29 Oct: Tube map, poppy campaign, shortest recipes…

Comments

1. At 08:41 AM on 30 Oct 2007, Peter Lewis wrote:

   How long does it take you to recover from the "daylight saving" time shift?
   I keep waking up an hour early for over a week. It is a form of jet-lag without the carbon footprint.
   I plan to keep a log this year to see when I surface from sleep. Under stable conditions I will wake up at most half an hour before the alarm goes off. Most often the time is less than 15 minutes before.
   Sunday does not count, start on Monday.

2. At 10:53 AM on 30 Oct 2007, Jennifer Tracey wrote:

   Hi Peter
   Perhaps you need something like Sleepbot - peaceful streaming audio to help you reclaim that extra hour in the morning?

   And since you mention carbon footprint, I wonder if daylight saving time saves energy? Wikipedia entry on DST says there's no evidence for this...

3. At 02:32 PM on 30 Oct 2007, Barnaby LAwrence wrote:

   Can we do an item on manners. It seems to me that the modern person is so tied up in where s/he is going s/he has no time nor inclination for that matter to consider anyone else other than s/he.
   Do manners force us, it would appear a naturally selfish genus, to tsake into account other peoples feelings. DO not barge through a door, give up a seat to an ailing person no matter how old, cover your nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing, eat with your mouth closed, do not pull into a motorway expecting everyone else top get out of your way, etc. etc.
   I am sure you can think of many other examples of selfish behaviour thatg might otherwise have been curtailed through the re-introduction of manners.
   Should manners be taught at school? If so what manners? Should manners be a GCSE subject? Or is it all just my perspective as I get older?

4. At 11:25 PM on 01 Nov 2007, Alan Bradshaw wrote:

   I am alarmed at the number of motorists who drive around seemingly with no regard for other road users, specifically driving using auxiliary lighting instead of or in addition to their headlights.

   As these extra lights are not subject to the same annual scrutiny as the headlamps they are usually replacing, they are not normally properly adjusted (if indeed they are capable of adjustment) and therefore are usually set to at minimum dazzle oncoming motorists, or possibly temporarily blind them. This is not of course limited to oncoming motorists, but also the driver of the car in front cannot see properly when he has these lights blazing into the rear view mirrors.

   Sometimes these lights have been operated when a light fog has been experienced, but then the driver involved (conveniently) "forgets" to switch them off and we have to put up with them at all times of the day and night until the MOT examiner extinguishes them.

   Is it beyond the wit of manufacturers to make it that it is first of all not possible to drive with these lights on without the accompanying headlamps, and secondly that when the ignition is turned off, they go out and will not come back on again until they are consciously switched on - to avoid the "forgetfulness" of many motorists today. If any manufacturer would like to contact me, I can explain in simple terms how this may be achieved.

   These people who persist in driving with sidelamps on accompanied by these badly adjusted auxiliary (fog?) lights are just ill-mannered louts in my humble opinion and it is about time the police begin to crack down upon this practice which I think is still against the law.

   If the law against using these lights without benefit of headlamps has been changed or scrapped, then the announcement about it was very hush-hush.

   It would be very lucrative to fine some of these drivers, and maybe if it were to be publicized it may help to stamp out this anti-social practice.

5. At 07:12 PM on 05 Nov 2007, Simon Low wrote:

   Okay that MP got done for using his mobile phone, but the archive footage of him shaking hands with a bunch of primary school kids was the real shocker. Shaking hands and smiling like he was meeting a Russian business man that was about to buy the Home Office. Right kids empty your pockets... where's you're piece of string! and does your mum know you've got that pen knife? Ah the good old days when men were made of steel and boats were made of wood!
   LTS (ask Steve Wright)

6. At 01:49 AM on 06 Nov 2007, Ana Knight wrote:

   2 story ideas:

   1 The real effects of the no smoking ban on the small independant bars/pubs and the UK social scene.

   My business is 75% down follwowing the ban. The Publican website evidences the same from many landlords - possible solution is to lift the ban after 10pm - this gets around diners and smoking, non smoking staff can go off duty, a good compromise given the effects it is having on the social landscape, hijacked by ASH and punters lured by cheap Sainsbury's boooze they can enjoy at home while smoking in front of kids.
   Hidde problems eg. outside noise from smokers also.

   2. The internet and the anonymous abuse that rival businesses and barred clientele can post agianst individuals and their business

   2.

7. At 11:08 AM on 06 Nov 2007, Adrian Moss wrote:

   Is anyone else out there totally confused as to what we can and cannot eat? What is and isn't safe. What is a concerned parent to do apart from breast feed the kids until they leave home?

