´óÏó´«Ã½

The Glass Box for Thursday

Comments

1. At 04:29 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Piper wrote:

   It appears the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust Chairman (or is it No. 10..?) is trying to invent a new version of "freedom of speech" for his reporting colleagues who, it now seems, may hold views on important issues (to both themselves and the wider public) but certainly mustn't express them

   "Lyons warns Paxo and Humphrys

   Tara Conlan
   Thursday October 11, 2007
   MediaGuardian.co.uk
   
   Paxman and Humphrys: both have spoken publicly against the forthcoming cuts at the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
   
   The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, has called on the corporation's famous faces, such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman, to "stay out of" the public debate about the cuts at the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
   Following criticism of the forthcoming 3%-a-year savings by presenters such as Humphrys and Paxman, Sir Michael said today: "To say it's untidy is probably an understatement."

   He added: "It's a difficult balance to strike. We live in a country which prides itself on the quality of debate."

   Sir Michael said that most companies do not have "members of staff" and "occasionally management" openly debating strategy.

   He invited them to play a "robust part" in internal talks and use "internal channels" for their "misgivings and doubts", but said "the public debate, it's best to stay out of".

   Sir Michael hinted at potential impartiality problems when he highlighted the fact that when he was interviewed recently on the Today programme, the interviewer, Humphrys, had already expressed his views on the cuts.

   "It was slightly complicated because John had already expressed a view on these issues," he added..."

2. At 05:14 PM on 11 Oct 2007, pippop wrote:

   The imams, the Pope and a love letter.
   
   130 old men write a letter to another old man to say they love each other!
   
   Do we care, should it matter, is it relevant?
   
   End patriarchy NOW it's killing us all with its greed, its pollution, and its violence.

3. At 05:15 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   I have just heard the opening news, and was told in it that in the House yesterday Gordon Brown mentioned the Downing Street website petition about an election, and that at the time he did so there were just 26 signatories.

   I swear that when I heard the broadcast of that bit of his speech, all yesterday, what he said was that it had 'only two signatures'. I'm fairly sure I'm right: the syllables 'ix' and 'oh' sound quite different. And I am sure he didn't say 'when I looked there were' or any other ambiguous such phrase.

   Does anyone else have any evidence about what he actually said?

   Is this discrepancy going to be mentioned in the expanded report, if there is one?

   Breath-bating stuff.

4. At 05:16 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   extraordinary: the clip has just been played, and it doesn't sound the same at all. It gets interrupted, which I don't remember, and he definitely says 26, which I would have sworn he didn't.

   I now wonder whether I heard something different, and conflated things. Does anyone have a 'two' from GB yesterday that I might have put in? It feels very peculiar, having two completely different and incompatible sets of words that i thought applied to the same thing. help?

5. At 05:24 PM on 11 Oct 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

   It's not fair to compare hospitals of the past to those of the present via bug counts, due to the fact that bugs evolve into ever more resilient forms. Hence Hospitals today inherit the increase.

6. At 05:25 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

   Once again, actually implements an idea, while GB faffs around.

   Slainte
   ed

   Love is the only game that is not called on account of darkness.
   -- M. Hirschfield
   

7. At 05:31 PM on 11 Oct 2007, sue beever wrote:

   The item on web petitions was not worthy of you Mr Mair. If they are so meaningless... as only 6,000 have signed it - why did our Great Prime Minister use it as evidence in the House that it WAS evidence of no desire for an election when 26 had signed it? You can't have it both ways....

8. At 05:36 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

   Doris Lessing interview: Nick Clarke Memorial Award nominee!

   I'm still smiling at (checks time) 5.39.

   Fifi

9. At 05:44 PM on 11 Oct 2007, JOnnie Hok wrote:

   
   Some mortgage fellow was banging on about "adverse credit" this afternoon. Any chance of denying ourselves the luxury of these euphemisms?
   How about the good old english word: Debt?!!

10. At 05:52 PM on 11 Oct 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

    So the boozie pregnant woman reckons that more research is done on men's illnesses !?

    Does she not realise that men develop prostate cancer at a similar rate as women develop breast cancer, and yet the bulk of time and money goes towards the breast.

11. At 06:08 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Jimmy (10),

    Are surprised, considering the methods of detection?

12. At 06:12 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Chris wrote:

    Why did Jacki Klune, the mother, get away with making a sexist remark suggesting that men are or would be caviller about the well being of unborn children?

13. At 06:31 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Karen wrote:

    Jimmy (10)

    I was thinking much the same. We did a fundraiser and health promotion display for Prostate Cancer Charity earlier in the year and I was shocked that it's estimated that 1 in 10 men will have prostate cancer at some point in their lives. We struggled to find material for the display but have been inundated with offers of resources for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Despite requests we've received nothing to cover breast cancer in men which often has a much worse prognosis. Male health stories often seem to be overshadowed by female health stories. It's a real shame.

14. At 06:53 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

    I'm with Fifi - and loved Doris Lessing. Very very amusing - even cracked up Eddie.

    Oh - and of course a sniff from Nils :-)

15. At 07:11 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Surely an e-petition is only of any use if one knows what the number of signatures represents as a percentage of the potential number of respondents. You could ask 60,000 people to state ‘yes’ or ‘no’ - if you got 6,000 entries on an e-petition it could therefore be the ten per cent that might have said ‘yes’ to your question. In other words, there is no way of knowing what cross-section of the populace is shown by the signatures.

    We could have a straw poll here: Should there be an election this year, yes or no? That would give both sides of the picture.

16. At 07:25 PM on 11 Oct 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

    Ed (11) - Hee hee, indeed, all the more reason to spend a few bob on an alternate technique.

