Rough Notes December 3rd

Comments

1. At 10:48 AM on 04 Dec 2007, Rose-Mary Gower wrote:

   I receive a carer's allowance in respect of our Down's Syndrome son, but do not get any extra now I am also looking after my husband who suffered a brain haemorrhage. Do you think that carers who look after more than one disabled person should get an allowance for each person they care for?
   

2. At 12:55 PM on 04 Dec 2007, Sid Bloggs wrote:

   I expect that wretched Gibbon woman is bored with all the attention now. Not as bored as the rest of us are hearing Radio 4 constantly repeat the mantra of what happened to her. Remarkable how little and how sketchy has been the news from France about the riots (and according to Feedback, how deceitful), yet if someone in Ghana has an ingrowing toenail or a South African is in the audience at a play somewhere, PM pulls out all the stops and runs a major feature.

3. At 12:57 PM on 04 Dec 2007, Christine Bate wrote:

   The dodgy donations story is important - but I have heard no-one ask 'where did all the money go?'

   Thousands of pounds spent campaigning for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party?

   Thousands spent on Gordon Brown's 'campaign' for leadership - when there was no opposition?
   Where did all the money go?

   And they want the taxpayer to fund political parties??? Come off it!!

4. At 01:27 PM on 04 Dec 2007, Member of the public. wrote:

   Who cares for the carers? The answer to that question will define a large portion of Britain's social landscape during the next 25 years and beyond. An ageing population brings with it increased responsibilities that the basic National Health Service, financially stricken and stretched in practical terms, is already unable to provide regularly. The burden of looking after the elderly, sick or disabled increasingly rests on family and friends; unpaid, of course, and who are usually left to cope alone on an informal daily basis. A report earlier this year from the Commission for Social Care Inspection was fundamentally a warning about the severe consequences of ever-tightening and more complicated rules governing state-funded provision. As fewer qualify for it, so more disadvantaged people will be obliged to dig into savings or rely on the benevolence of others. This in turn will have a damaging impact on the career, pension provision, health and general well-being of the carer. A proper programme clearly needs to be created to reward and support those with no option, or who choose, to stay at home and essentially act as a substitute for the NHS or social services. That is not only a social requirement but also a moral one.

5. At 02:00 PM on 04 Dec 2007, Kevin Miles wrote:

   Re Insurance for flood areas

   If the Govt propose spending £800 million on flood defences but it cost the insurance industry £3 billion in claims, why doesn't the insurance industry fund the work?

   On a straightforward cost / benefit analysis they would be better off in the long run.

6. At 03:14 PM on 04 Dec 2007, Sid Bowerman wrote:

   My wife received a carers allowance for my daughter who has cerebral palsy. When my wife reached state pension age she claimed her pension. Rules state that though the entitlement to the carers allowance still remains, you can't have both the pension and the carers allowance. I think this is a scandal and should be rectified.

7. At 07:17 AM on 05 Dec 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   Can it be that all members of the iPM team indulge in at least the odd drop of alcoholic beverage at some stage or another? I don’t want this to sound like a judgement on any of you, but I can only assume that there would have to be an abstainer among you for my suggestion last time around to have been considered for the programme. Or is it going to come up in future?

8. At 08:29 AM on 05 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

   Dr H ( 7 ) To the good doctor, from memory I think you raised the double standard we apply to drinking - smoking bad - boozing, well it's a bit of a laugh. Fair enough, but as a subject - though important - I have it heard talked about on other programmes. I know I recently produced a PM programme that looked at the efforts by the SNP to clamp down on bargain bucket booze. The general argument being - we should take drinking as seriously as we do smoking. So, in the spirit ( no pun intended ) of trying to look at new stories your earlier suggestion, though welcome, has been kicked into the long grass. On another point of order chairman, the iPM team is many things - but Methodist is pushing it a bit. Cheers, Rupert

9. At 09:19 AM on 05 Dec 2007, Jean Allison (Mrs) wrote:

   I think iPM should investigate the speculation that Labour's former bruiser of a Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, is quitting his Hull seat at the next General Election. Oh yes, two Jags has confirmed he's off.

