The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM. Did we get the right lead story?
Were the interviews terrible, or the reporting bad? Or was it all great?
Just click on the "comment" link.
If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?
Jump to more content from 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.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
大象传媒 漏 2014 The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Oooch. Jack Straw comes on for a 5 minute interview and a 3 minute party-political broadcast? Come on, you can't let people walk all over you like that. PM is usually solid as a rock, but that was limp as a biscuit. Allowing Straw to read out his prepared statement about the bye-elections in response to a question about party funding was not a high point for the 大象传媒's last bastion of integrity.
That was a revealing insight into the relationship between politicians and media we had just now.
OK, we all know that ministers treat 'interviews' as a means to get a message across, which is why their opening statement will be unaffected by whatever question they're asked. But Jack Straw's attempt to crowbar his soundbite on Cameron's 'Black Friday' revealed the approach in all its crassness.
Political discourse in this country is an emaciated corpse, clad in gaudy production
I think it was Shakespeare who said:
"Money, money, money,
Must be funny,
In a rich man's world....."
Now we have found out exactly what 'didn't' go on in the acquisition of funds by our ruling party, are we going to find out what actually 'did' go on?
BTW: Is it purely a coincidence that the day Mr Blair is no longer an MP is the day for a swift announcement from the CPS?
Just a thought...
This is the whitest wash was that was ever laundered.
This saga is like cocaine dealers trying to protect each other to protect their ill gotten power
Shame on the Met and the greedy Labour politicians. I cannot these lot
So its back to getting more money from any sources no matter how questionable. I bet Galloway must be pleased as long as one is wealthy & powerful one can get away with it
I am absolutely outraged at the response of the Labour Party to the CPS statement regarding the Cash for Honours Investigation. The CPS did not say there was no evidence, it said there wasn't enough evidence to insure a successful prosecution. THat only means the Labour Party got away with it. Those people are not innocent, and it is disgusting for any of them to demand an apology from SNP or say it was a stunt. The arrogance of the Labour Party is truly staggering.
Three RAF servicemen have been killed during an "indirect fire attack" in Iraq, according to the Ministry of Defence". as reported by 大象传媒 WEB site
"indirect fire attack" - This is pure spin from MOD. Oh I see the mortars were supposed to be fired at say a market but hit the British Base. oops!!!!!
So if these service men were sitting in a dodgy bar in South London and some Black gizzers (drug dealers from dysfunctional single parent families minus a father figures) had a shoot out and if the bullets ricocheted from the ceiling and killed them, would they have died from Direct OR Indirect fire? The defendants can say that they died of "indirect fire attack" and not much science was involved. They will be acquitted
in any court trial
How about charges of "indirect burglary", "indirect GBH" "indirect fraud" so on & so forth
I am a bit confused
Did the mortar ricochet from one of the mud huts in base?
Major Mike Shearer also said: "There doesn't appear to be a lot of science involved in firing these munitions.
This moron should tell this to the families of the dead service men some trajectory calculations etc. would have been involved to fire the mortar
The insurgents are "morally anorexic" what does this mean? are they under fed?
so what is the opposite?- "morally bulimic". So what do the insurgents have to do to become "morally bulimic"? Kill sixty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Binge Killing)
We then have delusional ministers telling us that the morale of the troops is high and we will eventually get Iraq as a stable and robust country where every thing will hunky dory.
Of course, in keeping with the spirit of the age, my first reaction was to have a go at the 大象传媒 - but do you think anyone should tell Jack Straw that his shameless (and, unfortunately, successful) attempt to hijack the interview on PM today is precisely the sort of behaviour that causes people to hold politicians in contempt?
(Jack Straw was, in fact, one of the few cabinet ministers for whom I had, until about 35 minutes ago, some residual respect.)
"Thank you for that" - what is this new linguistic plague that has afflicted PM, Today and World at One presenters - can we be told??
Once again, Joanne Rowling's hype-monster rampages across the media devouring all other childrens' authors...
No children's lit' between Dahl and Rowling? Rot.
Let's just take Terry Pratchett for one. By the time the first Potter book was published in 1997, Terry had won the Writers' Guild Award (Best Children's Book) for Johnny and the Dead (1993) and the Nestl茅 Smarties Book Prize (Silver Award) (9-11 years category) for Johnny and the Bomb. Since '97, he's also won the prestigious Carnegie Medal for The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents.
All of the above books score (for me) over the Potter books in that they differ only from Terry's adult books in content, not tone. he doesn't write down to children as Rowling does (from the admittedly little I've read). The only concession he makes for the age of readers is to include chapters - which he doesn't have in adult books.
(It has to be said, Tom Paulin on Newsnight once called Pratchett "a complete amateur" because he didn't write in chapters, presumably he couldn't figure out where to stop reading for the evening without them...)
Now that is *one* author, and I haven't even mentioned his Nomes Trilogy / The Bromeliad for early readers. There are many, many great authors writing for youngsters. Please don't fall for the hype that says that Joanne created the genre or is solely responsible for getting children to read.
Ed (7),
I too, had expected better from Jack Straw. He is the one I most suspect of a hidden streak of honesty.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Janet (5),
"The CPS did not say there was no evidence, it said there wasn't enough evidence to insure a successful prosecution. "
Indeed, That amounts to, "There was evidence, but not enough."
I also expect the CPS took into consideration the likely extra difficulty of a 'successful' prosecution of extremely highly-placed individuals....
Not a day for pride in the integrity of The Establishment.
xx
ed
A report from Turkey was timely.
It is central to the contradictory attitude of the West to democracy that when majority voting gives the US and UK the 'wrong' answer governments are overthrown or dismembered.
Yuo know the list better than I do - Allende, the return of the Shah of Persia, Algeria in the early 1990's, Turkey in '99, Palestine now, Iraq now etc, etc.
Parallel 'fixing' is to be seen in cases of majorities that are in office but without power - Labour in 1997, South Africa now etc.
And of course those dictatorships, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc which benefit from the same Western ambiguity towards democracy.