    Karen (13) - Thank you; I was fearful that I'd come across as a misogynist, and am glad you saw it for what it was; not less for women, but more for men.

17. At 07:38 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Well, Doris certainly won the day for me!

    You asked, Eddie, about people's experiences of online petitions. I've signed two, of which I'd set up one. My own one is still 'open', though having received a response to the other one, I'm not sanguine about the quality of the response to mine, when it eventually closes.

    The email from the Prime Minister's office clearly didn't have a grasp of the facts of the matter (it related to a possible hospital closure) and implied that any closure would be a local decision. Well, sir, I'm sorry, but my answer to that is b*llocks, since the overwhelming opinion locally is against said hospital closure, while the local PCT are likely to impose it, or the closure of two other hospitals in the area, upon the local community.

    The concept of online petitions will only have any validity if they are taken seriously by the Government and its signators are not treated like ignorant children.

18. At 07:52 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Lt Col (Retd) Jack Brunt wrote:

    This evening on PM i listened to Eddie Mair interviewing the mother of Ben Parkinson - he adopted an attitude which indicated his support for the MOD (Army) settlement of under £300k for the injuries incurred. In his questioning he intimated that the sum was adequate and seemed to support the remarks of Derek Twigg. I respectfully ask both Mair and Twigg what settlement they would accept if they were to lose both legs and sustain severe brain damage in service to the government. I suspect that both of them would feel that the sum offered by Twigg and his fellow parliamentarians to Ben Parkinson totally inadequate and insufficient to set up an enviroment wherein a quality of life could be sustained on the weekly pension he would then receive. Radio four and PM seem to have an agenda that dictates they follow the Labour Party line, why did not Mair compare the damages given by the MOD to such complaints as 'injured thumbs' 'hurt pride' and 'bullying' none of which come anywhere near the injuries inflicted on this soldier

19. At 07:55 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Tim Roberts wrote:

    Diana, luvvy, why not change your stage name to Aaarvark - top of the bill, problem solved!

20. At 08:08 PM on 11 Oct 2007, frank_croeso wrote:

    An e-petition is only of any use if you know where to find it.

    I found one list of e-petitions that includes :-

    'Make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister'. 19850 votes
    [ petitions.pm.gov.uk/list/open?sort=signers ]

    But I am not sure if this is the right place.

    Any ideas where I might find it ??

    I might start my own :- Make Eddie DG

21. At 08:09 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Loved the Doris Lessing interview. How refreshing to hear someone say exactly what they think. I guess she's old enough to not care what anyone else thinks of her. It was such a change from the usual interview fare of politicians desparate to not say what they really think about anything! I laughed all the way through.

    Maybe I should try reading one of her books now?

22. At 11:14 PM on 11 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Eddie - did you really crack up during the Doris Lessing interview or was it some kind of inverted Clinton Cackle??
    No mention of the 3,000 chickens on the A80 this morning - caused havoc in Central Scotland for commuters.
    Did I hear right and is the boozy mum mother to 4 children under 4?? Maybe it was the drinking before she became pregnant that should have been challenged..
    Enjoyed the programme of course and many thanks for putting up the 'i' pieces to listen again on the other thread.

23. At 11:55 PM on 11 Oct 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Question: How do you get a job in a think tank?

24. At 11:08 AM on 12 Oct 2007, pippop wrote:

    Jimmy giro@16 re: prostate cancer.

    It probably doesn't get the publicity it needs because it hasn't the right appeal for a photo shoot.

    For decades now, whenever the subject of breast cancer arises, out comes the photo of the slim young back of a young women with just a titillating glimpse if her perky little breast from the side. This ubiquitous picture favoured greatly by the The Times makes, and still makes its appearance in the broadsheet newspapers, the tabloids having no need of such coyness, nor the excuse of a 'medical' reason to gratify the salacious 'needs' of half the population. This picture serves not only men's 'needs', but it has also served to alarm young women who are in fact the least likely to develop breast cancer. The obvious subject to which each medical news should be aimed at is the middle aged woman and older, but such a women is never shown in newspapers.

    She does however appear on the telly with her breast about to go through that medieval machine. Why this torturous point in the process is shown is beyond belief, can you imagine the TV news repeatedly bringing out a film of a testicle being squeezed? Why then is there no respect for women and for the kind of distress such a viewing will generate?

    One also needs to ask the question as to why the medical profession prefer this method when ultrasound, far less objectionable, does a better job of identifying cancers.

    So Jimmy, in this very fickle world, if your prostate were prettier, and even better, attached to the nether regions of a female, the press would be clamouring for a picture and its present low profile would be top of the agenda.

25. At 01:10 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Pippop,

    Hi and well met again! they don't test you for prostate enlargement by tweaking your testicles. It's even less telegenic!

    xx
    ed

26. At 01:30 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Pippop,

    Hi and well met again! they don't test you for prostate enlargement by tweaking your testicles. It's even less telegenic!

    xx
    ed

27. At 03:01 PM on 12 Oct 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    First post of the afternoon, will it get through....

    I only wanted to say that I thought the piece with Doris Lessing was fab. I haven't read much of her work (and what I have read didn't grab me) but I feel a bit mor exploration is required.

    And, as we say round these parts. what a top bird!

    502 x1
    

28. At 03:18 PM on 12 Oct 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    First post of the afternoon, will it get through....

    I only wanted to say that I thought the piece with Doris Lessing was fab. I haven't read much of her work (and what I have read didn't grab me) but I feel a bit mor exploration is required.

    And, as we say round these parts. what a top bird!

    502 x 3

29. At 05:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Doc (22), Apply, attend an interview, say the right things and hope they like you... Same as any other job really!

    Have a look at the vacancies section on the website of any in which you are particularly interested - they usually list the quals and experience one needs.