The Glass Box for Monday
Speak out on the programme tonight...
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
The Glass box needs to be in position by 5 Eddie
At 05:33 PM on 16 Apr 2007, Ben wrote:
What on earth was Ann Clwyd blethering about? Loyalty to her party and government is to be expected but this silly woman clearly has no grasp on the real issues behind the Iranian kidnapping, the subsequent media handling issue, its impact on the Services (especially the Royal Navy) nor the political accountability for the whole sorry affair. Since she is Tony Blair's 'Special Envoy to Iraq', is it surprising so little progress has been made in the country's development?
I like the coverage of in and around the French election - PM (seem) to be the only R4 news prog giving it decent airtime! I'm often saying, that it's no wonder folk are ignorant about Europe when we hardly hear ought about it - Well Done!
Eddie and the rest of you please stop saying
'SEKER TREE' the word is:
'SECRETARY'
Evening, Eddie & Team.
Would it be feasible to have a different spokesperson for the US Embassy in future interviews? I do feel that the DCoM that we've had on air recently doesn't seem to be open to debate or questioning. The feeling I get when I listen to him is that he can't understand that other countries involved in the military actions in Iraq & Afghanistan may view deaths of service personnel sould be investigated. The attitude today was "Well, we (the US) don't do things that way, therefore you shouldn't either". If we are going to get this response from the DCoM every time this comes up, plase could we get a senior US military officer on and posit the reverse scenario, just to see what would happen if it were US service persons who died and there was evidence that the UK might have...
FFred
Like this Terry (SB3)
I loved the item on women in the Home Guard, and your interview with the person who joined up was great. You allow your interviewees the space to explain themselves in their own words - more is less (I'm sure this is a conscious decision rather than a failure to know what to say) and it works!
Lord Janner's reprimand is not fair. Ferry clearly did not intend to cause any offence - he was commenting purely on artistic and architectural matters.
I have recently returned from Rome and had planned to visit EUR, where Mussolini commissioned buildings for the 1942 Expo. I did not get round to visiting but if I did and appreciated the buildings there, is Lord Janner saying that this is would be tantamount to having Fascist and/or anti-Jewish views? Nonsense and I do not think any fair minded person would think that I had done anything offensive.
One thing I learnt during my visit was that the Colosseum (Rome's most popular tourist attraction) was built with the assistance of thousands of Jewish slaves. Are we all to be labelled anti-Jewish for visiting and appreciating this wonderful building?
I know I listened with interest but a lot of it seems to have gone clean out of my head -- sorry!
Um, I imagine you were pleased to finally get Hilary Benn on, but I can see why he prefers to keep his distance: The question about his motivation for today's speech and his campaign for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? Ouch! I mean, well done for asking, but I also thought 'well done' to him for his response.
Bit of a big bong gap at the end. And "please join our colleagues on The World Tonight" as a filler? Hmm. But it could've been worse -- no crash. Overall: interesting mix of serious and light. I'll definitely tune in again sometime. :-)
I think you bit your lip very stoically when Hilary Benn accused you of asking an unworthy question (our Eddie? Never!). Deputy leadership contender makes highly trailed and faintly controversial speech and then gets grumpy when you genially ask if there is a link? Blimey, was his rebuke tongue-in-cheek or is he really that humourless?
The American response to the coroner appeared to be "law is what I say it is" and on the War on Terror thing "words mean what I say they mean". Didn't do much to dispell the impression the US gives of arrogance. I think you pressed him almost far enough.
I could'nt believe how Hilary Benn showed up what a bully he is when he shouted down Eddie Mair then tried to do it again thankfully without success.
A few minutes later, the report on comments made by Brian Ferry about the natzis ( foolish )for which he apologised was condemmed by Lord ........? with the veiled threats of sanctions against him from his Jewish employers if he made any comments again. This shows up another smooth talking bully.
Re: Hilary Benn's 'white propaganda' interview.
Surely 'British Foreign policy' and the 'war on terror' (whatever you call it) are the same thing - support Elites overseas; however ruthless they may be at the expense of the poor world-wide....has Marx got a smile on his face I wonder?
Just read the brilliant Mark Curtis if you really want to know the Truth about Blair et al...you may be shocked - but the Truth always hurts, so they say!
Brian V Peck
Terry Green #4
I've noticed different flora on my side of the pond than yours. Where I leve we have oak trees, maple trees, elm trees. On your side you have seker trees, mila trees, parlamen trees, and elemen trees my dear Watson. From the complaints I've read here, most seem to bear a bitter fruit.
I should've added to my earlier post -- When I said I was pleased that you asked Hilary Benn the question, I was also pleased that you didn't go on and on about it -- as some interviewers would -- but actually talked to him about the substance of his speech as well.
I had posted earlier a comment in reply to Ben (No. 2) about Ann Clywd. It may have got lost, appear some time during the night, or just be doing the twist on Planet Mars.
The substance of it was that I think she does deserve air space since she has had a long relationship with the region, visited and tried to gain an understanding, and is well intentioned in her efforts. I believe she has also challenged (i.e. stood up to) the PM on occasion, but as she is a member of the Government, she will be wise to speak carefully. She is no Clare Short, but neither is she stupid.