Despite the beautiful Congealed Rice's white man's brief. (Or has she been compensated for slavery and is now engaged in a little freelance exploitation of her own?)
Majority rule works when majorities are given what they want. That of itself tends to modify attitudes. Certainly denying majorities contributes to the idea that democracy is a farce.
While I can't make head or tail of Mac's comment, I agree that, as usual, Hugh's report was excellent.
Why does that not surprise me?
Salaam/Shalom (and whatever it was Hugh signed off with)
ed
SSC @9, oh, is the last 'never mind the quality feel the width' tome out? Drat. That means I shall have to keep a promise I made a few years ago and read the whole lot. I lost interest about half-way through the first, finished it because I had started, and haven't been particularly tempted since, but because there were children of the right age around we have them all in the house. I'd better get out the muscle-exercisers and get my arms and wrists into trim for holding up the weight.
Other authors, yes, there are one or two from the past few years, though one might not think it from the meeja hype. Joan Aiken's work for example still seems to me to stand up to re-reading, and Diana Wynne Jones is a constant delight, and though I don't re-read Philip Pullman much he seems to me to have original ideas. All these write a grammatical sentence, too, and know the difference between a comma and a semi-colon, which is old-fashioned but has a certain charm.
The interesting thing is the way that Rowling never read any children's literature, if we are to believe her lawyers, or at least only books written by authors safely dead and unlikely to notice if an idea of theirs appears rehashed somewhere else. I really feel sorry for her having missed out on DWJ, as it is claimed she did. Poor little girl.
SSC (9) YES! TP has been writing literature for adults and children alike for a lot longer than Ms Rowling. For a number of years, he held the "dubious" honour of being the most shop-lifted author. His "children's" books are just as entertaining and enthralling for adults. The sheer joy of re-reading his books and spotting a turn of phrase or pun that you hadn't picked up on forst time around means I'm always going back to him...
In a similar vein, I heard of another Author who's work transcends simple categorisation. Have you tried Jasper Fforde? I'm about a 1/4-way through his latest. I think you (and other froggers) might like his books....
I wonder...
There's not enough evidence to prove they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Is there enough evidence to prove whether it was more likely than not?
The top burden of proof is for criminal prosecution, the lower for civil prosecution.
What's the Parlimentary Standards Committee been up to recently? Even if the CPS can't find enough to issue them with a prosecution for doing something illegal, surely the PSC should issue some kind of writ slapping the relevant policians on the wrist.
Ed @13, I think mac @12 is saying in effect
'They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Till someone we like can be elected'
with examples of several different ways this ironic comment of Tom Lehrer's applies to the positions of various countries then and now.
Pretty much spot on, in my opinion.
I'd take issue slightly about Labour being in office but without power, though. They've driven a horse and cart through a lot of stuff in the past ten years that had taken centuries to build, and they did have the power to do it.
In fact the current mob in office remind me of the men who go round the suburbs calling themselves tree-surgeons, and in less than sixty minutes cut down trees that have been there for sixty years and more, so that people can park their cars in what used to be their front gardens and thus make sure none of their neighbours can ever again park in front of *their* house.
Power and abuse of power. Did anyone else notice that the Central London congestion zone cameras, which we were absolutely promised were never ever ever going to be used for anything at all except making sure everyone paid the congestion charge, are now being made entirely available to the Anti Terrorist Police at all times? Gosh what a surprise. So much for honesty in politicians: February 2003 - August 2007 is less than five years *that* faithful word lasted. (They had to get permission to view the footage, until now.)
SSC -
Please don't fall for the hype that says that Joanne created the genre or is solely responsible for getting children to read.
Oh yes indeed, No1 Son was a factaholic until he found Terry Pratchett, then a whole new world of reading was unleashed.....(for me too!! oh the delight of discovering new authors via the route of the bedtime story)
Fearless - I shall seek out yonder Jasper Fforde, ta.
Re me @12, Ed @13 and Chris @17.
I didn't say the report was good. I said a report from Turkey was needed.
Labour in 1997 implemented Tory spending plans and with Balls 'endogenous growth theory' (so that government intervention can't chane anything) the Labour government was saddled with the Tory and neo - classical idea that there is only one way to run an economy - at the Natural Rates - I seem to remember. So they did just that - the Tory way - despite a huge majority.
As for South Africa it surely is a case of majority rule in office but minority power. Who owns the mines, the land, the big hotels etc?
Can you apply the Tom Lehrer quote to Allene's Chile and pre - Shah Iran?
Making majority voting a removable feste in Turkey and Algeria etc is what made Saddam et al think voting was strictly for the plebs, a clever piece of repressive tolerance dreamed up by the West.
And its clever stuff playing fast and loose with the theory of democracy. We let dictators we like use the fact that we're willing to destroy majority rule anywhere in the world if the democracy is sufficiently anti - West and we feel free to bomb the ones we don't like on the grounds that they just ain't democratic enough.
I love the Harry Potter series, and have read and loved every book. I have made it clear to my family that I expect a copy of the final one for my birthday next week.
I have also read and enjoyed the ''Dark Materials'' books - which I originally thought would appeal to my book-hating teenage son, but sadly they didn't.
There is such a range of exciting and original children's literature these days, and they all fill me with the same ''sheer joy'' that Ffred speaks of.
They're all there for the taking, or for the ignoring - there's more than enough to pick and choose from - let's not be too dismissive about any of it.
My biggest regret is that I've still to find the elusive book that will turn my lad back into the story-loving reader he used to be. I can't even persuade him to read a comic these days!
Janet Thornton (5) I find your post very offensive, along with some of the supportive comments that have followed it.
I should like you to imagine that you are one day accused of a crime (perhaps by someone who may have vested interested in seeing you so accused), arrested but then told there will be no prosecution for lack of evidence. You are not charged with anything and are certainly not tried or found guilty. Should we all be expected to presume you are guilty and you just got away with it?
Come on guys. Sadly talk like that is just about expected in the "news"papers these days, but I hope for more considered views here.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill
Any comments ?
