The Glass Box for Thursday
comment on the programme here.
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
Yesterday in the Independent Alan Greenspan talked of the general over - pricing of assets and Trichet of the 'correction' that such a fall in asset prices entails.
But today the BoE encouraged over - pricers in London to contiue to over sell their wares.
What else is this continual inflation in asset prices in London markets except a way of exploiting the rest of us outside their own charmed circle.
For if shares they own are over priced by the 20 percent or so that they are in London that is to put 250 billion pounds of 'manna from heaven' spending power in the hands of the rich.
The people who suffer are those who get their economic just deserts from government spending.
For in a world where less rather than more taxation is called for (how well Osborne's inheritance tax proposals went down) the effect of 250 billions of increased spending power created by and for the private sector rich is simple. It is to prevent more equitable government spending power from doing its good works. For the two sorts of spending together would threaten to be inflationary. Governemtns give way and private affluence generates public squalor.
La lutta continua.
Modesty in price fixing prevails everywhere in Europe and America today except in London.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the BoE has done sweet nuffin' as usual.
Oh no, say it ain't so, Diana dead... noooooooo!!!!
So what's for tea?
Do you think it might be possible to have the report on the inquest into the Paris Road Traffic Accident on at a specific time every night? Say betwwen 17:15 and 17:20. I could then disappear into the kitchen peal some carrots, slice some new potatoes and green beans, put them on to boil and get back to the living room in time to listen to important News.
The first problem with 'wills' that comes to my mind is: should the dead have rights over the living?
Since the dead will suffer no consequence for their decisions (even if made when alive), then they should have no rights to have their will implemented.
The law should only right wrongs. When the law is implemented without regard for this, then it is merely self fulfilling.
The RSPCA can not miss what it never had, whereas the surviving relative has been compromised by the will.
The RSPCA should thank their lucky stars that I am not the judge!
Thankyou for that scattershot spraying of statistics on marriage. I was wondering if it meant anything at all until we were told "64% - 1 in 8 families."
Good to see you're not worrying about the figures,
As always, PM was wonderful.
The pictures thing of "what best represents me" - how would I post this?
pip..pip...jolly good show....brill, fantastic, funny but then again serious, informative but not over the top....
.......missed the whole prog, was double digging the veggy patch....will listen again though on line from Cafe 502!
I am in complete sympathy with the lady who's parents left the family farm to the RSPCA as something similar happened to me - but not anywhere near the grand scale that happened to her. Though it is legal for parents to not leave anything to their children I feel strongly that this is a mistake. Children usually bring a lot to the family when born and during their early years - so when the parents die it is only right they the children should be left something significant.
Chipperfield says the Anglo Saxon geist is pragmatic. Well, the Anglo bit may be, but if we are to think in these terms at all surely the Saxon bit is systematic whether in physics philosophy music architecture or literature.
Do you think I may be right (see the thread under the photo of his building) and Chipperfield is taking a 'last 30 or so years' perspective.
Benn back in Parliament. No probs. Isn't the real prob. with his granddaughter? Isn't this the Natasha Kaplinski problem all over again? So her grandfather and father were lefties. OK but when do these lineages take their turn in doing the manual work in our soicety?
Markham (3) The ''report'' on the Inquest happens every 15 minutes on the news summary. That's fair enough - but in my opinion, enough said!
What I object to is the effort made trying to ''analyse'' the report, and comment on it afterwards. Why?????
The RSPCA has no choice but to accept the legacy. The legacy became part of its assets immediately upon the death of the Testator. As a charity, it is obligated by law only to spend its money on its specific charitable objects. To do otherwise would bring the Charity Commissioners down on them like a ton of bricks.
As far as I know, the only charity which can legitimately decline a legacy is Alcoholics Anonymous, whose primary objectives are all a matter of Self-Help, and who had to get a special Act of Parliament passed to permit them this dispensation. All other charities must accept legacies & donations made to them.
