The Glass Box for Thursday
What do you think of it so far?
(r*!)
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
I'd like to apologise in advance...we trailed an item at 4.30 about being a tourist in Venice. We recorded an interview with an Italian consumer group but sadly, when we played it back, we realised his Italian accent was just too Italian. A bit of a painful listen. So it's something about glaciers in the arctic instead. Eloise
markets, MARKETS, MARKETS!!!
ET (1)
re Italian Job....you have all the resources of this blog at your finger tips why did you not get "Fabio the masseur" off of The Beach to do it for you.....he will do anything for a pretty laydee......
Eloise (1), Can one be too Italian???... Actually, yeah, us girls may have got over-excited; good decision ;-)
Anybody who enjoys gambling, is vulnerable.
If the gambling industry cared about people in the way they claim, then they would stop gambling.
Eloise (1):
Wadda mistaka to make!
Eddie (top):
*cough* Ar**nal!
This is where I came in.
Close cross questioning, the usual method, all weight one way then all weight the other, see - saw questioning, challenging the speaker to counter weight first one way then the other - - - on GAMBLING!1?!!
Can anyone doubt that every possible policy can be codemmend rhetorically by a sufficently one sided attack?
But the markets, a chaotic system a few innocuous questions to Huw Pymm (?). Him mumbling 'It could be our pensions' that might suffer (And your point is?), Mair saying 'Oh but its the variability isn't it?' (Ie no real problem so listeners dont sell. Our pensions will suffer).
Well., its been downhill solidly since 6,800 - a left to right falling hyperbola.
Please start reporting markets as critically as you report minor political matters. Eddie you were tougher on unruly cinema goers than on markets which crowd out equitable government spending and then either (a) reward the rich or (b) punish the poor.
(The realisation and creation of surplus value as someone pointed out here a week or so ago)
Do you want an account of why US capitalism could do with a slump?
Try deciding to disrupt Chinese development. Its about time for that spanner in the works. (Cf the Asian Tigers nad JApan when they were held to be getting toomighty).
1 and 3.
The completely barking Mervyn King (BoE top cheese cake) told young economists at Birmingham (1980) that they couldn't have Dominico Mario Nuti, the extraordinary Marxist economist, as a guest speaker (Merve knew Mario at Cambridge) 'cos his Italian accent made incomprehensible everything he said.
Fair enough, sadly I suppose (TRANSLATORS???)
Anyway Nuti got a job at Brum that Autumn.
He talks in English like Edward Heath and makes far better jokes.
I tell you, M. King is barking and dangerous.
(8)
PS
Catch M. A. King nonsense yesterday.
'If I raised interest rates to 50 per cent then you'd know I've got power'.
'Throw away your rulers (sic) Take no notice of our central tendency predictions.'
Comforting isn't it to know a certified fruit cake is at the helm during a financial crisis.
Hey, Merve, where's all the gold gone - the stuff at 650 + at the moment? And what did you sell it at?
You can usually tell a nut from the jokes he makes (Honorable exceptions I'm sure, Eddie) Merve's are always about Englebert Humperdinck living in Leicseter. Honestly!
OK, so the speaker had been to China several times recently. So why didn't he have a number at hand for the population of dissident prisoners?
He estimated it to be about 700,000... Oooh big number! But China has a lot of people. If the prison population defines a countries liberal tendencies, then China must be a nation of Guardian readers:
1. Two more squaddies killed today in Iraq. Are our tropps doing anything there except defending themselves?
2. Legionaire's disease. Could there conceivably be an animal medicine reason for the labs to have it as 'raw material'?
JimmyGiro @10, it might not be all that simple to get an exact figure for dissident prisoners, in China or anywhere else.
I don't off-hand know how many political prisoners we have in this country, for instance; it might depend on one's definition of both 'political' and 'prisoner'.
