Suggest a story
If you hear or read something in the news or on the PM blog that you think needs more discussion or doesn't chime with your experience - comment below or email us.
We're always interested in new ideas, thanks.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
The programme that starts with its listeners. Join daily discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Subscribe to iPM
You can stay up to date with iPM via these feeds.
iPM Feed(RSS)
iPM Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Can we discuss the ongoing issue that many people have with Thought for the Day and its unjustifiable discrimination against people who reject faith?
iPM promised to cover the subject on Saturday 10th. However, despite hundreds of well reasoned and interesting posts on the website, the radio show completely ducked the issue. How about one more try?
Complain about this comment
Agreed.
The TftD issue was handled very poorly. Mark Damazer's statement has generated lots of well reasoned comment and criticism. Perhaps he should be invited onto next weeks show and asked to defend his position.
Complain about this comment
Next week I would like to hear Mr Mark Damazer give reasoned answers to the very cogent arguments which have been put forward in more than 300 messages on this website, and, I understand, about 1500 emails, not one of which he has yet addressed.
Complain about this comment
To echo what has already been posted can we have a discussion of why secular opinions are not allowed on TfTD that is worthy of a programme such as PM rather than the glossed over almost tongue-in-cheek segment we got today.
For a radio station that prides itself in challenging opinion and getting to the root of subjects I can not believe that Eddie Mair was involved in such a poor representation of the views given and also the total absence of any secular voice within the item apart from the TfTD style slot given. The only person interviewed was the representative of Ekklesia who did indeed support the secular voice but was still a Christian voice doing so.
It seems that Radio 4 won't even allow secular people speak for themselves and have to bring in religious people to speak for them...say's a lot really...
Complain about this comment
Inspirational thoughts are not the exclusive rite of religious leaders, so I cannot agree with any of Mark Damazer's justification for the lack of free speech on TfTD.
I do not see why philosophers and inspirational thinkers from ALL walks of life cannot talk on TfTD about many different motivating subjects that are important to us (e.g. natures beauty, man's good will, great endevours, personal challenges, new knowledge, great successes etc.
Come on BBC, let's get a 'real' cross section of powerful thinkers to talk on the slot - see www.TED.com for a good example of the potential subject matter experts !
Complain about this comment
iPM would be a superb forum for discussing the Thought For The Day issue, and I was delighted when I discovered that it would be covered, but it was handled very poorly indeed. Please can we have another go at actually discussing the issues, with speakers relevant to the debate.
Complain about this comment
I would be keen to hear a proper response to the actual points made about TftD (in the iPM blog). The item on 10th Jan was cursory, dismissive and paid no heed to the meat of the concern.
Complain about this comment
I too listened to the piece on TFTD and thought IPM dealt poorly with the matter. I am no atheist fanatic or secularist nutter, just an ordinary bloke who cannot understand why TFTD is thrust into the lives of people who do not want it.
I fully understand Eddie's predicament, however, but the treatment of TFTD on IPM does raise serious concerns about the ability of the BBC to report impartially on matters concerning the BBC. I am in no way implying that Eddie received a fat purse of gold from Mark Damazer, merely stating the obvious.
Complain about this comment
The ongoing debate on the BBC Blog about whether secular speakers should be allowed on Thought for the Day has brought up a side issue ? Why are atheists speaking out more than they did ? is Richard Dawkin to blame? My own feeling is that atheists have got fed up with being dragged into wars and problems that are partly fuelled by religious extremists. Dawkin has done a great job, so have other writers including Daniel C Dennett. But my main questions is ? why has Dawkin not been honoured. In the New Years Honours list there were lots of sports people, which is great, but what about an honour for raising the standard of public debate, the popularisation of science, not to mention his earlier academic work in fostering the gene centred view which is now widely accepted along with the evolutionary view of the world.
Complain about this comment
Mr Damazer seems to believe that anything that doesn't actively promote religion is secular broadcasting. Presumably reading out a page from a phone directory would tick the secular audience box as far as he's concerned. Secular in fact refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based as much as possible on evidence and fact rather than religious influence.
As is well known Christian church attendance and literal belief in the Bible is in sharp decline, something that is unlikely to reverse itself. What is actually being discussed is a deeper issue as to what are suitable ethical and moral codes for the present day? The raison d'etre of Thought for the Day is to provide short moral homilies.