The test for whether the CPS brings a prosecution is quite high but it is not a "beyond reasonable doubt" test. That's for the courts.
What many people do not realise is that many ordinary people are kept on bail for months before being either charged or released without charge. This is normal practice now in the criminal justice system. It is not unusual at all.
Good programme by the way. I thought Eddie was very good with Jack Straw. Eddie's tone is so gentle and gentlemanly yet deadly.
Mary
Never underestimate the malign obduracy of the stupid
Bernard Levin
Jack Straw's comments= politics; "red in tooth and nail". Can't be long till an election. I look forward to some political blood-letting, as opposed to the daily Afghanistan/Iraq dual travesties.
The UK would also do well by getting even further away from being tied to the "Bush Doctrine"!
21 Janet:
Easy honey, easy! Yer lookin good
21 Ooooops Janet, sorry the previous post was intended for Ap茅ritif:
New Labout's praetorian guard, they're everywhere!
Aperitif @21, I'm not sure I find it offensive to comment that
'The CPS did not say there was no evidence, it said there wasn't enough evidence to insure a successful prosecution.'
I'd have said that was simply accurate. And indeed, those who might have been put on trial have 'got away with it'in some senses: they don't have to go through a long legal process to prove their innocence (if that is the case) or worry about being found guilty (if that were to happen instead).
I am not in the least surprised by this decision. It would be a long and expensive case, and unless there is a very strong probability of success, the powers that be quite rightly prefer not to spend public money on such things.
I am also quite certain that it is entirely coincidental that the people actually making the decision as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought may be fairly closely associated with those who would perhaps have been prosecuted had the evidence been conclusive enough for it to be worth taking a case forward. After all, very few of the people at the top at this point are *not* fairly closely associated with and/or appointed by or recently given knighthoods by at least one of those who might have been prosecuted, nor ever been business associates or even business partners of any close relative of someone who might have been accused. It's a small circle up there in the higher reaches of the legal and political professions.
Truthyness (26) as the "previous post" to which you refer hasn't appeared, am I to take it it was offensive?
For the record, that which my guard protects at 21 is the principle "Innocent until proven guilty". Your name-calling isn't going to alter that.
I agree with several posters here regarding US-UK contempt for democracy. Turkey is actually an excellent example of this. Remember, in the run up to the attack on Iraq, the Turkish government followed the will of approximately 90% of its population and refused to act as one of the bases from which to launch the attack.
The response to this by Paul Wolfowitz, a man who we are assured has a deep, even idealistic committment to democracy, was to condemn the Turkish army for not overriding the decision:
"Not surprisingly, then, the first tongue lashing after the war's end came from Wolfowitz, who asked Turkey to admit to its mistake and take remedial measures. He was harsh on the Turkish armed forces, berating them for not pressurizing parliament harder to vote for the resolution and not "playing the strong leadership role that we would expect".
In a CNN-Turk television interview, Wolfowitz said that turning a new page in relations depended on Turkey's close cooperation in Iraq as well as towards Iran and Syria, which the US accused of sponsoring terrorism, and with whom the Turkish government was improving relations. "Let's have a Turkey that steps up and says, 'We made a mistake, we should have known how bad things were in Iraq, but we know now. Let's figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans.' I'd like to see a different sort of attitude than I have yet detected." Others in Washington conveyed the same message, albeit a bit more politely." ('Turkish-US tensions cast dark clouds' By K Gajendra Singh, Asia Times, July 23rd 2003).
That's contempt for democracy.
Another prime example would be the US's self-designated role as broker in the Middle East 'Peace Process'. First of all, it's worth remembering that the media phrase 'peace process' is simply code for whatever US policy happens to be -since by definition the US could never act against the 'peace process (much like 'International Community' simply means whomever agrees with us). But an excellent example of what this means in practice was the Palestinian elections in Jan 06.
It was openly reported in the US media that, in an effort to minimize the chances of a Hamas victory, the US was secretly funding a variety of projects in the Occupied Territories, including 鈥榓 street-cleaning campaign, distributing free food and water to Palestinians at border crossings, donating computers to community centers and sponsoring a national youth soccer tournament鈥. The money for this 鈥 about $2m- came from the USAID budget and, while a trifling sum for the US, dwarfs the sort of cash that Palestinian parties can spend.
Naturally, some might think that spending money trying to rig the Palestinian elections is something of a departure from accepted practice but internal documents referred to it as merely 鈥榓 temporary paradigm shift鈥. And let鈥檚 be in no doubt that this was an attempt to rig the elections. As the Washington Post made clear, 鈥榥o U.S. government logos appear with the projects or events being undertaken as part of the campaign, which bears no evidence of U.S. involvement鈥︹ in order to 鈥榚nsure that the Palestinian Authority receives public credit鈥.
Lest anyone be na茂ve enough to think that this is merely an attempt to boost the image of the Palestinian Authority itself, rather than a given party, the Post was candid: 鈥楢rabic-language papers have been filled with U.S.-funded advertisements announcing the events in the name of the Palestinian Authority, which the public closely identifies with Fatah.鈥 Indeed, 鈥楽ome of the events, such as a U.S.-financed tree-planting ceremony here in Ramallah that Abbas attended last week, have resembled Fatah rallies, with participants wearing the trademark black-and-white kaffiyehs emblazoned with the party logo, walls plastered with Fatah candidates' posters, and banks of TV cameras invited to record the event.鈥 ('U.S. Funds Enter Fray In Palestinian Elections
Bush Administration Uses USAID as Invisible Conduit' By Scott Wilson and Glenn Kessler Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page A01)
This was a blatant attempt at election-rigging but it could reported on the front page of one of the US's leading newspapers without any condemnation. One only has to imagine if the positions were reversed: if Palestinian interests tried to interfere with a US election to ensure their preferred party won, to see the hypocrisy.
Of course, Hamas was elected in elections described as broadly free and fair by international observers (US interference excluded). The reaction of the US and UK was immediately to punish the Palestinian people for making the wrong decision and to train, arm and supply their preferred faction -leading to the violence we have seen recently.