I was half asleep on the train when I heard the comments made by Brian Ferry regarding Germany in the 1930's. It would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that the National Socialist Party got to power with the most impressive display of spin that the world has ever seen, before or since! The fact that it turned nasty, for all concerned, is history. I get a feeling that he was being pilloried for stating the unpalatable truth of how it was actually achieved.
jonnie I agree with you about Anne Clwyd. She seemed to miss the point about everything. What was great about that "debate" was that the politicians took their turns made their points and there was very little input from the interviewer. It was brilliantly laid back.
As for AC not thinking that selling stories to the press was important - surely if we are to have an inquiry into what happened with regard to the abduction of the sailors isn't it better that they do not blurt out their story to the press first. The two matters are intimately connected. Can't she see that?
Mary
Hmm. I thought this was a rather...light-weight programme tonight. The two lead stories really did not justify their position at all in my view, with the coverage of Des Browne reiterating what he has already said, and then a segment on whether we should use the 'War on Terror' term or not. As long as people are dying everywhere, we could call it Krusty the Klown for all I care.
The discussion subsequent to the first piece with Ann Clwyd and thingy was well moderated but neither party had anything really interesting to say - simply went down party lines. Good questions though, shame about the answers.
The US spokeman was of a similar ilk - giving away little information and directly contradicted the official UK line with the evidence. (Although when he said that the US use the term 'war' metaphorically, I did yell out loud "So people are only getting metaphorically killed in Iraq?!"). That said, I think this may have deserved to be the top story over the media storm and whether the wording of War on Terror is 'misleading' or not.
The French election piece was very nice - although given that the UK by-elections are coming up very soon, some mention of them may be good as well. And the Home Guard piece was fantastic, interesting and informative - top marks for that.
And I can't remember much more than that.
I think Belinda is confusing form and content when she says the programme was lightweight. It seemed to me, on the contrary, very well-balanced with all the important news items getting the right amount of airing. What was lightweight however was the performance of AC and the US Deputy Head of Mission who simply mouthed the platitudes to be expected from official spokespeople.
Re : Mark (13) - 'Bitter Fruit' --I'd say Terry (4) made a good point. My (SO) always says Seketary and I always pick him up on it.
Re; madmary, (17) I agree with you about Anne Clywd and her 'blethering' however I should point out that the point was made by Ben. He'd left it on Fridays Glass box as Mondays Glass box wasn't available. I just copied and pasted.
I also agree with Fearless on the US Embassy chap and the:-
"Well, we (the US) don't do things that way, therefore you shouldn't either".
I thought the same, and war means war in the English language whether you are American or British.
Aperitif, Yes the gap was only 6 secs this evening, however a little bed running under Eddie would have masked it. See I do learn things from News 24 :-)
Re : Mark (13) - 'Bitter Fruit' --I'd say Terry (4) made a good point. My (SO) always says Seketary and I always pick him up on it.
Re; madmary, (17) I agree with you about Anne Clywd and her 'blethering' however I should point out that the point was made by Ben. He'd left it on Fridays Glass box as Mondays Glass box wasn't available. I just copied and pasted.
I also agree with Fearless on the US Embassy chap and the:-
"Well, we (the US) don't do things that way, therefore you shouldn't either".
I thought the same, and war means war in the English language whether you are American or British.
Aperitif, Yes the gap was only 6 secs this evening, however a little bed running under Eddie would have masked it. See I do learn things from News 24 :-)
Re : Mark (13) - 'Bitter Fruit' --I'd say Terry (4) made a good point. My (SO) always says Seketary and I always pick him up on it.
Re; madmary, (17) I agree with you about Anne Clywd and her 'blethering' however I should point out that the point was made by Ben. He'd left it on Fridays Glass box as Mondays Glass box wasn't available. I just copied and pasted.
I also agree with Fearless on the US Embassy chap and the:-
"Well, we (the US) don't do things that way, therefore you shouldn't either".
I thought the same, and war means war in the English language whether you are American or British.
Aperitif, Yes the gap was only 6 secs this evening, however a little bed running under Eddie would have masked it. See I do learn things from News 24 :-)
I listened to Lord Janner's hysterical outburst with amazement. The comments of Mr. Ferry were from an artistic viewpoint. Both the film "Triumph of the Will" and that of the Berlin Olympics are artistic masterpieces, particularly the latter. Riefenstahl was a brilliant film maker. The content may not be particularly wholesome in the former but the technique is superb.
Similarly Speer's "Cathedral of Light" at the Nuremberg rally was again an ephemeral work of art. This was commented on at the time. His architecture may have been typicaly bombastic but one has to remember who his client was.
It is a great pity that "Nazi Art" and "Socialist Realist Art" from the Soviet Union have disappeared with their regimes. They could tell us much and teach us lessons.
Big Sis, I just had to say I find this really funny: She is no Clare Short, but neither is she stupid. I'm not sure why -- maybe it's the ultimate in damning with faint praise. Thanks for the giggle anyway.
Jonnie (20, 21 and 22) What does "a little bed running under Eddie" mean then? -- I'm not a News 24 viewer, I'm afraid! (And don't you know better than to mention "bed" and "Eddie" in the same sentnce when talking to me??? ;-)).
An interesting PM today, interesting in that the massacre at Virginia Tech was almost totally ignored.
The most significant news item of the day got bumped for a puff piece on a book about events that happened 68 years ago, and the French elections - yawn - who cares?
However, I am sure that Tuesdays PM will make sure to wheel on the usual suspects to totally misread the tragedy in Virginia , once again mistaking a real Democracies willingness to trust all it's citizens to own a gun (except criminals) with the wonderful situation we have here in the UK where ONLY criminals own guns.
