case another child should accidentally be in the shot!? However, it is a harsh reality of life. I would like to see a little more common sense and less reactionary paranoia applied. For example, at school events allow a photo opportunity at the end but give parents the choice to take their children out of the shot if they wish? If only life could be more innocent and pure but sadly it's not.
Jonnie: Not sure which point you accepted - The 'getting drunk' one?
I think you've misunderstood me somewhere. I'm generally not in favour of large families either, if they are to be a financial burden on the State (which isn't always the case, by the way). Not only that, it is much harder for parents to cope with numerous children, as your Asda example illustrates.
People without children, like you and I, will always have a different perspective on the matter. I have to say that I get a bit fed up with parents telling me that we should be grateful to them for their life opportunities or choices, as if I'd planned not to have children (which is not the case). And the contribution that aunts, uncles, step-parents, etc., play towards keeping the ship afloat is rarely acknowledged.
There are lots of different aspects to all this, and generalities are probably best avoided.
jonnie wrote: BigSister : I accept the last point, however, repeating myself again - two children are fine, three marginally acceptable, but four is downright selfish.
The government would disagree. They want us to have more kids so they can work and pay the taxes to support the rest of the aging population.... and SOON!
Just to flag up that I'm withdrawing from all further comment on the family size issue as I can see feelings are getting rather inflamed.
Being one of three I see a family of three children as being the perfect number. My wife being one of two sees two children as the acceptable normal.
In this day and age and the availability of contraception one would think large families are a thing of the past but not so. With Jonnies example of a family of 4 all under 8 it shows how easy it is for contracteption to fail.
Moving on to midwives, our second was a home birth. And the hoops we had to jump through were not small. So the chances of all women being offered a home birth is a pipe dream.
As it happens, after the birth, my wife had to be admitted due to a bad tear that the midwives were unhappy about sorting. (I can see you all crossing your legs from here.)
But we had the birth at home and it was done with minimal intervention from medicine. This is as it should be with the majorityof deliveries.
Fiona (42) Thank you for articulating my feelings so well! I have three children, and if I were any younger I may have had more. We have brought them up well, they are a credit to us, and we have never claimed benefits. I am sure they will all lead purposeful and successful lives, and at least 2 of them are planning to work with other people's children when they finish their education.
You are wrong to be so judgmental. Your argument falls into the same category as me saying that all adults should be obliged to have one child, through whatever means, to look after them in their old age, and so on. Both arguments are completely fatuous.
Me (47) Sorry everyone! I meant my second paragraph to refer to Jonnie. That's what comes of me letting my feelings run away with me!
Jonnie, meet me at the Beach later? We can both chill with a paddle and an ice-cream.
Can of worms, jonnie - you were always onto a slippery slope with that one!
Of course China has/had a one child policy....
no, that's just flippant. people are people, and if its not illigeal, they do what they do. Hopefully, by the time they are physically able to reproduce, there is enough of the social mores instilled to prevent all sorts of nasty stuff - if not, then of course we arrest them and put them in gaol.
It is not the number of children, jonnie, i think you are railling against with your Asda lady, it is the antisocial / anti-society position that she and they are in that you feel so strongly about. The population arguement is not really relevent in the UK - although it is in China.
Lets begin a concerted effort to educate properly by with I mean:
politeness
kindness
consideration
generosity
humour
and
hospitallity
Nikki Noodle (49) I would add
tolerance
mutual support
respect
thoughtfulness
individuality
honesty
And the list goes on......
Fiona (42), I agree with your stuff about family size and the raising of the next generation. I do not have children.
I also agree with the general points many people have made about photography, although I would add that I would be most unhappy to be photographed without my permission, and feel that, where a child is too young to make that decision for him/herself, permission from his/her guardian really should be sought. (I'm referring to situations where the individual's image could be recognised here.) A simple "May I take you photo" is polite and should result in a clear "yes", "no", or "why?"