   Seems BBQ's need to be banned. No bacon butties. No spam and fries (a staple on school meals when I was young together with asbertos lagging to keep us kiddies warm.)

   I thought we were being told only a while ago that a glass or red wine was good for the heart. Now it seems to be bad for cancer.

   So what does processed mean? Seems to suggest all sliced meats - except off the bone - should be taken off the menu. If I put some chicken (good) in with a 'cook in sauce' is that bad?

   I think the Government maybe on to something. Compulsory schooling to 18. Ration cards and mandatory exercise classes for all is the logical next step.

8. At 09:29 PM on 06 Nov 2007, Timothy Deacon wrote:

   I enjoyed the most recent "Top Gear Special" (Sunday 4 November 2007 8pm BBC2) as I'm sure many of you did. However has the time come for Mr. Clarkson to be reigned in? To dismantle two cars in the Botswanan bush and burn the unwanted side panels, seats and rubber trim is surely an unacceptable BBC sponsored activity. I would also be concerned about the impact on the salt planes, apparently never crossed in cars before. Even if the individual impact of the three cars was negligible, what example has this set to the locals, and is a super highway now in the making? Also could someone at the BBC tell me how many cars he used? It seems wholly implausible that his constantly 'dead' Lancia was brought back to life and I suspect that there was more than one car for him to destroy along the way, potentially leaving a string of broken cars along some road in Botswana.

   It is not the first time we have seen him recklessly neglect the environment as he ploughed his way up the side of a Scottish mountain and over the Antarctic ice caps. I appreciate that the show is not a David Attenborough documentary on the current environmental plight and is essentially an entertainment programme but to actively disrupt delicate ecosystems in the name of a challenge is wrong.

   On a separate point, how does such a big budget show sit in the BBC's plans for the future? Would it not be better to scale down Top Gear operations, move the challenges that they seem so intent on setting themselves on to a domestic theatre and save a few pennies that could be better put to keeping on a few of our treasured correspondents around the world?

9. At 09:53 PM on 06 Nov 2007, Elizabeth Chillingworth wrote:

   Eddie Mair is keen to show us what he is wearing today.
   But girls love love love shoes!
   Please please please can we take that web cam lower...
   We'd love to see the gloss beneath his trousers. Is it a brogue?
   These are extremely important matters for us girls and I think we need to discuss. (Size might well come in to it.)

   Elizabeth.

10. At 01:31 AM on 07 Nov 2007, Joanne Woolgar wrote:

    An idea, perhaps for a future programme:

    "We don't really need the internet or a computer. What are we going to use it for?"
    My Dad said this to me last year , and I refused to get into what promised to be a gargantuan discussion on the subject- but perhaps the IPM team could take it on?
    The foundation of this radio programme is 'interaction' - but there are many technophobic people out there for whom 'emailing' is something to do with putting eels in envelopes.
    Do your listeners know anybody who is either timid about, or downright opposed to , the computer, the internet, its blogs and emails, - and do those listeners have any suggestions for welcoming these 'stray sheep' into the flock?
    Could IPM organise a 'Beginner's Introduction to the Blog' written and broadcast in baby language for the Terminally Terrified/Opposed.?
    Perhaps we should all put down our computers and get into the fresh air. Lets hear, by phone and snailmail, the views of those who aren't online.

    I suspect that we are entering an age when online communication will be the norm so all those who are opposed to it or feel we might lose something by it should have the opportunity to speak now.

    
    

11. At 01:54 AM on 07 Nov 2007, jonnie wrote:

    As an addition to Alan Bradshaw's post above - I'd like to include the number of cyclists -especially students in Bournemouth' who don't have lights.

12. At 11:07 AM on 07 Nov 2007, Christian Ahlert wrote:

    A cool story would be 'social lending' - a new breed of websites connecting borrowers and lenders directly. The UK based Zopa has recently 'personalized' its social lending mechanisms so that Mr Smith from x knows exactly who is giving money to. This way of lending/borrowing can produce better returns/less interest than traditional banks....
    http://www.openbusiness.cc/2007/10/30/social-lending-taking-next-step-in-the-uk/

13. At 11:30 AM on 07 Nov 2007, Maggie Greensmith wrote:

    Is anyone else concerned about the public voting for a new multi million pound lottery project? In view of the recent scandals is it wise to give this huge windfall to the winner of a phone/internet vote? will people just vote for their nearest project regardless of its worth? Will the vote be carefully monitored? I think it would be better to have a panel of experts who know the science etc. involved to choose and why does it have to be just one winner?

This post is closed to new comments.