And frankly, if that's what the Testator wanted, the RSPCA *should* get the legacy left to it. It's not compulsory to benefit your children, here, as it is in many other jurisdictions. Thank Heavens for Testamentary Freedom.
Re the ''Will'' story -I would like to know if it all ends happily, especially as the RSPCA has said it has suggested a possible solution. Any chance of a quick follow-up some time, please? Even a quick word on the Blog would do.
Wonderful show - I missed it today.
Shame on the RSPCA. The 'Royal' patron of the RSPCA should be intervening here - who is it?
I am horrified that this woman has lost her home and part of her livelihood. The RSPCA is an extremely wealthy charity and, as one of your other posters said, won't miss the money.
If they are indeed a charity they should behave charitably in this case even if it is outside their normal brief. The legal position in this case is surely less important than the humane response.
We are all animals aren't we ? !
Beatrice (11) - You begin with a statement that there is no choice, and end with a statement extolling freedom.
Freedom without responsibility is licence to do as one pleases. So let there be a free-for-all if everybody believes in that virtue.
For those who believe in freedom WITH responsibility, then my question remains: should the dead have rights over the living?
The answer must be no, because the dead have no responsibilities.
Re the Will,
It seems to me that this family was more disfunctional than the daughter you interviewed realised. While I know that families can be - from personal experience - having livelihood removed is a problem, but cannot believe the daughter had no signs at all. However, cannot she challenge the Will in court, on the grounds that she had contributed so much to the assets that are then left to RSPCA?
To be honest, in her position, I would have told the RSPCA that they can do their own houseclearing. I fear I'm facing the same situation, but for a maiden aunt (i.e. I end up as executor - standing in for my late father who was probably the named executor - but all goes to - in all probabilty - the same charity).
However, I do feel that some "charities" are getting rather too full of themselves in this regard, getting rather more like mulit-national businesses in outlook.
in Scotland of course you cannot completely cut your children out of your will.
I once saw the response of Guide Dogs for the Blind when they were asked to repay a very very small proportion of a huge inheritance because of a late discovered debt in the estate. I won't be holding my breath waiting for the RSPCA to decline acceptance of any of this legacy. Nor incidentally have I ever given money to the Guide Dogs Association since.
Beatrice are you absolutely sure charities cannot decline bequests? I can see that most wouldn't want to turn down any money that came their way but would have thought they had some degree of discretion over accepting it.
oh and not a bad proram tonight team - at least there weren't any bl***y 'gypsies' foretelling the future on it. If you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your party conference coverage why not just bite the bullet and do something else. as long as it isn;t that daft old beggar Tony Benn courting publicity again while pretending to walk backwards away from it. the man is a total fraud and tiresome with it and gets generally far too much coverage on the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
I think I understand where JimmyGiro is coming from, but surely the point is that the will is written whilst you are living. The fact that it comes as a surprise post mortem because it hasn't been discussed doesn't mean that the dead are exercising any 'rights' over the living.
This whole sorry episode seems to me to be a reflection (as is so often the case) of a lack of communication and assumptions made with regard to what 'should' happen. Because it is usually the case that something happens doesn't mean that it is a 'right'.
Jimmy I think you've won the argument.............
.....but in the course of your add-on to it you argue as if you think that if A has a right, then A must necessarily have responsibilities that go with that right.
Surely, usually if A has a right then the responsibilities can fall anywhere - on A, yes, but sometimes on B, C, ...Z...
And sometimes not on A at all. A ramp for wheel chair users in a restaurant for example.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ 1 controller should not have been forced to resign over the Queen documentary row. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ were doing her a massive favour portraying Her Majesty in such a way. In reality she is very dull and should be pleased that she was misrepresented in the trailer. Being a bitch is where it's at. She could easily be the new Anne Robinson or Sharon Osbourne ('The Queen of Mean' would be so appropriate in her case).
The most revealing thing about this whole affair is the fact that The Queen received such a quick apology from the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and now this resignation. Neither would happen if the subject of a trailer was an ordinary member of the public.