That's our committment to democracy.
Truthyness - Your previous post? Bit schizophrenic are you? Who else are you?
STORYFIX... Come on Eddie I reckon you're a storyfix fan is there nothing we can do to save it?
jacques [22]
How about these for Jack Straw's performance today?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
__PLATO
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
__PLATO
:o)
David Tranier,
Aye to all that!
xx
ed
In one of the most surreal epochs & countries of all time (little Britain) is there a connection between the sale of honours and the boy wizard?
Well I was thinking that the 'invisibility cloak' that I was lucky enough to borrow to visit King Arthur would be an excellant tool to get in & out of No 10 without being seen (an idea that goes back to Plato) and the sale of honours is an historical fact that goes back decades (lots of sources out there) or even the 'Nimbus 2000' broomstick could be used for the same purpose...again I was lucky enough to borrow it to fly between Bristol and Marlow in my search for 'Middle England'....'after a long and protracted negotiation with J.K. Rowling in Edinburgh'...
BVP
(30) argues very convincingly for one side of the Janus face that the US and UK exhibit towards majority voting internationally.
On the other side of the door we find the face which claims to support majorities everywhere - the Bush hullabullow
The anti - democratic sentiment (30) finds has huge academic support, and not just from technocratic economists who think there is no room for political argument in running the economy.
It is I think of great interest that there is in the US and UK a formal body of 'knowledge' which purports to prove that rational majority rule is an impossibility, that an adequate system of rights is too and that we can cannot guarantee that we live in an honest polity under majority rule.
Indeed, that only dictatorship guarantees rational decision making and honesty and that rights in a rational society can only benefit that single dictator.
The theorems covering this nonsense are called the Impossibillity Theorems. One economist got a Nobel Prize largely for one of the theorems.
There are resolutions of these theorems but you will not find them in the literature. What you can find is a series of rather silly suggestions which purport to provide solutions but evidently do not.
The theorems are far too useful to the West to be answered in the literature. For exanple one of the central theorems on dictatorship was taught without any possibility of refutation to post graduates from Iran and Iraq. The Shah and then the Ayatllah and Saddam must have been pleased that their young turks could argue that only dictaotrships are rational and definitely honest and that all matters of rights must be decided by one (wo)man.
The academic thrust, then, by the US and UK universities directed at dictatorships they approve of and democrracies they hate is spearheaded by the Impossibility Theorems.
Societies with dictatorships the US - UK disapproves of and democracies it likes get the Bush - Blair guff about One (Wo)Man One Vote, and the former get bombed if the rhetoric doesn't work.
As spelt out in (30) (with 40 Hamas deputies in an Israeli prison, the attempts to undermine Hezbollah in Lebanon etc) everything makes only one conclusion possible:-
The intention of US - UK policy is ruthlessly to pursue US - UK interests. O(W)MOV is just spin and treated with all the contempt that the term implies - both in its advocacy and in its rejection.
No one should be surprised that the West applies its rhetoric asymmetrically. In a closely related way, Hamas is accused of wanting to destroy Israel but Israel is never accused of having destroyed Palestine.
PS Loved the punctuation of Aunt Dahlia's (24) post.
I think my name is spelt Brian (sorry not brain))...most have been the thought of flying on the Nimbus 2000 with J.K. Rowling....or perhaps waking up very early with those ideas in my head...
BVP
Chris Fish (28), Perhaps you don't, but, as I said, I do.
I do note that you have selected only certain parts of Janet's post at 5 for comment. I find it offensive in the whole and, in particular, the assertion that "these people are not innocent" -- I refer you to my post at 29.
Mac (36),
"No one should be surprised that the West applies its rhetoric asymmetrically. In a closely related way, Hamas is accused of wanting to destroy Israel but Israel is never accused of having destroyed Palestine."
Hear Hear! Sadly, I have to agree with the summary of the sad state 0f "western" democratic attitudes as presented by Mac and David Traynier (sorry about earlier misspelling - no specs)
"The intention of US - UK policy is ruthlessly to pursue US - UK interests."
Unfortunalely, these interests are fatally mis-perceived, and in fact we act in ways directly counter to our true longterm interests,
""Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
__PLATO"
鐭 鑰 涓 瑷銆 瑷 鑰 涓 鐭ャ - Lat Tzu
("Those who know don't talk; those who talk don't know.")
xx
ed
Give where it's due.
Part of our continuing service
xx
ed
Aperitif, I suspect that the reason we are at odds is that we are using different definitions of 'innocent'; I am working on trying to explain what *I* meant and make it as clear and as unambiguous and as uncontentious as I can, and it's taking a while. I'm not running away, just trying to be certain that if there is misunderstanding it isn't because I messed up again. Meanwhile...
mac @ 36 answered by Ed @ 40,
"The intention of US - UK policy is ruthlessly to pursue US - UK interests."
I'd suppose we would find it hard to forgive a government who *didn't* act in what they believed to be the interests of the country/people they represent! We may profoundly disagree with any given government about what the best interests of a given country/people may be, but the job of a government is to look out for the interests of its own country and the people of that country. Otherwise what on earth is a government for?
We may even require that they pursue these interests 'ruthlessly', if we have come to believe that doing it any other way won't work. ('Mercy, pity, peace and love' rarely play any great part in squabbles between nations, do they?)
I'd suggest that what we really find objectionable is having cause to suspect that rather than looking out for their country or the people of it, members of a government are looking out only for their *own* interests, or primarily or entirely those of their immediate circle or family, and let the rest of the population go hang.
(After a bit it becomes very hard indeed to credit any government with really caring about the individuals it governs, but that's a different story and involves comnplicated stuff about each individual having different and incompatible needs and priorities anyhow, so that no government can possibly hope to provide each with what he or she wants from the government howver hard it tries and however much it cares.)
Wouldn't it be somewhat unrealistic, even unreasonable, to expect the government of one country to put the perceived interests of another country before the perceived interests of its own?