If the figure was 700,000 for *only* dissident prisoners, no-one who committed any other crime such as mugging included, that just means 'officially in prison for not agreeing with the government', and it's the government who decides who goes to prison for it. It probably doesn't include people who have been imprisoned for serious offences such as non-payment of a parking-fine they didn't get told they had, for instance, but who happened also to disagree with the government just before they parked a car they don't actually own. That sort of thing is easier to arrange these days than a show-trial, at a guess.
What a superb item on the kidney donor and his recipient. It was so moving after all the day long "killings in Basra", "record poppy yields in Afghanistan", "foot and mouth". This is for me the interview of the year. Nothing false, just love of another person and a laugh about a 16oz steak (aaaaaghhh) before a major op. Congratulations on making the world just a tad more bearable.
I do not have the sounds of summer. I sent a sunset over Key Largo Florida for PM.
Dear PM Team,
Yesterday (08/Aug/07) Kevin Sutcliffe seamed to want to avoid talking about the actual issue of the piece on Wednesdays program. He seamed more interested in talking about how the police had not treated Channel 4 with much courtesy. What about the courtesy of at least making an attempt to represent people accurately? I would have thought that would feature quite high up on a reporters job spec. The words unprofessional and immoral come to mind. I saw the program, and I was disgusted by the attack on the likes of UK Islamic Mission as well as The Islamic Foundation (based in Markfield). They are both organisations I have worked with over the past 20 years and I have no doubt that they are committed to this country as mush as the next person. Is the reason these organizations are being attacked because they raise the issue of the injustices being perpetrated against the Palestinian people, and because they refuse to be cowed/ intimidated by the threat of being branded anti-Semitic? Or is the reason because these organizations are enjoying some success in helping develop a British Islamic Identity, and so they have to be demonized lest the British people begin to relate to them and take them seriously? Let鈥檚 not forget how Tony Blair tried to launch a broadside against the Independent* just before his departure, because they were exposing his lies and hypocrisy.
When the twin towers were attacked CNN put out a piece showing Palestinians handing out sweets and celebrating in the streets. The CNN lies were later exposed as being just library pictures - nothing to do with 9/11. Talk about trying to stitch someone up! We have heard Tony Blair lie to the British public about 45 minute WMDs. In recent weeks we have had the Queen misrepresented. We have had some TV quiz programs shown to be short changing their viewers, and now we have a TV documentary team hell bent on sacrificing their reputation at the same alter as the tabloid press. Is there anyone out there still interested in speaking the truth?
Mr Sutcliffe says he is puzzled about the Police considering action against the channel. Would that be because C4 have got used to getting away with this kind of stuff for so long, they鈥檙e surprised they鈥檝e been pulled up on this occasion? Their journalism was never going to stand up to close scrutiny, and it has now been found wanting, and on such an important issue too. We are going to need more than tabloid standards, if we are to understand the complex issues of the day, find the right solutions, and the way forward. The dispatches program resulted in other media outlets (eg Daily Mail) jumping on the band wagon in echoing Channel 4s exaggerated/ trumped up/ sexed up claims, and so the myths and lies are perpetuated onwards, while Muslims are left to face another day of suspicious stares, verbal abuse and the like 鈥.
Regards
Saifullah Taj (Mr)
* I still haven鈥檛 forgotten how Tony Blair tried to put down the World Leading journalist Robert Fisk, during the early days of the invasion of Afghanistan. Tony came up with a list of 10 undesirable things, and had the audacity to put Robert Fisk some where close to the top of that list! I鈥檒l have Tony know that Robert Fisk is more qualified to talk/ comment about the Middle East than he ever will be.
Chris (12) - I hear you, and it was why I placed the link in to show the prison populations as a measure of China's lenience compared to other nations.
The idea being that if its general prison population is lower than ours per capita, then its political prisoner population will be a relatively low number.
But even if you don't agree with the mitigation of numbers, would you not agree that the speaker should have had a better grasp, since it was his project?
Instead he puts forward his numerous trips to China as his credentials regarding political prisoners.
Maybe with all his air-miles, he could buy an up-to-date travel guide for China; one with the numbers in it.
