´óÏó´«Ã½

If you don't clean your ears out we're going to take your bloody radio away.

Comments

1. At 09:48 AM on 08 Aug 2007, donald holden wrote:

   Your interview with Clive Stafford-Smith was mild beyond belief, you allowed him, to bleat on about at least 9 children wating for their DADDIES!!!-were any of these fathers found in Afghanistan toting AK47s during their lunch-break?
   The campaign group Reprieve may be familiar to the news staff at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ,but a brief sentence (I know it's hard!) explaining their aims,and more importantly who provides most of their funds might be more enlightening.
   If Stafford-Smith gets so exercised by human rights infringements, I am sure many other people would agree there is plenty of work for him in Africa,Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia,and Burma.

2. At 09:48 AM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

   To be fair, maybe they thought that was just a very long multiple-barrelled name.

   Of course, they might just be a cloth-eared fool.

3. At 10:00 AM on 08 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   Mark (1) beat me to it. Though I was going for cloth eared buffoon.

4. At 10:02 AM on 08 Aug 2007, Pete Mason wrote:

   Yes Eddie, but what is his position, and who does he represent?

5. At 10:13 AM on 08 Aug 2007, Eddie Mair wrote:

   Donald (1). Thank you for that.

   You're right I COULD have asked the guest about who these men were and what they had been up to. I didn't for tow reasons. Mainly because the story of the hour was that Government policy had suddenly changed. But also because the alleged activities of people held at the centre - and the arguments about due process - is something we've talked about many times on the programme, and I have indeed put the point to people who speak for detainees that they are believed by America to be bad people. The view of the US, that these five men in particular were dangerous, was broadcast in the programme last night.

   I hope that explains our thinking - you may well not agree with it, but that's what led us to do the interview in the way we did.

   On the point about how the guest was described, we named the group and said what he did. I'm not sure what else we should have done!

6. At 10:14 AM on 08 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

   I agree (slightly) with Donald (1). The way that C S-S was playing the violin about '5 children sat at home crying for their daddy' and then repeating the exercise for the other 4 kids was mind-numbingly banal and melodramatic. Put him on the stage. There's a future for him in 3rd rate plays.

   The issue is simple. Let the men be given due process. If there isn't evidence release them. If there is let them be tried and if convicted jailed, if found not guilty then released. Any points he has to make about weeping kids are (im)moral blackmail and irrelevant to the innocence or otherwise of all the detainees.

   Si.

7. At 10:17 AM on 08 Aug 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   "On the point about how the guest was described, we named the group and said what he did. I'm not sure what else we should have done!"

   How about a few cartwheels, Eddie? But let us know ahead of time so we can watch on the webcam ;o)
   

8. At 11:01 AM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

   Well I suppose it's a little like the importance of back announcements (back anno's) which I have to say are sometimes overlooked on PM -

   Tell em once - the tell em again - used to be instilled in us a few years back for even short news bulletins

9. At 11:25 AM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

   Donald (1) You ask if any of these men were found in Afghanistan toting AK47s. Well, the answer in at least two cases is an emphatic no. They were detained in Pakistan (an ally of ours) and in Gambia. These men have been detained for years without any chance to challenge the allegations made against them. They have not been able to see what, if any, evidence there is to justify their detention. In one case, (that of Jamil El-Banna) the man who was detained with him in Gambia for the same reasons was released without charge over four months ago and returned to the UK. This happened because he was a British citizen whereas Jamil El-Banna is only a British resident. Is it right that he continue to be held?

   However, I have to agree that Clive Stafford-Smith hurt his case with the listeners by trying to tug on the heartstrings the way he did. The much stronger case is the legal and moral one of men being denied due process and kept in legal limbo for four years. There have been people released from Guantanamo who it was found had been rounded up and detained purely for the "crime" of wearing a certain kind of watch (The thinking was that because that type of watch had been used in IEDs, then people who wore that watch were suspects). Others were found to have been handed over by the Warlords because they received a bounty per head. Is it not feasible to think that these warlords, who are fairly ingrained in criminality through the drugs trade, just might see such a scheme as a change to settle a few scores and turn an easy buck?

   btw, Just to clarify, I am not now nor have I ever been affiliated with or employed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½, Repreive,The Guardian Newspaper, or the Independent Newspaper, in case anyone thought I have a particular axe to grind...

10. At 11:27 AM on 08 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Si Worrall @ 6, too right. Process of law ought to be followed. That's what this has been about from the off: if they are really guilty of violent criminal activity, and can be proven so to be, then imprisoning them (with a defined term in prison) is perfectly proper.

    It's the indefinite imprisonment for no specified offence that sticks in many people's craws.

    Harping on about the children is as you say irrelevant. Merely having sired children is no proof of anything except that a woman was willing to bear them.
    

11. At 12:37 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    The thing I find amazing is that Our Eddie is always so urbane and forgiving of fools when he is in broadcasting mode, while under that veneer of civilisation lurks Nature red in tooth and claw, utterly exasperated by the twerpies and the cloth-eared buffoons, as is made clear by the header to this thread.

    The thing I find amusing is the way that so many of the people who comment here complaining that Mair (variously spelt) is soft and doesn't attack the people he interviews obviously have no idea that Eric the Red exists.

    :-)

12. At 05:18 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Fishy one, I agree.

    And boy, he lets 'em have it on the blog.

    heh, heh

13. At 10:48 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Fearless (9), Thank you for your, as ever, balanced and informative post.

    Fishers (11) Hear Hear, but re Merely having sired children is no proof of anything except that a woman was willing to bear them. Um, not necessarily...
    

14. At 07:55 AM on 09 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Appy (13), I just try and find out as much as I can before I comment or form an opinion on something. I think that it's something that we generally don't take the time to do anymore in general. All it takes is a little time and patience, and the desire to read from different sources of news around the world (not just UK and US based, but not excluding them either)...

15. At 07:55 AM on 09 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Appy (13), I just try and find out as much as I can before I comment or form an opinion on something. I think that it's something that we generally don't take the time to do anymore. All it takes is a little time and patience, and the desire to read from different sources of news around the world (not just UK and US based, but not excluding them either)...

16. At 03:58 PM on 09 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Appers @ 13, I think probably if there are four or five children of the marriage, she might've taken precautions if she didn't want them too! I do see what you are implying, and yes, it did occur to me too, but that big a family looks as if it's her idea and not just his....

17. At 05:37 PM on 09 Aug 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Fearless, Fishers, hugs both.

    A, x.