Hey, Chris (42). The operative word was 'ruthlessly'.
As for your 'is' to 'ought' rhetoric see Ed's (42) and live in hope that trying to ensure that the UK and UK cut out the illegal wars and occupations and coups against legitimate governments is not just baying at the moon.
Chris (42), I don't mean to suggest that you should feel offended, you know? But I do, and I have the right to say so. I think I see what you mean about differing interpretations of the word "innocent" but I feel strongly enough about the principle, and found Janet's post something of a diatribe of the kind that is usually found in the Daily Mail and its ilk, that I could not be silent. I would speak up in defense of anyone who has been accused but not convicted, were they subject to such a torrent.
O mac
not only did I fail the punctuation - I misquoted him- should have been 'fools', rather than 'the stupid'.
I am now throwing in some spares for the next few occasions when I post before checking, please take a handful each .....,,,,,::::;;;;====((((()))))!!!!!!?????,,,,,,,,,//////
am blenching as I have posted elsewhere with sentence ending in preposition, awaiting the wrath of the grammar police.
Mea culpa
Confusicious he say "only the wisest and stupidest of men don't change"
Aunt Dahlia (45) - and there was me thinking you must be Mair's auntie delivering a feint and a verbal punch on the nose of the malign, obdurate and supid B. Levin Esq.
An auntie rather more subtle than your (to me) erstwhile nephew whose interviewing technique is 'Does my saying this compromise you and make you feel uncomfortable?'
I look forward to his interviews on the floods.
'Isn't true to say that our cities are awash with an explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen?'
'But its safe.'
'Flood water is safe?'
'No of course it isn't.'
'Because its a mixture in exactly the right proportions to explode?'
'No, if you like it has already exploded. Its the end product'.
'So there have been terrorist explosions we are not being told about?'
'Look its stable, begnin. And no, there haven't beem unreported terrorist explosions'
'Sewage back flows are begnin?'
'Of course not but....'
'So all hydrogen and oxygen 2 : 1 mixtures are safe? Like the sodium and chlorine gas mixtures that as an island we are surrounded by?'
'That's safe too.'
'To drink?'
Silence.
'Lets just concentrate on one thing at a time if you can. The hydrogen, just the hydrogen, for a moment. Just on that. It destroyed Led Zeppilin didn't it?' (Another 'Louis says' moment).
Oh, Auntie what did you do to the boy? The poor wee fat fella does n' have a constructive thought in his heed.
He's from the 大象传媒, Auntie. Trust him to have a cheap verbal facility and an unfairly large pension.
My heavens, are the moderators going to keep allowing through this cheap and malicious stuff?
Mac: Whatever you think of Eddie Mair, to stoop to personal abuse is, frankly, NOT on. Or don't you know the basic rules of blogging?
Now, now, let's not go feeding those trolls shall we?
Fifi
Fifi (49) - Paul/mac/Ruth - I suspect a common troll with maybe a few other aliases but just the one brain cell.
Oh dear, Aperitif, I fear this thread is disintegrating. It isn't really the right place for sensible complicated explanation any more, is it.
*sigh*
In any case sensible and complicated are now beyond me, at least for the rest of the evening.
I have to report that the rhubarb liqueur is fine stuff, and the typing is getting a bit flurpled, and I have a distinct feeling that I am not going to manage to be lucid or even rational. I blame this on a Real Live Author wanting to celebrate his first published fiction's appearance, that's what. It seems to have got a bit drunk out. We also seem to be role-playing some excellent dark ale.
Actually and looking at your last post on the subject again, I think I don't disagree with your point anyway: innocent until proven guilty is the right way for things to be. It's just that I seem to have have a higher offence threshold than you about politicians and political apperatchiks being blackguarded a little, I think. My reason for feeling so mean is that these are the people who have been systematically trying to eliminate 'innocent until proven guilty' from the law, so it does look slightly like poetic justice for them to be assumed guilty on insufficient evidence to stand up in court. Only nobody has shot them dead or broken into their houses in a gang of 200 in the early hours or put them under indefinite house-arrest or in prison for twenty-eight days without charge just on suspicion of being Bad People; they're doing comparatively well if the worst that happens is some people are rude about them but can't do anything actually to harm them.
Something like that, anyhow.
I hear you Chris.
xx
ed
I would have expected that the 'thought', style, and grammar police could at least check the chronology of entries on this blog rather than using their efforts constantly in the mindblowing search for red herrings, that is, contributors who hold different views Trolls, I think they are called, although I'm not quite converse with all the rules and regulations of this site yet. Except on 'style' and grammar as explained by Simon Worrell. On participating on all issues as explained by Chris Ghoti. Of course on Eddie Mair covering his eyes on approaching my entries for reasons only known to himself. I could go on and on but why bother.
Maybe the way to go on this site is to have more transparancy by way of information on the webpage. Here are my contributions.
1. On the homepage have potential contributors take an oath "You vill say only vhat ve tell you to say. You are velcome only if you display the 'playground mentality' and follow our ideology." I would propose Ed Inglehart for that particular part of the process.
2. Have a registration system where Nanny can confirm all email addresses, none negotiable user names and passwords. Chronology could be checked daily or hourly. Corneal digital entry might be useful in stopping multi headed hydras.
I think to suggest that contributors who hold opposing views are one in the same person is taking paranoia to it's limits.
Chris (51), I understand your reasoning. However, I do want to say that "the government" is not one person behaving the same way in all causes. The maligned individuals may have nothing to do with changing the laws to which you refer. Nor is "the governement" the same thing as "the Labour Party". And I have to say, again. that most people I know who work in politics are hardworking, decent people who do it because they believe its the right thing to do, and want to have a say in the way things are run rather than carp from the sidelines. If they were "in it for the money/power" they'd be in something else. And, of course, most of the information that we have about politicians comes via journalists...
And CONGRATULATIONS on your publication! Do tell us more :-)
Re Anil post 6 - : You are possibly misinterpreting something there, they are not using a 'euphemism' to hide what was happening.