   It's also rumoured he'll be rewarded with a seat in the Lords. What do you reckon he'll choose as his title – Lord Prescott the Humber Mouth? Or perhaps Lord Prescott of Croquet? Or even Lord Prescott of Fisty Cuffs?

   Let's not forget how he rose to such dizzy political heights in the first place. While Blair was wooing the champagne socialists, Prezza was taken on board as Number Two to represent the brothers and sisters of the old Left. He was supposed to be a sort of counter-balance to the nouveau-rich with whom Blair felt at home.

   He failed miserably if you ask me.

10. At 10:51 AM on 05 Dec 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Rupert (8) - your memory is working. I don’t suppose you could tell me which programmes have covered this, in case they are still available to listen to? I’d like to find out whether this issue has been tackled in quite the way I envisaged. Thanks.

11. At 11:12 AM on 05 Dec 2007, Anne Brigstock wrote:

    Hello iPM,

    If you ask me and you have, there is nothing more disgraceful than the fact that we are wasting tonnes of a valuble food resource by throwing it back into the sea dead because the EU quota system does not allow the fishermen to land all they catch.

    I would be surprised if these people in Brussels who make the decisions have ever been aboard a fishing vessel or been to a fishing port to see the reality. They need to listen to the fishermen, those that are left, because they are the ones who know the reality of what is happening at sea.

    The simple fact that the EU allows fisherman, through the quota system, to only catch certain species is a farce. Fishing is not an exact science and there can be no guarantees in a mixed fishery over what you are going to haul. Given the fact that the fish are dead already it is a scandal not to allow the fishermen to land them. With issues over food prices, this system also artificially creates a shortage of supply and the net result is higher prices for the consumer.

    The irony is that if they were allowed to land all they caught they would be able to make more money per trip, earn their living quicker, spend less time at sea and therefore preserve the stocks in a more satisfactory manor. The best way is to restrict the number of days the fishermen can go to sea but allow them to land all they catch. Sustainable fisheries are vital for the future of our industry, but is this hugely wasteful system a price we should be paying?

    The only beneficiaries are, after all, the seagulls.
    

12. At 02:46 PM on 05 Dec 2007, Dan Bennett wrote:

    On the authenticity front, the latest installment of a huge row in the US blogosphere has just begun after The New Republic's Franklin Foer admitted first-hand accounts from a serving soldier alleging shocking behaviour by US troops in Iraq were factually incorrect. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04republic.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
    or my blog for more.

13. At 07:00 PM on 05 Dec 2007, Alice Harlan wrote:

    I heard on the Today program news, a story about the decision to remove the adverts for the Harley Medical Group from the London Underground. I have looked for more about this story at intervals throughout the day on the BBC news pages and have not found anything. I was a member of the Facebook Group "Somewhat strident but who cares" which I believe was instrumental in their removal. I would be interested to know more about the way that sites like Facebook can be instrumental in mobilising people to complain.. and so get the noxious things removed. I would be interested also to hear more about the ASA judgement which apparently rejected the claim that it was misleading to imply that larger breasts made people happier....

14. At 01:04 PM on 06 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

    Who cares for the carers? I appreciate this is a huge and relevant story and thanks to all who are keen to hear more on Radio 4. To be clear the main reason why iPM is going to leave the story this week is thanks, in large part, to some very interesting news from our friends at You and Yours. They have plans to go big on this in the New Year. For a start, it is an issue that they've looked at many times before. I'm hoping they'll leave some info here on the iPM blog soon.

15. At 02:47 PM on 06 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

    Alice ( 13 ) Just so happens I have been speaknig to the ASA and the growing trend for people to organise themselves and campaign either/for or against something online. The ASA is clear about it's position - and have told me it matters not a jot if one or one thousand people complain about an ad - if it thinks there is a valid case to answer - it will investigate. So undoubtably FB is a great tool to help mobilise a particular opinion. Seemingly certain firms/advertisers are v.sensitive to this trend.
    The bigger breast firm made a point of raising the Facebook campaign in its ( failed ) defence. On a wider point, I wonder the extent to which all this can either help or hinder the ad industry and those who call themselves "creatives".