A contributor to a previous blog post commented that "alongside a decline in respect for Christianity in the media, we have seen a decline in social cohesion, family stability, trust and respect."
There may be many societal reasons for this, but I would argue that there has been no effort made to find or promote an alternative moral code suitable for these changing times. (I also don't think that religion leads inexorably to moral behaviour, there are plenty of examples from history and the world around us that question that assumption.)
The decline of religious belief (particularly Christian) has led many to look at various New Age ideas etc in search of alternatives, yet nothing coherent has emerged.
The way to promote morality is to promote morality in and of itself; not insist that to be moral you also have to believe in the supernatural. It is perfectly possible to have morality without religious belief. Humanists/agnostics/atheists do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if motivated by different principles.
What is needed is to base moral training on less precarious foundations than ancient myths, a belief in the supernatural and promises of rewards or threats of punishment after one has died.
Humanists/agnostics/atheists have taken the idea of defining moral codes (that don't spring from scriptures) very seriously, we can contribute to the debate about replenishing morality and moral behaviour in society.
If the Churches (and BBC) insist that morals and ethics can only come from religion then they are clinging to old ways of thinking that are demonstrably failing.
If the BBC sees part of its role as promoting ethics and exploring moral issues it could do worse than by inviting debate on TfTD as to the best way to promote morality in the 21st century, and including humanists/agnostics/atheists in that.
It?s now over 24 hours since Ariane Sherine broadcast her atheist Thought for the Afternoon. The heavens haven't fallen in and Mr Damazer hasn't been struck down by lightning. I do hope that this isn't going to be the be all and end all of giving humanists/agnostics/atheists airtime? Can Mr Damazer give an assurance that this won't be the case?
Given those who don't and can't believe in the Churches and their teachings now form such a large percentage of the UK population the BBC may find that solely trying to please the religious results in satisfying a rapidly diminishing share of its audience, whilst continuing to alienate a much larger share.
Can this issue now go to the BBC Trust, as humanists/agnostics/atheists now form a substantial proportion of licence fee payers, to ask if continuing to exclude humanists/agnostics/atheists from TfTD is judged to be in the interest of licence fee payers and gives full value?
Complain about this comment
I would like to see discussion of the BBC's ability to provide impartial journalism when it concerns matters inside the BBC itself. This is an important issue which has recently been highlighted on your program.
I would like to thank you for covering the subject of Thought of the Day this week.
As I am sure you will agree none of the comments you requested on Wednesday evening were discussed on Saturday's show. Therefore I recommend the subject is given further discussion, quoting arguments from the blog that were made for and against inclusion of secular speakers.
As well as some quoted arguments I think it would be worthwhile providing an impartial synopsis of the debate's conclusions, as well as confronting Mark with some of the questions asked and any response he feels appropriate.
Complain about this comment
Today on the World at One Gordon Brown claimed that the reduction in VAT to 15% would save everyone in the UK £270 p.a.
To do this, everyone would need to spend £10,800 (ex VAT) or £12,420 (including VAT at 15%) on VAT-able goods (10,800 * (0.175 - 0.15) = 270).
Given that food and a whole range of other everyday things don't attract VAT, I find it difficult to believe that this is likely. It certainly isn't true for me.
Do you know where this £270 p.a. saving figure comes from?
Complain about this comment
I was called Jock when I was in the forces is that a racist comment?
Complain about this comment
I guess DAEMANWOO it depends upon the spirit in which it was delivered and how it was received. I certainly hope it didn't cause offence.
More importantly, your message is most likely to be the subject of next Saturday's iPM broadcast. Either that or VAT savings.
That is, unless the BBC does the decent thing and reflects the majority of messages so far and actually has the promised debate about Religious Thought for the Day.
Complain about this comment
Home Information Packs
Does the Government need a HIP replacement?
A sensible diagnosis would conclude that the sooner the Home Information Pack is replaced or dropped the better. However, whilst the HIPs remain in existence, it is becoming increasingly clear that all residential property buyers and their advisers should remain extremely cautious and take steps to avoid being exposed to unnecessary risks.
In such an important thing as the buying of property, it is strange that the HIP has combined such incompatible bed-fellows. Under the regulations, I understand that the HIPs have a basic shelf life of, at least, one year. However, one of the bed-fellows, the Energy Performance part, includes information which would potentially live on for years after the information was first recorded. Whereas, one of the other bed-fellows, the searches part, will progressively deteriorate in its total value to a purchaser as each day goes by after finding out the details. This structural flaw in the HIP is likely to produce two basic results: (i) the seller has been forced by the Government to pay for something which is likely to be a waste of money; and (ii) that some purchasers may rely upon something which has to be provided by law and, yet, reliance upon it may lead to unknown problems in the future.