Last year a Newsnight reporter thrust a microphone at me and began asking me a question. A camera loomed behind him. I didn't want to be on TV so I raised my hand so that it was between the camera and my face and said "I'd really rather not be involved, thanks". The jourmalist muttered something quite rude and sarcastic, about my "attitude". I had been perfectly polite to him, but had asserted my right not to be filmed. I ought to have complained about his behaviour. Photographers, journalists and reseachers would all do well to remember that they do not have a special right to the images/voices etc. in which they are interested. I imagine most do, but this experience was indicative that some do not.
Um, Stewart (46), Re With Jonnies example of a family of 4 all under 8 it shows how easy it is for contracteption to fail. How on Earth can you claim to know that?
There are an awful lot of personal preferences being prescribed as The Correct Thing To Do on this thread. To which my personal response is, "I don't like it. Please stop".
Thanks for clarifying Gillian (your 48 about your 47), I read it and thought oh dear why are you are shouting at ME??!! Only kidding of course - I knew what you meant but thank you anyway :-)
And I totally agree with you both your lists Nikki and Gillian. Hit the nail on the head, its not the number that is the issue - I have heard women talk like that with just one child to look after.
Re: Chrissie (44)
who wrote:
'The government would disagree. They want us to have more kids so they can work and pay the taxes to support the rest of the aging population.... and SOON! '
The government took us in to a war with Iraq Chrissie, against the will of the majority.
At least Stewart seems to have a sensible view on the matter.
What about the unemployment figures, are we just going to have a nation of Doctors and teachers
Re Gillian who said :-
You are wrong to be so judgmental. Your argument falls into the same category as me saying that all adults should be obliged to have one child, through whatever means, to look after them in their old age, and so on. Both arguments are completely fatuous.
Gillian, I don't think I am being too judgemental. My point was that I think that four children is putting a burdon on society, NHS, etc.. If we are now living longer where are they all going to live. Perhaps a few more high rise blocks around Lichfield?
Appy (12),
England is the in the world (after Bengladesh, S. Korea and Netherlands) with a percapita ecological footprint over ten times the global average. We need less folk, not more.
Jonnie (39),
In olden times the Jews encouraged Rabbis and other 'elites' to have more children and discouraged large families in the tradesman classes. This may go some way to explain the relatively high IQ among Ashkenazi Jews.
At present Native Britons are breeding at less than replacement level. The population continues to grow through immigration, and immigrant families generally breed at above replacement level.
Just facts, folks.
The programme was excellent, and I second all the compliments on interviewing style and comparisons with Today.
xx
ed
Lets begin a concerted effort to educate properly by with I mean:
contraception
adoption
Awhh Ed (55), I've missed you.
Thank you for that Ed.
So just about 70 million people by 2050!
And the government are doing nothing to curb the population growth.
Well that just about somes it up.
Now I think on that note we need a new glass box.
Sorry Eddie that it went off on a tangent.
somes it up!
Mmmm - What's it called when you mean one word and spell it another way?
Lack of education :-()
Now where is the new Glass box ?
Ed (55), I wasn't implying that I believe otherwise -- merely pointing out to Jonnie that his assertion at 11 can be argued against, despite his suggestion to the contrary.
me too, jonnie, in (49)
Still, some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best
see you on the beach
n-n
xx
Thanks Belinda, I love you too!
We should also wonder why we seem to need to keep more folk in prison than most other 'civilised' countries.
xx
ed
How sweet! Jonnie has left this open box up on the screen which gives me (the S/O) with the sister about to have her forth, the opportunity to say how delighted we all are with the family news and may this one be a boy. She seems to be writing her own Jane Austen novel with the names she's chosen for the girls and I fancy a bit of Thmas Hardy. Gabriel is a lovely name for a boy and as we can't have another pet just yet, I will offer my sister the name as an idea should it be a boy!! We really should stop shopping at ASDA, it does upset the both of us, but Waitrose is such a journey away and Sainsbury's don't staock all that we require being a small store. Just a polite warning to all bloggers...Jonnie takes great delight in courting controversy (where's the spell checker on this thing?!) He is the original Mr Wind-Up!! Luckily, after 11 years of it I now know when he's being naughty. We are unable to have children but my sister is having the two that I cannot (according to my mother). Did I say they were all planned? S/O
Wind-Up Jonnie? Isn't that a bit rude, Simon?