16. At 08:50 PM on 06 Dec 2007, Alice Harlan wrote:

    I find it more than a little odd that the Facebook campaign appeared to be raised as a defence by the advertising people: "They've only complained because of these agitators."- rather than as an indicator that over a 1000 people on FB put their names to a group objecting to the adverts. Given that only a relatively small proportion of the tube traveling public would be active on Facebook, it seems to me that 1000 people on FB is a fair indicator of a whole lot more feeling unhappy about these adverts but not complaining to any of the organisations involved. I think one of the main functions of this group- and I imagine, others like it- is that they diseminate the information about how to complain. People pool their resources of time and energy to establish things like which is the right person to contact, where to find the complaint forms to fill in- it is even possible to share text for complaints which can be cut and pasted. It seems the inference that the advertisers are trying to draw about the FB group is that this kind of complaint is not difficult enough to count- its "complaint lite"- but surely it should be easy to complain? If FB and such sites are providing a new forum where people can work together and express their views I think it should be given more weight.

    On a more specific point about the ruling...they judged that the advert itself would not harm women's self esteem, but the problem is, I think more systemic: that living in a world where plastic surgery is sufficiently the norm to be advertised in public spaces like the tube is damaging. I am in no position to declare categorically that nobody needs plastic surgery but I would suggest very strongly that the enormous majority of people who are dissatisfied with their own bodies would be better advised to approach the problem as a mental one about their self esteem, than a physical one to be rectified with surgery. I think the ASA judgement which upholds only the complaint about the word "easy" has not been sensitive to this point. Advertising is to a degree, an exhalation of our cultural values....the facebook group was trying to adress an incipient case of halitosis...
    I'd probably better stop before I get entangled with an ASA toothbrushing metaphor.....

17. At 12:07 AM on 07 Dec 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Rupert (14, 15) - Is that a No to my (10)?

    P.S. Why is there no space where we see 15.At 02:47 PM, etc?

18. At 12:30 AM on 07 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

    Dr ( 17 ) yes that is a no. As for the space in between..it's probably something we can blame on the cuts.

19. At 03:27 AM on 07 Dec 2007, Amos wrote:

    Regarding this matter of identity and what it is.

    Could a good place to begin looking for our national identity be in recognising the visual symbols around us and what they represent?

    They are everywhere, medical symbols, Royal, Legal, religous, on badges, uniforms, vehicals, motifs, mottos, pineapples on bridges roses on buildings, everywhere, flowers, trees, orbs, birds, animals, all creatures great and small, sun, moon and stars, even colours.

    Could it help put us in touch with a national sense of place, by understanding the significance and meaning of where we are now? Could this help us know ourselves in the same way as the family tree series, "who do you think you are" but collectively?

    There was a wonderful item on 'Something Understood' about candles and why Christmas wreaths are circular, made up of evergreen and pine cones. What about all the other forgotten symbolism of things we do at Christmas? These include but also transcend religous boundries.

    It is more than possible to appreciate the symbolism of Christianity and Christmas without being a Christian likewise, the symbolism of rituals in other traditions especially as the seasons turn.

    Even words are symbols. January is loaded with meaning not least the way Janus comes from the winter solstice when the sun faces the other way.

    Rather than a history lesson or anything about religion or personalities, would it be helpful to have a regular, short item such as 'a symbol a day' taken from what we can see around us in the immediate environment yet never really see let alone know?

20. At 05:15 PM on 07 Dec 2007, Nadia Kamil wrote:

    I'm agree with Alice Harlan regarding the ASA ruling over cosmetic surgery ads on public transport.

    It's reassuring to know that the ASA will investigate any valid complaint regardless of the number of complainers. I found it exasperating, however, that they ruled that these ads were only 'misleading' due to use of the word 'easy' instead of being outrageously offensive because of the promotion of the idea that people can be manipulated into believing that big boobs equal happiness.