I expect the usual gloating about Americans being killed from the tragically deluded PM "pottering classes" - I do hope I am wrong on this one but i doubt it.
It might interest you to know that I am not an American - just a Brit disgusted with how much hatred is levelled at the nation that saved our country from doom in two world wars.
I think Belinda is confusing form and content when she says the programme was lightweight. It seemed to me, on the contrary, very well-balanced with all the important news items getting the right amount of airing.
I'm not getting anything confused and I disagree with your statement.
Appy (24) - No problem with you finding it amusing, just as long as it conjured up the right image.
In case anyone didn't understand the (non)comparison, Clare Short has openly criticised the Government in no uncertain terms. Ms Clwyd is of the 'old school' who do not 'piss into the tent', but, just as Ms Short had a good handle on international develoment, Ms Clwyd knows her portfolio extremely well and has been a staunch champion of the Marsh Arabs, amongst other victimised groups in the Middle East.
I suspect there are many different ways that she might have answered points in yesterday's discussion, and I think it will be fascinating to her what she might have to say in the future, at a time when her comments would no longer damage a Labour Government. She is a pragmatist inasmuch as she'd rather be 'in' and working towards solutions than 'out' and unable to influence matters. She will, therefore, choose her words extremely carefully, perhaps not the best experience for the PM listener.
I find it intellectually lazy and somewhat offensive when somebody chooses to slate somebody in the way Ben did. A lot of men use the term 'silly woman' when they don't agree with that (female) person. Ms Clywd's role as special envoy relates to human rights in Iraq. Her remit (and therefore her influence within the Government) is limited. Perhaps she was the wrong person to speak abou the Iranian kidnapping, media handling, impact on Services, etc. That is a different matter. Criticism should always be directed carefully.
Sis (27),
Well understood, well put.
Steven Jones (25),
No need to hate America to recognise plenty of aspects unworthy of imitating. The deepest irony in my life is to find folk looking down their noses at American culture, while rushing headlong to imitate its worst aspects - a virtually certain way to stumble.
xx
ed
If we have recruited an extra 75000 more nurses,as the Health minister keeps stating, and have closed hospitals and wards and reduced the number of beds what are they all doing?
And now the frog's forgotten me and covered my space in pale yellow...;-(
ed
It seems to me that with Lord Janner, the best way to prove him a fool was to allow him to speak freely which you did - well done.
I fear that trying to argue with such a ridiculous premise as his is pointless.
Re: my three multiple postings above. The browser was not responding and taking me to Room 502. Apologies!
Steven (25) I think the issue may have been that at the time of broadcast, not a lot of information was known. I think I would rather we get what facts are known at that time, rather than lots of speculation about what may or may not be happening in situations like this. As regards the issues of gun ownership, gun crime, anti-Americanism (implied in your comments) may I suggest that we discuss this in The Furrowed Brow, rather than here. The Glass Box is aimed at each individual broadcast, rather than topics that are wider ranging such as the ones you've brought up. However, I would briefly say that I for one am glad that I live in a country where ownership of lethal weapons is restricted. The idea of the "Right to bear arms" as written in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution stems from two trains of thought. The first is noted in the the text of the amendment where it states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The need for a militia is due to the fear that the British would attempt to re-take the USA. This is quite understandable. The second reason that guns have the place they do in the US culture is because even as late as the turn of the 20th Century, the country was still thought of as a frontier country, to be tamed.
I would posit that both of these reasons are now no longer as valid as they were. That being the case, what is the need for most individuals to own guns, particularly handguns and assault rifles? By having such a volume of lethal weapons in circulation, the chances of accidental death through to violent murder are vastly increased when compared to countries where gun regulation occurs. I know we have had lots of recent news sstories regarding gun and knife violence here in the UK. However, as I understand it, the level of such crime per 1000 persons is far less than that of the US. This means we, as a country, suffer violent gun and knife crime that our friends in the US. (Please note that I do not use the word friends in any sarcastic manner here. I have many good friends living and working in the US. I visit the country regularly, and I work for a large American company that I am proud of. I am just stating my views as a friend of the country.)
FFred.
Good show last night - missed the Des Browne piece (which I'm heartily glad about, too much coverage, not enough substance) but the rest of the programme was interesting, enlightening and, in the case of the American Ambassador, slightly troubling.
So content - good, especially the piece about the Women's Home Guard and the accompanying interview. Handled well, respectful yet enlightening. Likewise the interview with Lord Janner - I have to say, straying from the Glass Box remit, that I thought Ferry's point was valid. The Nazi's were phenonemally good at propaganda and indeed some of the scenes are amazing; he was speaking from an aesthetic point of view and has a right to do so.
I'm sure I could go on and hope my comments won't be misconstrued; mornings are never great but I'll forget to post otherwise!
Steven Jones (25) Contrary to your view, I have never been witness to any gloating among the people I associate with about any American being killed.
You can call me ''tragically deluded'' if you wish, but do not doubt that the news from Virginia has caused deep sorrow and grief even amongst the ''pottering classes''.
Despite arguments that ''it isn't the gun that's the problem, it's the person who uses it'', I would not trust anyone to own a gun, however law-abiding and sane they may be. None of us know how we would react in extreme circumstances, so none of us can say that of course the gun is only there for self-defence.