The term 'indirect fire' has a very specific meaning, it refers to fire at a target that cannot be seen directly from whatever is launching the missile or projectile - which is usually the case for things like mortars, which are often fired from behind hills or buildings to give cover to those firing.
Robert (55) thanks for the explanation. I too had noticed what was, to me, a new phrase and thought someone was inventing a new euphemism. However, if the MOD does not want to be misunderstood it would help if they explained such things in plain English. Perhaps I've been made a tad cynical by the likes of 'collateral damage' for dead civialians as opposed to buildings with holes in.
May I just say, Appy and Fishy, how refreshing it is to watch two people, with strongly differing views, carefully and courteously unpick the mismatch -- and gradually approach an acceptable 'agree to disagree but not that far apart really' place?
No name calling. No bitchiness. And you'd be cheerfully buying each other drinks at the bar if there were one on this thread!
Frogging at its best, whatever anyone might assert to the contrary.
Fifi
May I just say, Appy and Fishy, how refreshing it is to watch two people, with strongly differing views, carefully and courteously unpick the mismatch -- and gradually approach an acceptable 'agree to disagree but not that far apart really' place?
No name calling. No bitchiness. And you'd be cheerfully buying each other drinks at the bar if there were one on this thread!
Frogging at its best, whatever anyone might assert to the contrary.
Fifi
... not letting me post, eh? ;o)
Message for Ed Iglehart,
Hi
On the subject of Titanium:
Perhaps Eddie might like the accessory available at the link below? Ideally though a personal model specifically designed for him should be created!
Tee hee!
Cheers,
T
Re: Eddie's tribute to Nick Clarke.
I had to dash to an nuj meeting the day Eddie paid his brilliant tribute to Nick Clarke. It still pains me that I only caught the start of it.
At the pmbloghomepage I noticed a tribute from Sally Hillier to the man and so wondered if anyone could point to a repeat streaming of Eddie's piece. I'd really like to keep a record for my files and listen to it whenever I find myself really missing the man.
Without Nick the Beeb is a sadder place.
Thank god there's Mr. Mair.
Fifi @ 57/58, oo-er missus! These are kind words indeed! Appy and Fishy, eh? In cricket circles I s'pose we'd be Appers and Fishers, not that I mind if you think I am fishy so long as you don't think I'm one of the Peter Paul and Mary cloneset. :-)
I did actually send a post this morning before launching myself on my travels yet again, and the blogmaster thingy said it had been held for approval as it does when they've got through ok, but it has vanished like the dew on the mountain, or some such. Now, of course, I'm at a different computer and don't have a copy to try posting again.
If it turns up you may find me less congenial, for I lost my temper slightly and it included a comment addressed to Paul and referring to mac and Ruth, which ended with the words
The moon is made of green cheese.
The moon is made of green cheese.
repeatedly down the page, followed by (I think) "Convinced yet?"
Say a thing often enough and it becomes a fact?
Perhaps it is as well it has got lost: I was being somewhat less than truly urbane. Tut tut smacked wrist.
Thank you Fifi (57&58), how very kind. Although there have been claims here recently that anyone who disagrees is labelled a "Troll" by the regulars. As Mr Fish and I have both agreed and disagreed and are both regulars, which of us is the Troll do you think? Or is it both? ;-)
Aperitif, oooh, bags I be a Troll! Everyone knows Trolls come from Finland, and I just did that. :-)
But of course you can be one too if you want, I'm not exclusive about these things. We could both sit around under a bridge and sing rude songs at passing goats.
(My minor caveat regarding your last post having become a lost post, I'm not going to try to recapture it, but I wasn't really talking about 'The Government" or 'The Labour Party' as a whole, I was thinking of the specific individuals who had been under suspicion and required by the police to answer questions, and I really do think that they *must* be complicit in the things I so abhor and I think you do too, meaning the loss of the presumption of innocence for the population as a whole: they're high enough in the decision-making and advisory process to have to accept at least some of the responsibility, anyhow. (If I said 'guilt' or 'blame' we might get tangled again, but I think 'responsibility' is safe-ish.) So for me it feels a like a case of the biter bit. I'm just a nasty mean cynic, though, and you shouldn't pay me too much nevermind.
Evenin Ap茅ro, if you'll allow the familiarity ;-)
What? One of your posts removed because it was offensive? Surely not!
Re: threads:
29, 26, 27, 21, 5
As for my #26 referring to your post #21 to Janet's #5, the soothing words were utterd for you. Whereas, due to a typo, they may have appeared to be directed at her. You see I got the impression her remarks had put you in a lather! And what with having some 1st aid experience, to avoid the risk of a sudden onset of high blood pressure, I stepped in - with the best possible intentions. Naturellement!
Msg 27 clarified the switch.
Tnks for bearing with me.
Must trot off now to read up on all your other words of wisdom.
PS: BTW, hope you don't think the question out of line, but I was curious to know about any honorary thought police there might be patrolling the boards? You know the sort of thing, whip crackers regularly calling to order any one they perceive to be potentially wayward... a sort of self-styled PC PC or that sort of thing. Only as you seem to know your way around so well, I thought I'd ask...
See you over on the beach for some fun and a chat sometime.
Mi casa es tu casa
xox
T
Ap茅ro : re 54
"And, of course, most of the information that we have about politicians comes via journalists... "
A collective of?
What does that imply about the PM team?
Blaming the messenger? Don't understand! And you imply first hand experience of the political animal too?
Let us consider the proposal of an EU standard for offence thresholds. Could be interesting!
Bests,
T.
Fishers (63) We could both sit around under a bridge and sing rude songs at passing goats. Best offer I've had in eons! Yes please!! :-) Have you any particular bridge in mind?
Chris Gh.
Hi, and thank you for putting it (51) so nicely; as well as in numerous other messages. "Poetic justice" indeed. H茅 h茅, we must take consolation where we find it I suppose. But in the case of New Labour it is very small beer.