21. At 12:08 PM on 08 Dec 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    (18) I blame my hairstyle on the cuts, too.

22. At 12:33 PM on 08 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

    This on the email from Paul Fletcher:

    "I have heard nothing on pm about the new policy that the government has (without any consultation) made preventing adult students from receiving any funding for higher education at an equivalent or lower level than their current highest qualification. So someone with a
    degree in languages would not be able to take a lower level course in science, for example.

    There was a very poor item on you and yours last week about this where basically the programme allowed ministers to use it as a platform without any dissent, but your programme as one which I know many in the
    education business listen to is perhaps better suited to a political issue such as this.

    The discussion in the lords on this policy is one of the most damning I have ever heard.

    I enclose some quotes from the Lords, if you want any more info from me about this please ask.
    
    Paul

    "...must damage the basic objective of lifelong learning ~ Lord Watson of
    Richmond

    "spectacularly misconceived." ~ Lord Plant of Highfield

    "[a] massive trap of unintended consequences... wholly irrational" ~ Baroness Blackstone

    ...heading for trouble in a big way ~Lord Haskins

    "has all the hallmarks of a rushed and potentially damaging proposal...[a] retrograde step. The message being given out is, "If at first you don't succeed, you just don't succeed"...we were promised that lifelong learning would be a norm. Instead we find, yet again, the Government meddling with systems that provide opportunity and enable people to meet
    the new challenges facing Britain in a globalised market.~ Baroness Verma

    "contradicts everything the Government have been saying about retraining and creating a flexible workforce ~ Baroness Walmsley

    Part-time students, who already get a raw deal on financial support, are being kicked in the teeth yet again. The unassuaged assault [on the
    decision]...[the] battering that is being experienced is coming from all
    corners of this House. ~ Lord Griffiths of Burry Port

    "... the Government have championed many admirable principles in higher education and I fear that this policy on ELQs runs counter to almost all of them ~ Lord Morgan

    "[involves an] essential injustice...deeply
    damaging to many English universities ...[a] huge regulatory shambles ~ Lord Morgan

    "I went downstairs to get some cash and saw that the cash machine says on it, in rather big letters, "Tampering with this machine may result in it going out of service". That is exactly what is going on here. This is a bad policy; it is a policy that is based on a false choice and, like all false choices, it inevitably results in a poor decision
    ~Lord Puttnam

    "[the government must] recognise the storm of reasoned objections....unfair to many women... inegalitarian ~ Lord Quirk

    "harmful unintended consequences... are likely to result from such a hastily cobbled together proposal...this ridiculous plan" - Lord Rix

    "..it is absolutely extraordinary that this proposal is happening without adequate consultation. What on earth has been going on? What is the
    explanation for there having been no consultation and what notice are the Government now going to take of the points being made? Will they reconsider?

    "There is definitely a...Mr Bean-like aspect to this proposal." ~ Lord Watson of Richmond
    

23. At 08:27 PM on 09 Dec 2007, Kirstin Smith wrote:

    I'd like more attention paid to the issue of cosmetic surgery advertising on public transport. In particular, I'm interested in Transport for London's position of having guidelines that require them to promote equality and good relations between the genders, and then refusing to recognise that these might prohibit the display of such ads. Instead they passed complaints on to the ASA. But surely it's wrong that public bodies can pay lip service to such notions without having to back it up? Their advertising space is managed by CBS Outdoor, a privately owned company. I believe this relationship has made TfL shirk their responsibility and accountability as an organisation that offers a public service.

    By only ruling against the use of the word 'easy' the ASA refused to properly recognise the role of gender in this issue. Their guidelines are not as strict as TfL's, so it was disappointing that the latter didn't tackle it themselves. The ASA said it couldn't pin the corrosion of women's self esteem on one advert.

    I think it requires a bigger step on the ASA'a part - a recognition that the aggregate effect of a good proportion of advertising is to create a hostile environment for female viewers. At present they have no commitment to preventing this. But I hope we'll find that the upcoming generation of women will tolerate it less and less.

This post is closed to new comments.