Anyone who shoots a gun is using it in the way it was intended to be used.
Jonnie re: Ann Clwyd;
I know. Sad wasn't it? She's become an apologist, when she used to be admired for her independence of mind.
FFred;
I would dub the chap from Grovesnor Square an apologist too, but you're never going to hear an apology from the USA for anything. Manifest destiny in spreading democracy has become an excuse for blind, narrow-minded, unthinking idiocy im military operations.
One shouldn't be surprised at this US attitude regarding their service personnel. They have refused to engage with the International Criminal Court because it might lead to substantial quantities of their Service people being arraigned on trumped-up charges by nations hostile to US interests (e.g. Iran). I must say that I do have a certian sympathy with them on this point.
re: Hilary Benn;
I thought Eddie's point about his speaking up now and the approaching party elections was a fair one. Let's face it beinng in charge of the DfID isn't exactly the most high-profile place from which to start a push for the deputy leadership.
Actually the whole thing was an exercise in semantics. "We can't call it a war because it doesn't simply involve military action". Neither did World War 1, which was won by the economic collapse of Germany, precipitating battlefield failure. Right up until three months before the Armistice Germany had hardly lost a battle.
War is perhaps best summed up as the use of the resources of a nation against an enemy with the intent of defeating that enemy in his malign purpose. In that context the *** on Terror is, indeed a War. Interestingly it started out being called 'The War Against Terror', until someone realised what the acronym would inevitably be.
To succeed in war one must master more than the simple fighting arts. Economics, science, politics, materiel & supply, training, equipment all these matter. The Germans in 1941 had, arguably, the finest army in the world. It lost the war because it was outmatched in other departments. So this is a war, definitely. But a different kind of war from those we have been accustomed to fighting before. Mr. Benn was wrong.
Rachel;
He really is that humourless, just like his Dad. The deadly dull earnestness of the career politician who knows nothing of real life outside politics and thinks that it is the only thing of real importance.
In the USA the law is, indeed, what they say it is. And in the UK the law is what our parliamentarians say it is. There is no uniform, global system of laws, except for certain conventions, such as Geneva and Vienna. The USA does not extradite or voluntarily send its military to stand trial or give evidence abroad. That's their way, like it or not.
Steve Jones;
I don't think that the Virginia thing was ignored. It broke just before the 17:30 headlines, when it was mentioned for the first time, and Eddie included it straight afterwards. There was precious little fact to report at that time. The 大象传媒1 6 o'clock news led with it, but likewise had little to say.
There is a growing tendency to drop everything when a big story breaks and cut over to it, which usually results in a talking head correspondent waffling to the mike becasue they have nothing concrete to report. I think that PM probably got it right on this one.
One chap I heard commenting on gun ownership (not sure if it was PM or the news) said that Americans carry guns to defend themselves against aggressors. One would expect that a lot of people killed in the USA are villains, shot down by people simply defending themselves then?
Presumably this killer was defending himself against the (currently) 32 dead and many wounded, all of whom presented an immediate threat to his life and limb? With so many people out to get him he must have been a really unpopular guy. I wonder what he did to upset them?
And the success of those 32 in defending themselves with their own guns against exactly this kind of eventuality is clear. Perhaps none owned a firearm, perhaps they all did. It availed them nothing, they died without defending themselves.
General gun ownership was written into the US constitution as the Second Amendment to generate a pool of armed men who could be formed into a militia to deal with aggressors and preserve the freedom of the US republic. With the size of their standing army the need no longer exists. The clause is a historical anachronism. It should be repealed as soon as it can be done and firearms removed from the USA.
Incidentally it reads 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
Nothing in there whatsoever about any inherent right to self defence, or those arms being owned and borne to protect your individual person. And the historical meaning of the key phrase 'bear arms' is to serve in the military, not to walk around with a gun in your pocket. The Declaration of Independence explicitly uses it in the meaning of military duty on a ship.
Si.
It is often said in defence of gun ownership in the USA that guns don't kill, people do. But when you want to kill someone, having a gun is a big asset. It's not quite so easy without. And if gun ownership is made illegal then by definition anyone owning one is a criminal and the law can deal with them.
Si.
I thought that Jane Garvey and Peter Allen were very good indeed. They both presented an excellent round-up of the day鈥檚 top news and sport stories. Well done!
Re: Steve Jones (25)
I agree with Si Worrall above. Due to the story breaking at that time there was little to say apart from reporting the event.
With regards to the gun law,
I would suspect that mad people like this would have managed to acquire a weapon regardless of the law.
Re; Aperitif who said :
Jonnie (20, 21 and 22) What does "a little bed running under Eddie" mean then? -- I'm not a News 24 viewer, I'm afraid! (And don't you know better than to mention "bed" and "Eddie" in the same sentnce when talking to me??? ;-)).
- - - - Sorry, I meant to say 'musical bed' - an industry term for a theme that is played 'under' the presenter.
Stephen (25) the shooting was not "almost totally ignored". As we went on air, we were still trying to verify important details. As the facts emerged, the story became our lead item, from the headlines at 17.30 onwards, including a 2-way with Justin. The first copy dropped at 16.14 and said: "WASHINGTON, April 16, 2007 (AFP) - A US university in Virginia said Monday a shooting on its campus had left multiple victims,
urging students on its website to stay behind closed doors."