Even the Housing Minister (Caroline Flint at the time), has acknowledged, in a written answer to the writer's questions, that technically the searches information could be out of date the day after the search is undertaken, but she stressed that The Law Society and The Council of Mortgage Lenders advice is that searches should be no older than 6 months at the point of exchange.
".... no older than 6 months!...." Even if the 6 months were a sensible period for the search related information, that still means that the Government's creation of a one-year minimum shelf-life for the pack is entirely incompatible even with the advice of The Council of Mortgage Lenders and The Law Society; especially bearing in mind that the search related information in the pack can be up to 3 months old before the property is put on the market (SI 2007: 1667 15(1)). At the other extreme, there is no maximum life for the pack. Once a property is up for sale, it can stay on the market indefinitely with the same HIP information. If, however, the property is taken off the market for more than 12 months for any reason, other than for a firm offer being accepted, then the pack must be updated. Where, following a firm offer, the buyer fails to go ahead, providing the property is put back on the market in 28 days, it can stay on the market indefinitely with the same pack.
It is hard to believe that The Law Society should endorse the idea that the searches should be no older than 6 months at the point of exchange, however, upon raising the question with The Law Society the following confirmation was received:-
"The Council of Mortgage Lenders' advice to their members is that searches should be no older than 6 months at the point of exchange and The Law Society supports this advice, but stresses that 6 months is the absolute cut-off. Solicitors are expected to use their professional judgement as to whether an updated survey would need to be conducted. There would be a difference for example if a property was located in a quiet rural or suburban area or a built up urban area."
The Law Society's point about Solicitors being expected to use their professional judgement seems to be quite incompatible with the Society's support for The Council of Mortgage Lender's advice. Professional judgement is obviously the bedrock of the Solicitor's work and, in the context of the HIPs, it is difficult to see how any Solicitor could feel wholly comfortable about relying upon something which is 6 months old, but which could potentially be unreliable the day after its creation. Moreover, it is difficult to see how any Solicitor could feel at all comfortable about relying upon something which is created as a precondition for putting a property on the market in the first place as opposed to serving the sole interests of a particular purchaser at the exchange of contracts.
I am wondering how many of your contributors, professional and others, share similar views and are, like me, keen to see this obscure package abandoned.
Complain about this comment
Hello..
Couple of updates. Thanks for the comments here and elsewhere about where to go and what to look at this week.
Clearly, there there is on going interest / concern about the TFTD issue. We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made.
On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry.
The question has been asked - is it difficult for the BBC to report about the BBC? Yes. But each week iPM picks up on a number of suggestions from the blog / inbox. So the plan is never to cover just the one story though I accept we could have devoted the entire programme to the debate. We'll keep you posted regarding our follow up calls.
This week we're following some potentially interesting leads about looking after those in an apprenticeship, possibly something about the stigma of being made redundant, Jen's working on a story that involves dinner and we might talk football.
More here soon,
Rupert
( iPM Ed )
Complain about this comment
Rupert, following on from your comment above and a couple of comments on the (huge) Thought for the Day thread, could iPM perhaps do an item on the background of journalists and how that affects the way they cover stories?
I'm thinking specifically about english/history/arts/humanities graduates covering science stories, but I'm sure the issue is a lot wider than that. Perhaps I'm mistaken in imagining that the subjects above are over-represented in journalism, but it would be interesting to find out.
Would the PM/iPM team be willing to talk about their backgrounds and whether those backgrounds help or hinder them when covering certain subjects? Difficult for the BBC to report about the BBC. How much more... let's say challenging for journalists to report about journalists? :o)
Complain about this comment
Rupert Allman, you are trying to get 'the main players' re: the TfTD slot.
You might want to tell Mark Damazer that he is a civil servant, the BBC is state-owned, I pay my licence fee as do the people who are asking for him to answer our questions...hence he works for US and we are his employers...possibly he could treat us with the respect that an employee should treat the hands that feed him.
Just a Thought for The Day for him...a secular one but I am sure he will still get the meaning of it.
Thank you very much.
Complain about this comment
nl 8, Eastenders is thrust in my face every day. I found a great solution, I don't watch it.