And on an other subject may we know if the title of the fiction in point is to be revealed on these boards by any chance?
Kind regards,
T
Ap茅ro 26,
Beg pardon, but "name calling"? Whither pray?
Kind Sir, a clarification I prithee?
As for your #21 methinks some axe grinding is afoot:
With the messenger carrying the can, yet again! And you with such hands on experience of the political class you say! There surely can be no such thing as the pot calling the kettle black?
Quote "Come on guys. Sadly talk like that is just about expected in the "news"papers these days, but I hope for more considered views here."
Forgive me but isn't this a blog about news and those producing it? Would be interested to understand your meaning? You've got me muddled!
Your impending wisdom appreciated.
xox
T
RJD Bonsoir, 31
For your pleasure and delectation viz. 26 and 27 all is revealed in 64.
Your remark has a nice lighthearted touch! Look out with that name calling though, you wouldn't want to go tarnishing that fine reputation of yours now would you ;-)
Feel free to let me put you straight any time.
Stay zen
kiss, kiss...
T
Appers and Truthyness, it's not my book, I wasn't boasting (except about knowing a real Live Author, and that's vicarious boasting and doesn't count). The RLA wanted to celebrate so I helped him do it. *hic* I wasn't sure whether it was good form to mention his name, because that might be taken as advertising, and against the policy of the 大象传媒, and all like that.
I suggest we make it London Bridge, in case a gathering of more than one Troll closer than a mile to the Houses of Parliament is illegal within the meaning of some Act these days and Westminster Bridge too risky, and we could start by singing London Bridge is Falling Down, modifying the words as we see fit to suit whatever goat may come past.
Truthyness, the accusations of Thought Policing don't come from Appers, so Appers may not be able to explain them, and nor can I. As far as I know there is no Thought Police here. (No explosions, and nobody drownded, in fact nothing to laff at at all...) Every so often there are outbreaks of insult from three or four folk who apparently want to stop people from posting what they choose, but the insulters are powerless if irritating, and can safely be ignored. To quote Alexander Pope a moment, "While expletives their feeble aid do join" in the prunewits' posts "With some unmeaning thing they call a Thought", they are actually "a mere white curd of asses' milk". "Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel? Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?" (Pope suffered from people who didn't use reason or logic but only personal insult, in his time.)
Truthyness @68
"New labour praetorian guard", if applied to Appers, would be name-calling, I think, but I assumed (I hope!) that you meant the apparatchiks not the Aperitif when you used the term?
What seems to me (as having been one of those with whom Appers was disagreeing) to have been going on at 21 was a sense of fair play at work: "These people have been accused, but insufficient evidence to prosecute them was found, and we therefore shouldn't assume they were guilty".
As for the "news" papers comment, it is not unknown for some of the printed press to have highly-charged and emotive campaigns on particular subjects, in the course of which they employ innuendo, falsified or out-of-context statistics, opinion presented as fact, and so forth, and I think Appers was suggesting that people posting to this blog ought to have higher standards than what my Pa used to call "the gutter press".
I might be wrong, but that was how I read it.
For the record, I have known personally both politicians -- of more than one party and of various levels of importance in their respective parties -- and journalists -- working for such various papers as the Guardian and the News of the World -- and I wouldn't dream of saying that they were each the same as every other member of their trade. People are people, and pigeon-holes are for pigeons. Bernard Levin, John Junor and Robert Fisk don't seem to me to have all that much in common, for instance, and I'd draw a distinction between Margaret Thatcher, Glenda Jackson and Hazel Blears... no, not saying I know *these* particular people personally, but you do see what I mean?
Well, That's that then!
xx
ed
Ed I @72, you're being enigmatic.
Which well? What is that? That is what? When is then?
Expand! Expound! Explore! Explode?
Ah Chris Gh, (71)so you're clear about praetorian guards. Good! Am delighted to hear your view about thought police; that they are unheard of on these boards.
As to spawning books, sorry to learn you are not the author in point - this may have been a tweak unclear - rhubarb w... perhaps the cause? However as in several places you seem to discuss issues adroitly, wondered if a good readable novel was not yet to come.
BTW a silly book plot was outlined (40) in the Glass Box last Wednesday in a response to a comment made by Hella G (25). Dunno if you read it?
Keep up the objective postings. They are most readable. Meanwhile know that generalizations about the fourth estate are bound to draw comments from fellow bloggers. After all this place is very much about journalism isn't it? There's that wise old maxim : "Don't shoot the messenger" which rather suggests those who bear the real responsibility for wrong doing should be the focus.
Looking forward to further chats...
Bests
T
Truthy (74)
"thought police; that they are unheard of on these boards"
Sometimes would-be and self-appointed ones may appear, and they are given the appropriate level of respect. In future they may be hoist upon a pike-staff
;-)
ed
Chris Gh, 70
On Pope ....
... I knew him well ...
xx
T
Just seen the tooth fairy fly by.
Ed, -75-
So the future here looks rosy then?
I am glad!
;-)
And allow me to stress that, mi casa es, most assuredly, your casa...
xox
re -77- re -75-
Hello Paul, (Honestly Sir!)
So should your message be understood to read that you are not as optimistic about the prospect of naming and shaming would-be-PCPCs here as Ed appears to be?
From both 77 and 75 one might be forgiven for wondering if indeed there is, or at any rate has been, a latent issue with the phenomenon.
Hmmmm :-( ... exits stroking chin thoughtfully ...
Hasta la shortly,
T
Truthyness @79, i imagine that "Paul (honestly Sir)" signs himself thus because there have been suggestions that he and various other people who post here may be the same person using different names (I think that in his case it's not so); among the things these folk have in common is that if they are asked to provide evidence to support their assertions, they don't do so, and when pressed revert to accusations that the people pressing them are part of a "大象传媒 coterie" or some such garbage, all following a "大象传媒 party line" and brainwashed by the Evil Forces Of Eddie Mair And The 大象传媒 Conspiracy into holding views of which Paul and others disapprove. Or something. So Paul is probably suggesting that Ed I is part of the Thought Police -- the notion of which body's existence originated with Paul and others of his stamp, who didn't like it when they arrived calling those already here fools and dupes, and were understandably not given a happy, friendly welcome. Ed, and I, and various other people who have been here for a while, feel slightly that what is going on is an attempt to browbeat those of us who don't agree with Paul (and the various others who turn up at intervals and try to convince us that the same thing said over and over again becomes Truth with sufficient reiteration) into feeling that it isn't worth posting anything that is going to call forth their rants and insults. Paul isn't as rude as some of them, mind.