What we did avoid, was spending a lot of air time hearing from people who did not know what was happening. It didn't get "bumped" for anything. And thank you for your prediction about tonight's programme. We'll see!
George Bush's attitude towards gun control - is to use both hands.
I do have a slight confession. I was on my way home listening to the programme as always but I was aware that SO was already at home with both children and not aware that I had already left work so I took the opportunity to have a sneaky half hour browse round the new little shopping centre I have to pass on my way home, sorry Eddie.............
Anyway did hear the first half and agree with the comments made regarding Hilary Benn. I did chuckle out loud when he was asked that question and at his response. I also found it a little bizarre that so much emphasis suddenly seems to be placed on the term "war on terror". At the end of the day, as has been said, while people are still being killed day in day out who the hell cares what its referred to - lets just end it. I take it that its more an effort to try and distance us from the US perhaps now that the Blair era is coming to an end? Blair's replacement may not wish to be seen to be such "buddies" with Bush??
Also agree that its interesting to hear coverage on the French elections (although I missed it last night), it is useful to hear what goes on outside of our little Island.
Aperitif (24) you are naughty :) But just to explain a bed is a radio term I believe for a piece of music that is played in the background when a presenter is talking (hope I have got that right?)
Si (36) re your point about guns and gun ownership in the US - I agree 100%! Abolish it now!
Hi ya'll...
Just dropping in to say Hello from an Internet Cafe having returned from Madrid. The hotel had an Easter garden in reception. It had live bunnies and chicks in it all running around. I think I want a pet hen.
Saw a Blues band in a bar called Populart called Buscavidas or in english Bluescavidas. They were awesome.
Missed the show I'll have to catch up.
Oh my connection is running out,
Bye for now
Re; Arthur Bellfridge (38)
You stirrer!
They are good and have lovely beds - it's just that Eddie's better and needs a bed.
May I just add about the coverage of the shootings in the US - I am sure many of us are fed up with the studio speculating, then cutting to a reporter who speculates further and then back to the studio for even more speculation. This is not news, it's ........ speculation.
Yes, it should be (and was) mentioned as a breaking story, but thereafter the reports should confine themselves to facts and analysis.
As a related aside, I'm sure I heard someone on the TV news last night advocating the students being allowed to carry hand guns because "they may have been able to defend themselves". What madness is this?
Agree about the 'speculation' nature of some coverage....news is based on facts, or some knowledge of whats going on, otherwise its just random summarising of nothing much.
A typically impressive polemic, SiWo (yep, that's what you keep your missiles in if you've got a slight speech impediment). Your grasp or political fact and historical precedent always astounds me. I'm not sure that you don't bury the odd questionable conclusion in there, though. If I am to understand your argument, WWI was brought to a conclusion by means other than military might - and so what? It wasn't a "war" either? Or since it was a "war", the *** on terrorism must be a "war" also? I suppose it goes back to the meaning of "doesn't simply involve military action". My understanding of those who object to the term "war on terrorism" is that they believe that it is too much of a simplification. And it makes it way too easy for people to ignore the wider aspects of the problem. "War" suggests "backs to the wall", "fighting for your life", etc. Was the UK at war when the terrorism associated with the Northern Ireland problem was at its height? I suppose it's all semantics, really.
I don't really feel that I know enough to have a proper opinion on the gun ownership issue, but your characterisation of the massacre yesterday is not quite right. Do you believe that anybody caught up in that event other than the gun man was carrying a gun for self defence? And if you do, do you believe that he would still have managed to kill so many people? Of course you don't (to both). I'm allowed to drive a car. If I chose to drive my car into a group of people with the intention of killing them, it would not be me "expressing my right to drive", it would me committing a criminal act. To counter such criminal acts, should all cars be banned? Bizarrely, this leads me to believe that if everybody carried firearms, there would undoubtedly be a lot more killings, but I suspect there would be fewer lone gun man massacres.
5 bikers have been killed in our area since the beginning of the month (apparently) and to stop these pointless deaths, I would quite happily ban motorbikes from our roads. Ah, but I'm not a biker. And even I suspect that such a ban would be difficult to bring in. I think there is a parallel with gun ownership in the US. The level of gun ownership is very high and the majority who own them are not wackos. Therefore, they see the problem as what people do with them, rather than the weapons themselves. We don't have a similar tradition and so cannot really understand such a perspective. The whole constitutional issue just provides the historical context.
You're spot on about availability though - if you want a gun and you haven't got one, what you gonna do? If you look at ownership and gun death figures for the US and Canada, one fact speaks out louder than others - lots of Canadians own guns, but fewer of them use them to kill other people. They're more likely to kill themselves. I would love to see gun control work in the US, but I think this is because I would like to believe that it represented a cultural shift rather than because I believe that one could rationally argue the case for a change in behaviour and believe it would make a difference.
I thought the breaking news about Virginia Tec was handled in the only way it could be. It became the lead story as soon as details could be verified and we were given the information and statements that were relevant. During the course of today, there will obviously be a lot more information and comment, and it will be interesting to see what angle PM takes on this.
Like most people, my immediate thought was along the gun control line - I was living in America when Columbine happened and I felt exactly the same then. I believe that Americans cannot continue to be stunned by these events with the gun culture they have - but that doesn't lessen the tragedy for those who have lost loved ones - and in my experience there are plenty of people in America who are as worried about guns as we are - and they're living with it.