Jonnie (56) and his SO (63) Jonnie mentioned adoption.....Have you some good news to share with us? ;o)
btw, I am extremely easy to wind!
Appy (60),
It wasn't personal, just that I'm a wee bit sensitive on the matter of global population, as well as the greedy habits of us in the 'developed' world. I also did notice your comment on global population. BTW, I think meeting our 'needs' via immigration is a cure which will make the problem worse - nothing to do with race or ethnicity. I consider it immoral to poach the skilled folk from countries which need them far more than we do, and now we have junior doctors who can't find work.
xxxx
ed
Well that'll teach me to leave the blog page open in future. There was I in the bath with Eddie - not even thinking that there was another hacker at large a few feet below me!
Alas not Gillian, still just the three surrogates here: Rupert, Harry and Dolly
As this is/was glass box - might I offer something on tonights programme?
I was a little suprised that no one asked about the possibility (or indeed, probability) of forged documents being posted on the whistleblowing website which is to be launched soon. How is the operator going to authenticate said documents?
This would surely raise the question of the accuracy of any of the postings.
Or are my luddite tendancies letting me down, and there is a technical way of checking that I am not aware of? It wouldn't be the first time!
Is it me (!) or is it all going dreadfully slowly around here?
Fiona (53) I was mortified when I saw what I had done in my 47, and I would like to apologise again.
I'm slinking away to the beach. I will be there for as long as it takes to grow a thicker skin.
jonnie (59) In some places, the corrections section of The Observer for instance, that is called a homophone. Two words that sound the same but are spelt differently. As for your (56) "with", well that is a spelling mistake, plain and simple. ;-)
H.
First of all a mini apology. It did surprise me a little when the woman discussing midwives on yesterdays PM programme went from talking about the first baby to the fourth baby in a few seconds. Once I'd mentioned it I couldn't resist giving the feedback on the comments.
Of course I believe that we should make our own decisions on how many children we choose to have however as Ed I pointed out on his link, the rising population due to immigration, especially in London is slightly worrying. Luckily - or unluckily I lefy the blog up and Simon (SO) interviened saving me some backtracking.
Re: Humph: and the 'with' - actually I just copied and pasted somebody else on that one, however, as you know, I'm the worlds worst for typo's and spelling mistakes -- if Firefox let me log in to our Bank account I'd have a spell checker! I'll try Firefox again if I could get Simon to work out where the favourites are :-)
I'll hide on the beach for a while until Gillian, BigSister, Appy, and others forgive me :-(
Humph - I can't let jonnie get the blame for that one, i can not tell a lie, t'were me. (see around about 49).
jonnie was using a witty turn-around and pasted my line verbatim...my lack of education i guess ! (see 59)
My own spelling is appalling, and as for homophones, dont get me started!!
nikki
Re Gillian (70)
Gave me a little chuckle though :-( .. sorry back to the naughty step!
Well I've just caught up with all the above. I most certainly hope there are no homophones on this blog - I'd like to think we were equally welcoming to all, whatever their sexual preferences...:)
Simon (SO Simon I mean) how nice to hear from you again. It crossed my mind just now that perhaps Jonnie's rant-ette about the next nephew or niece might be because secretly he feels it's aging to be an uncle 4 times over? Children are terribly aging, I've noticed, I think it's because their constant growth & development makes you realise how much time has elapsed since they were born. With pets it's not so horribly obvious, as once they've passed the kitten/puppy stage, they don't usually change much until they finally get decrepit.
Ah, everybody's made up! Just like in a children's story. Or A Midsummer Night's Dream. [Jonnie as Puck , I rather think!]
And so to bed .....
Re: Eddie Mair (13)
Eddie, with all the goings on I've just had time to have a little re-thought about this one.
To save people searching I said :-
It would have been nice to hear what the Home office had to say about the art story. Ossian made some good points, and I heard what the spokesperson had told you - but it would have made a more balanced interview to have someone on the line from the home office.