What slightly beats me is that they don't seem to have realised that Marc The Blog Prince could, without any difficulty whatever, blacklist their email address(es) and prevent their posts from appearing, and the fact that he hasn't slightly militates against the notion of censorship and control in this blog... I suppose that it would be too humiliating for words to have to admit that one was not important enough for anyone to be bothered to censor one's remarks, and that's why this blindingly obvious point hasn't occurred to them.
Wow! That took a bit of catching up!
OK, Truthyness, I'm going to have to be frank -- I really don't know what you are on about your posts since my last.
Your 26 hadn't appeared when I posted at 29, but what is now your 27 had. I therefore suspected (wrongly, and my apologies for that) that it had been moderated due to offensiveness. You did say in your 27 that it was meant for me, hence my question. I also thought "New Labour's praetorian guard" was aimed at me and, as Fishers says at 71, that was the name-calling to which I referred. Fishers @ 71 says a lot of very sensible stuff, and his second and third paragraphs do, indeed, interpret my posts in just the manner I intended.
I鈥檓 afraid I now don鈥檛 know whether you were calling me a corrupt and venal guard of the present administration or not, but I will say that I certainly am neither, and would defend most of those I know against that charge. Nor do I think that all journalists are so 鈥 I echo Mr Fish鈥檚 fifth paragraph wholeheartedly 鈥 but, come on, you can鈥檛 possibly think that journalists are simply unbiased 鈥渕essengers鈥??? Would that that were true! One should always consider the potential agendas of those telling us anything at all! After all, one person鈥檚 objectivity is another鈥檚 cruel detachment.
I abhor cynicism, especially when worn as a badge of honour by those who use it as a lazy catch-all, but I believe scepticism and curiosity are vital. I would never shoot the messenger, but I would always question him intensely in order to uncover his perspective on the message, and what other possible interpretations there may be.
I think, I hope, I鈥檝e made my position as clear as I can. Any chance you would do the same?
I say everybody, did you see that Irishman Harrington win at Carnoustie. Brilliant short game he has, don't you think? My young sister used to dally with a chap called Harrington, but he knew bally all about golf. As I remember he was into electronic media, whatever that is! Anyway the point is that I have booked me and Clive and Julian for a round at Carnoustie on 17th October, one week after I get the cast off. Hope I'm able to do all 18 holes. Anybody know if you can hire a buggy to help go round the course?
Gosh Graham (82) That seems an awfully long time until you get your cast off. How are you fairing? Sorry I don't know anything about golf, and I didn't watch the Open, but best wishes for your recovery.
Dear Ap茅ro and Chris Gh,
Thanks for all the clarifications. -80- -81-
Ap茅ro it is true that the haphazard way messages sometimes pop up on boards can cause havoc with chronology and coherence. Good of you to offer the apology which is appreciated and understood. No worries. No offence taken, and for my part none is intended. Usually it is altogether much more productive to lift the debate beyond the subjective dimension when addressing issues anyway.
Chris Gh. I tried pursuing your line of thought to the finish in post #80 but unravelling it left me under the impression you were off at a tangent. (a better way of putting it escapes me, I crave indulgence).
Two things I would comment on however: Not for a moment it is imaginable to associate Ed I with the notion of PCPCs, on the contrary he seems part Sir Gallahad part philosopher (hope he doesn't mind the caricature). Ditto Eddie Mair who, in the first place created the area and hospitably welcomes the likes of us to populate it inviting criticism and comment from all and sundry to be hurled at, his team their work and of course, above all, himself. Brave man!
The thing is that on occasion, somehow, a soup莽on of authoritarianism can suggest its way through the banter between bloggers. Whether it is down to the use of the high moral tone, rebutting posts by resorting to over generalizations, or systematic attacks on the less conformist views expressed, is not quite clear. Nevertheless it is an impression that comes across. An unintended consequence perhaps, but it can lead other fellow bloggers to worry or ask questions.
On the subject of blog hydras, role playing is an integral part of the Internet, so multiple aliases are in a way only to be expected. There are no rules against it (are there?). Challenging a blogger's identity could be construed as another way of attempting to gag comment or commentator. If we had to submit ID card numbers or anything like that it would be different.
BTW FYBI I go the other way, so actually there are three of us here using a single alias! (only kidding).
Anyhow, nice blogging together and c u round on the strand sometime :-)
T.
Nope, still none the wiser :-)
About what?
T ;-)
Lots of things Truthyness (86)! Including whether or not you were calling me names! Although you do say no offence was intended so I'm guessing not.
础辫茅谤辞:
Wandering through the boards, came across this one dated Friday 13th from Graham. (#49 I think, last comment featured)
"Hi All,
We want more Friday afternoon silliness,.."
The first few words seemed particularly apposite.
And from above threading, it could perhaps be said that his whim had been indulged.
But now a new week beckons, nay, well over two thirds of it has already flown! The future hails ... Beyond the walls of victimhood there is life! If only our minds can embrace it! Time to move on.
FYI:
The rest of Graham's post was good too, it ran as follows:
... satire and sketches from Eddie and Paddy. In fact, I'd like to go for a drink with those two. It's the one thing motor-mouth, wind-bag politicians and the rest of the feudal establishment can not deal with in their Right Honourable manner."
He's got a point there too.*
Nice talkin..
Pace, 屑懈褉, d脿n, b茅ke
T
*oooops is that to be construed as name calling? Groan! It has likely re-opened the dread thread! Ohhhh nooooooooooo!