My problem with the 鈥榳ar on terror鈥 is that it should be the 鈥榳ar against terror鈥, or the 鈥榓ttempt to combat terrorism and do away with it鈥.
Do the U.S. go into battle against horror films, which surely promote terror in some viewers...?
Steven (25), If you already know what is going to be broadcast on PM tonight then you needn't listen, need you? I mean, it sounds as if you didn't actually listen last night either, yet still had an opinion. My, you are clever!
Big Sis (27), Brilliantly put. Well done. But I still find the 'Claire Short' thing amusing :-)
Jonnie (39) and Fiona (42), Thank you for the explanation, although I am a tad disappointed... ;-)
But Doc (49), Jeremy Hardy did point out, a couple of years back, why it doesn't get called The War Against Terror.
John H. (47);
World War 1 was ended by Britains traditional weapon of war, the Royal Navy. The blockade imposed on imports of foodstuffs and other raw materials, and the consequent shortages, gradually strangled German industry and brought the people close to the point of revolution, indeed workers councils and soviets were set up in parts of the country around the time of the Armistice. It was the knowledge of these which compelled the High Command to advise the Kaiser to call a halt. Even then he prevaricated. It took a brave politician/civil servant (?) to cut the Gordian Knot and simply announce the armistice, which forced the Kaisers hand.
Yes, the armies were important. The advent of the US army made a military victory certain, but probably not until 1919 or even 1920. The Germans came close to victory during the Kaierschlacht series of battles in March/April 1918, but it was the last throw of the dice, using the stormtroopers released from the Eastern Front after the Russian Revolution. It was conditions at home that undermined the morale of the German Army and caused the sudden end.
And naturally it was a war. My point is that Benn was characterising war as a simple military contest, our soldiers against yours. His contention was that, since this current *thing* involves more than simple contest of arms it wasn't really a war at all. He didn't actually say what we should call it instead though, hence my use of ***. If, according to Benn, we musn't call it a war then replace the **** with your own wording. Personally I'm sticking with 'war'.
In the modern world, war is the implementation of any or all of the resources of a nation against an enemy.
Would I consider the Northern Ireland *thing* a war? Yes. Calling it the 'Troubles' is bandying words around. When you have Trouble you call the plumber/electrician/council/your MP (again insert your own words here). And they fix it for you. 大象传媒 chap Mark Urban wrote a book about it called Big Boys Rules, which carried the subtitle 'The Dirty War against the IRA'. Calling a spade a spade.
It was an attempt by a paramilitary organisation to overthrow the democratic Government and replace it with something else. Call in 'Counter-Insurgency' or something else if you like. It was a low-level and bitter little war.
RE: the Virginia massacre. It's uninformed opinion, naturally, but I do expect that a number of the dead and injured probably had access to a firearm for s'elf-defence' purposes. If so, and had they had managed to use it then the killer would possibly have been stopped earlier with less loss of life.
I was being sardonic about the oft-given reason why Americans carry firearms, self-defence. There is no explicit right to do so under the US Constitution. And who was the killer defending himself against in that case? If firearms are so useful for self-defence why wasn't he stopped earlier by someone acting in legitimate self-defence? It makes a mockery of this reasoning.
You can't conflate ownership of a gun with owning a car. One is designed to convey, the other to kill. So if you use your car for it's proper purpose all is well and no-one dies. If you use a gun for it's designed purpose then someone dies or is maimed. No comparison.
Once again, NO MUSICAL BEDS thank you. Musical chairs are fine. Theme tunes are fine; well, never mind their musical quality, they are acceptable .
Why any broadcaster thinks that bouncy music provides more atmosphere than the real sound of a tiger chasing its prey (and the screams of the prey as it is caught) is beyond me. And the people who controls these "Beds" are usually too lazy or unskilled to turn them down to an acceptable level.
The War Against Intelligence?
Doc H;
Any war runs against intelligence.
Some may be justified as the least worst option, like WW2. If ever a war could be called *just* it was that one, ridding the world of Hitler & Co.
The rest are largely plain bonkers. But sometimes, when you look at the historical context their effects can be seen as positive. Before anyone screams at me and thinks I'm doing a Bryan Ferry I shall explain.
Most people would agree that WW1 was unneccessary and pointless, a folly caused by the ego of national leaders. Undeniable on the face of it. But the cultural shocks it caused brought about the end of deference and privilege, ushered in female emancipation and set the wheels in motion which dispatched the strictures of Victorian society and led to the modern Western world with its quest for equalities amongst peoples of whatever kind. And that's just the first couple of things which come to mind.
Would they have happened without that war? Unknowable. But the world would not look the same as it does today, that much is certain.
And because Governments plough the treasure and intelligence of their nations into winning a war they tend to produce not just social, but also technological and industrial growth spurts, the offshoots of which tend to improve the lives of populations.
It's a shame that it needs to upheaval and misery of war to achieve these things though. There is a real tragedy.
Si.
(54) Nobody else here listens to the Fall
Its getting a bit Furrowed Brow in here isn't? I did think this would happen....valid points all but isn't the Glass Box for comments about PM? I love how conversations can wonder on this blog but if we get diverted on the GB how useful will it prove to be?
Slow day for you today Si?
Izzy;
Ummm, I can neither confirm nor deny that!
Si. ;-)
So, Bush has expressed his shock and sadness over the terrible events in Virginia. The death toll there is much less, on average, than has been occurring every day in Iraq for the past 4 years, as a direct result of Bush and his incompetent cronies, including of course Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Blair.