Saifullah Taj (15) I was working as a prison officer on 9/11. I recall massive celebration by the then Muslim inmates when it was announced that Islamic terrorists had claimed responsibility.
If the objectionable kind of comments you allude to are caught on camera the order (editing) in which they are said is irrelevant.
Loved the piece with Andy - good interview; characters of both men, and even of their relationship, really came through.
Also interested in the Beijing piece, notably the passion with which Barry Davis spoke. He made some very very good points. Can't help but think that boycotting the games now is a bit late, the time for protest was when the application was being made. By choosing China the IOC has already been seen to deem the country as one suitable to host the games and all it stands for. And, as Barry suggested, its not the IOC's place to demand change, it is a sporting organisation not a political one.
Ps Appy (4) - it really would have been too much wouldn't it!
witchiwoman - Couldn't agree more. When Barry Davis came on I at first wondered if it was proper to have a sports commentator, with what could be perceived as a vested interest, giving his opinion on the subject. But his points were lucid, pertinent and obviously well-considered.
I shouldn't really have expected anything else as he has always been one of the best voices on sport - football commentary for adults whereas John Motson seems to do it for schoolboys.
Well done to Eddie and the team.
A great PM week.
Being a kidney patient myself and on the transplant waiting list, I was really pleased to hear Maff and Andy's piece yesterday (I think I've met Maff through work, so doubly interested...). I admire both men for the decisions that they've made. The donor is making enormous sacrifices - and the recipient must be acutely aware of this.
Personally I couldn't cope with a live donation, but I acknowledge that this may not be particularly constructive (my wife keeps nagging me to take one of hers, but she has to have our children...). My mother offered, and for some reason it would have been o.k. from her, but the first scan showed that she only had one working! Fifty eight years oblivious.
I'd also be interested to find out how they discovered that they were a good enough match - was this by chance?
Saifullah Taj 15.
I have to say that I consider the programme makers who misinterpreted the Queen and the programme makers of the Quiz show that short changed the public in a totally different light to the programme 'Undercover Mosque'.
In this programme we heard the definition of Kaffur and how it used.
On interfaith meetings we heard an Imam on debating with Jews and Christians about the filth they believe. There has been plenty of material on how Many Muslims view Christians and Jews so I believe this.
It was openly preached that Muslim children should be kept away from non-Muslims. We have all read about so-called honour killings carried out when some Muslim women enter relationships with non-Muslim or indeed, other Muslims which parents don't approve of. So I believe it.
Homosexuals should be thrown off the mountain. I recall Iqbal Sachranie's comments on homosexuals so I beleive what was said in this programme.
On gay rights, that Muslims should discriminate against Homosexuals. This was said in the programme so I beleive it because it chimes with what has been said above.
I heard Dr Hargey a moderate British Muslim confirm his view that Islam preaches intolerance and I am aware that other moderate British Muslims for example, Zia Rhaman have similar views. He calls for moderate Muslims to speak out. Where are they?
It seems all the people in this programme have been accurately represented. Just caught out.
It also seems to me that by suggesting that "Injustices being perpertrated against the Palestinian people and because they refuse to be cowed/intimidated by the threat of being branded anti-semitic". You are justifying the views aired on this programme by blaming Jews.
A very good try Saifullah, but your paranoia and outrage doesn鈥檛 wash.
鈥淚 was disgusted by the attack on the likes of UK Islamic Mission as well as The Islamic Foundation鈥
It wasn鈥檛 an attack: it simply showed what activities and views these organisations allow and promote.
All the protestations that the video clips are 鈥榦ut of context鈥 is disgraceful obfuscation: these preachers were caught red-handed spreading the hatred and dominance of their Islam. As were the book and video sales outlets in British mosques.
Tell me in what context they are acceptable?
The fact that West Midlands police and the CPO, not only failed to prosecute these people, but diverted their focus to an attempted prosecution of Channel 4 is a disgraceful example of the inverted morality and paralysis of political correctness that we painfully endure.
RJD (20) John Motson seems to do it for schoolboys Surely that is libelous??? :-)