Eddie replied :-
I agree, and we tried to get the Home Office on, but it seems the minister who was speaking on this was only available on a mobile phone (see one of my previous postings). THEY decided not to put him on in those circs. I put in a line about their view into our interview, but of course it's not the same.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now why on earth would they not be prepared to put the minister on a mobile phone?
Most of use use them everyday and get our conversations heard don't we?
Does the fact that Ossian was in the studio (or via ISDN) and the minister was on a mobile signify that Ossian had an unfair advantage?
Or was it another diplomatic way of saying that 'unfortunately no one is available to comment'
Strikes me that the answer is as easy as one of Richard and Judy's phone in competitions.
Annassee (75). I agree children are ageing. I feel mine 6 and 3 have aged me by 10 years in the last 6 years. Its hard work and you worry you don't do the best for them but being a parent is great really. (especially when they have gone to bed)
And I know its not for everyone. (being a parent that is)
Ed (66), Nothing taken personally -- no worries. Just to be clear -- I did not intend my post at 12 to be an expression of my opinion: it was merely an outline of some of the arguments that existin order to refute the suggetsion that there are no counter arguments to the assertion "it is selfish to have more than two children". To address your point about immigration, I do agree with you that poaching skilled workers from other countries is not a desirable solution if those countries need those workers, and I recognise that certainly is a growing problem. However, I don't think that free movement of workers need always be on that basis. Ideally movement would be about balancing need and filling gaps, and broadening the horizons of those doing the moving and even those they end up beside. But I'd better not get all idealistic -- someone's bound to spoli my fun!
Jonnie (72), No need to hide -- you have facilitated lively debate and that is what we're aiming for innit? But I would like to think that one day you and Simon will have four children and let them run riot in the supermarket! ;-)
Jonnie,
The 'favourites' are called 'bookmarks' and can be set up as a sidebar. The inline spellchecker is great, and you can have 'British' English.
AND you don't get the 'blues'.
xx
ed
Hello Ed *waves madly and blows a big kiss*!
I do think overpopulation is a large contributory factor for many of the ills that we are seeing today. In my view, this country probably needs around 40 million people in order to have the kind of health-care, transport, education and well...space that many of us desire.
I suspect this figure will prove to be completely impossible to achieve - mostly because the government will not allow it due to the subsequent impact on the economy - at least until homo sapiens are on the decline and we are being taken over by zyborgs or whatever.
Humanity frustrates me a great deal, because we are able to be responsible, intelligent, caring people who are able to distinguish between the greater good and selfishness and then act on it, yet many people choose to ignore this ability. It is just wasted potential of what could have been a great species.
Belinda,
We won't really make any progress unless we begin to question the modern dieties, The (Global) Economy, and its major ideology, Growth, which it shares with cancer cells.
"Anyone who believes in continued growth in a finite system is either an economist or a madman" -- Kenneth Boulding
xx
ed
Morning all.....Jonnie you are indeed very naughty :) Hope you are being good and staying on the naughty step for your allotted time (they say one minute per year of life in parenting tips)
How lovely to hear from you as well Simon (SO Simon), you should join us more often
Gillian (70) big ((((hugs)))) to you m'dear - really no need to apologise - it made me chuckle as well.
As for Ed and Jonnie's points re immigration (i.e. poaching skilled workers etc) and the way that is spiralling out of control. Well all I will say is I couldn't agree more (but also in a completely non-racist and ethnic way).
Right I'm going to bow out of this one for now and head off and do some work!
Ed, perhaps we should start to adhere to the Bhutan method of Gross National Happiness instead. It is true that society is measured through percieved misery though, it's rather a glass is half-empty mentality.
I'm all for questioning the modern dieties and this infatuation with expansion, growth and other size-related issues, but how could this be organised on a substantial level, and then be able to produce results? We could always continue using the frog of course - that is bound to change the world someday.
Oh! Oh! Stephen Hughes MEP -- I know him; he's lovely!