Hypocrisy or what?
I also hope that Wolfowitz is rapidly tossed on the scrap heap by the world bank - incredible how after his disgraceful, arrogant and inept contribution to the decision to invade Iraq he managed to secure such a high profile position in the first place.
FFred: I've had a look round to try to find out the comparative stats on gun killings and find the following (I think based on 2005-6)
In America there is an average gun-killing rate of 3.97 per 100,000 of the population; in Canada it is 0.59; in Switzerland it is 0.51; in Sweden it is 0.37; in England and Wales it is 0.14.
I believe I spotted a comment somewhere else on the Blog from somebody who thought there wasn't a great difference between the US and UK figures. Clearly there is, and that in the face of the recent high profile gun killings in London and elsewhere.
Izzy:
"I'm sure I heard someone on the TV news last night advocating the students being allowed to carry hand guns because "they may have been able to defend themselves"."
Guns in ?
Perish the thought!
xx
ed
Whoops! Another (apparent) premature exclamation!
I had understood that the 'Glass Box' was a space to feedback on the evening's PM Programme as opposed to a debating blog where some folk feel obliged to give forth at length or to contradict the feedback comments of others, however politely,
How disappointing.
BTW the irony in this post is not completely lost on me either
witchiwoman (57), it's Eric's fault. The GB was the last available blog and the comments about coverage of the shooting expanded into a wider discussion, I think. Had there been a nice fresh entry this morning, I suspect that the discussion would have hung out over there
Well, either that or it was Si's fault...
That does actually raise an interesting question about the life of the frog when the frog-meister doesn't comment himself.
Excellent points made in posts (33) (28) (36) and (40).
I do understand that the Virginia shootings was a breaking story, and yes idle speculation is annoying. However both News 24 and Sky News managed to cover the story during the time PM was on air without a lot of speculation.
this was my central point, but thanks to those who chose to tell me all about gun ownership in the US. Nothing I havent heard before - though some startling leaps of logic here and there !
Clearly when the US bans all hand guns they will have a situation similar to the happy gun crime free Nirvana we enjoy here in the UK !
and yes,so i dont dissapoint anyone, here it comes - Guns Dont Kill People - People Do. It may be corny but its true.
pc (63) the Glass Box is, as it says "the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM" and "INTERACT WITH OTHER LISTENERS"...it IS to allow people to debate the programme. There are lots of other outlets if people simply want to leave their comment without the possibility of criticism.
And Steven (64), I'm sure the 24 hour TV news networks, and for that matter 5 Live did a cracking job, though colleagues tell me there was rather a lot of speculation and repetition and few hard facts to fill the time. I suppose as with all of these things it's in the eye of the beholder. In any case, not least because 5 live exists, PM serves a different purpose. That said, had there been significant changes to the story between 17.37 when Justin finished, or 17.45 when the headlines ran, we'd have carried them - make no mistake.
John H (64) - I'm all for it! But I know some people won't like the deviation; prob says a lot about my character! :)
Oops - I did the control-end thing and stopped before I got to 63...and I skipped Eddie....oh dear, must be time to go home! Hope I can keep up with Mr Mair tonight, maybe if I had some of his caffeine ration?!
Ed I (62) - you do have some particularly good links! My favourites on that list are XIV and (coincientaly) XVI. Thank you! :o)
OUCH! I think I've gone deaf...
On the other hand perhaps in my dotage my eyesight is also fading but this initial entry explaining the Glass Box still seems to read:
"The idea is that for the first time you'll have a regular opportunity to comment, praise and criticise what you hear on PM, and engage the programme makers in a public forum."
And the entry continues: "For us, the Glass Box is a place to discuss what worked and what didn't. Where we went wrong, and what we could have done better. It's never rude or personal, but we use it as a tool to try to make the programme better."
Perhaps there are parts of this second statement that got lost in translation as well.
Stephen (65), How did you manage to watch News 24 and Sky News and listen to PM all at the same time? I wonder if perhaps your attention shifted between all three?... That would explain both missing the speculation and repetition that Eddie's colleagues heard on those TV channels and the fact that the PM you were commenting upon earlier didn't sound much like the one I was listening to... Just a thought...
um pc (70), I think my point is clear...and your quotes make it.
Did the controversy described on yesterday鈥檚 pm surrounding Bryan Ferry's comments on Nazi Germany and their capacity for making brilliant propaganda not infuriate any other listeners? The amount of indignation that his comments provoked was completely outrageous considering the content and context of what he was actually saying..........
Ferry only implied that the Nazis "knew how to put themselves in the limelight", that their rallies and architecture were amazing and in many ways even beautiful. Why exactly this statement is "offensive" is completely beyond me considering that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, is widely recognised as one of the most talented and manipulative propagandists in modern history (though agreeably also one of the cruellest and most immoral). Goebbel's work was directly responsible for the creation of the cult of the Fuhrer, and his efforts helped to hide the horror and oppression of the regime beneath a thin veneer of glory. There is no denying that the Nazis were capable of creating events of amazing magnitude: indeed they set out to do so deliberately, as the grandeur involved in such spectacles helped to rally the German people to their movement.
Those who demanded that Ferry apologize for his comments spoke in sentimental ignorance, putting unfair pressure on the singer for something which historically he was perfectly justified in saying. Just because we abhor the actions of the Nazis and find their racism, particularly their anti-Semitism, repugnant does not mean that certain aspects of their regime were not remarkable. The people who took offence simply heard the words 鈥淣azi鈥, 鈥渂eautiful鈥 and 鈥渁mazing鈥 in the same sentence and immediately set the alarm bells ringing, without really listening to what Ferry had to say, forcing him to apologize; I can鈥檛 say that I wasn鈥檛 mildly disappointed when he gave in so readily, when what he said was uncomfortable, but true nevertheless.
To attack a man who is not of any political significance, who is barely even in the public eye (although I鈥檓 sure he would be offended to be described as such) for saying something which is historically accurate is a gross violation of our freedom of speech, and yet another small step forward for the inert political correctness which continues its slow creep into our daily lives; our English language has already been infiltrated by the influx of our new 鈥淧C鈥 vocabulary, yet now it seems our interpretation of history is threatened as well. It is ironic how the creation of something which was supposed to allow the individual to live freely without persecution has backfired so spectacularly, to the point of encroaching on the very liberties it is supposed to protect鈥︹︹︹
I am aware that I have ranted on and on, venting my frustration into my poor, long suffering keyboard and so I will draw this drawn out tirade to a close before I cause any permanent damage to my laptop. I end simply with a question:
Why do we spend our time spurning celebrity singers, who are obviously not racist, for simply stating an uncomfortable truth, when true racists and bigots like Jean-Marie Le Pen are allowed to sit in positions of political significance and influence without any discipline or restriction?
Okay, so I'm a bit behind in this blog lark, but...
I'd just like to praise Eddie's quick-witted quip in yesterday's PM. I agree with FFred's comment (5) yesterday: the representative of the US embassy certainly wasn't giving any ground. Eddie retort: "Should we have read the small print?" (before joining the US in Iraq). Is it these pithy remarks that make PM a joy to listen to.
Max Schofield (73) - If you look back through the posts on this thread including those at 8, 16, 23 & 34 you will find that your point of view has been pretty well expressed. I may have missed it but I haven't seen anyone voicing a contrary view.
Max:
A man who is barely in the public eye? I don't think M&S would thank you for that comment, given the bucks they've paid Mr. Ferry to model for them.
However, I totally agree with your point. Moreover, Bryan has more than a passing interest in art, and was therefore bound to have an opinion. Personally, I think the art of that period is quite sinister, but it's an opinion. I can fully see that, to some people, it has stylistic merit, but given the context it is bound to offend some people.
Monday's programme was a great balance, especially given the pressures of the breaking news.
The inverview with the US spokesman was pretty disappointing though as he seemed to give exactly the same responses to the questions as when interviewed about the inquest into the death of Matty Hull a few weeks ago. I'd be interested to know how the two interviews actually compare. Would the more dogged approach used with tricky politicians have got to the root of his position better?
I'm afraid I had to wait until Channel 4 news to really hear him have his position fully challenged and its arrogant basis exposed. I appreciate that KGM may have had more time to work through the arguments than was available to Eddie on PM, but I think the PM interview didn't really get us very far on this isolated occasion.
The positioning of the arrogant spokesman with the Justin Webb trailer was a lovely touch though!
Shorely (74) Wholehearted agreement here.
Eddie Mair (66)
There were indeed a lot of "recycled" images on the TV networks - though I dont think there was quite as much speculation as has been sugguested here.
I think I understand the diferent agendas that 5 Live and PM fulfil - but thanks for pointing out my possible confussion.
One or two people have pointed out that its impossible to watch a television (using the sound control) and listen to radio, many thanks for not suggesting that I didnt even hear the programme at all - a popular view here so it seems.
I think what bugged me the most was that a huge news story was breaking and - despite a few headlines it seemed to have been ignored in favour of some rather indulgent pre prepared items.Thats all. Using the phrase "bumped" was a bit much, and for that I am sorry.
Well, my prediction for the tuesday PM didnt come true - but I will be interested to hear what comments surface on fridays round up of emails and other listner comments.
I suppose that I am rather tired of hearing withering Anti - Americanism, and I susspect that this will be another opptunity to bash America in a manner that if it were meted out to any other nation would be condemed as "Racism".
At 02:10 AM on 18 Apr 2007, Steven wrote: ...One or two people have pointed out that its impossible to watch a television (using the sound control) and listen to radio.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I once watched a TV programme featuring some people who called thmeselves AC/DC. I used the sound control to silence the performance and had the Promenade Concert playing on the radio. The result was most acceptable.
How do broadband users get on with listening to PM and watching the webcam at the same time?
I suppose that I am rather tired of hearing withering Anti - Americanism, and I susspect that this will be another opptunity to bash America in a manner that if it were meted out to any other nation would be condemed as "Racism".
I don't think any reasonable person will be bashing America over these campus killings - some discussion of gun control measures may take place but that isn't the same as bashing. Plus, the UK can hardly sit back smugly given the rash of shootings and stabbings going on here recently. The reasons may have been different, but the outcome is the same.
Actually, the one issue that did spring to my mind is not about the guns but about the mental state of the man who killed everyone (if guns were not available, he would have used something else I'm sure). If, as it claimed, he was reported as being disturbed to the University a couple of years ago, why wasn't anything done about it? COULD anything have been done about it? Perhaps we should be talking more about mental health support in young communities rather than whether other students having guns would have stopped the tragedy.
At least that's my view.