Complain about this comment
David_McNickle wrote "nl 8, Eastenders is thrust in my face every day. I found a great solution, I don't watch it."
Not the same:
1. Eastenders is fiction, and it does not claim to represent the moral faith.
2. It is not slotted within a "News and Current affairs" programme.
3. It does not provide an unopposed soap box for so called moralising and ethics from people who have absolutely no authority to speak from (whatever they may claim they believe or represent).
Although....Perhaps if TftD was catergorised as fiction, and renamed "Jackanory" then perhaps people would have less objections...
Complain about this comment
Why don't you ever have any Witches or Pagan speakers on TFTD ?? Probably because they're far too sensible to get entagled in all that church and state nonsense.
I would prefer someone spirtual to speak, rather than a religious person.
To be religion equates to dogma.
Lastly, as it is called "thought" for the day, and anyone is capable of sharing a thought - religious or not, why not invite anyone on to speak... then you really would get to hear the voice of the nation.
Complain about this comment
Dear Sir,
I wish to take ourselves to two days ago. Prince Harry has appologised:good or bad!! I don't care.
But, how can we regulate people who abuse us in steets and restaurants?
Complain about this comment
In the light of the BBC series on the collapse of the banking system which started with Evan Davies programme last night, Shelley's poem Ozymandias seems to have a resonance.
"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Perhaps a sculpture as described should be erected in the City or Canary Wharf with the famous two line inscription to remind subsequent generations who may allow themselves to think that they are masters of the universe of recent events?
Complain about this comment
Dear iPM
You claim to be 'interactive'. Most of your stories, sadly, attract very little interest.
One story is more popular than all of the others you have suggested in the last month put together:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/thought_for_the_day_a_genuinel.shtml
Your editor has already apologised online for the poor manner in which it was covered on the iPM show last week.
Please do the decent thing and dedicate this Saturday's show to covering this issue properly.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me that is linking Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto of WWII?
How many children need to die before Hamas and Israel see an end to this genocide. They are both responsible.
"The Holocaust was the determining event in modern Jewish history, and has greatly shaped Israeli identity. But if 'Never Again' means anything, it means not just memorialising the six million, but also trying to stop present day genocides..."
Is "never again" just for Jews?
Complain about this comment
May I suggest a story relating to the credit crunch and redundancy?
My partner works for a company based in another European country - but they're part of a global conglomerate.
He's not facing redundancy(yet) but a real worry to us is that there is a massive discrepancy between employment law in different European countries (and that's not to mention the USA)
If he were to be paid off he would get (the legal minimum) of one and a half weeks pay for every year of service. For him this would be approx 15K. However, should his colleagues be paid off under their national law they'd get half a years salary - all tax free. Guess who it's easier to get rid of? And across Europe most EU countries have significantly better employment law than the UK. We could find unemployment here higher where people in Europe can do the job by travelling and cut a UK post.
Complain about this comment
I have long been fascinated by the sub-servant relationship the UK has with the US often described as a special relationship.
This is about to change with Obama?s inauguration as all will be equal in his eyes, however one wonders sometimes whether there is not something the British people need to know.
It s clear today that Trident is an issue and who really controls the missiles, we have troops dying in Afghanistan and have died in Iran for what, an international solidarity where the threat is in the minds of politicians. Where is the evidence that supports such vast waste of life, energy and enterprise that we blindly follow the failed US doctrines?
What don't we know about the relationship and the giving up of the empire for dollar rule?
Complain about this comment
My suggestion for a future story is how governments past and present never seem to openly take on social engineering issues rather than spin engineering. Most decisions taken by any government end up either not working, costing the taxpayer a fortune, or both!
There are plenty of things that can be done in society to set things right, and make a real difference to the vast majority of us, and yet successive governments over the years bauk at the prospect of offending what amounts to a small minority - totally at the cost of the great majority.
Simple examples include:-
(1) Capital Punishment.
It is well know that over 80% of the population are in favour of bringing back the death penalty for mass murderers and child killers. Yet that vast majority are ignored because of the tiny risk of "topping an innocent person". Well, even if I were that innocent person, as long as a large number of likely-to-kill-again murderers were executed ahead of me, I'd feel it to be a price worth paying, and would face my death knowing a similar number of guilty parties again would face the same fate before another innocent shared my situation.
(2) Illegitimacy
Today's society does not encourage parents to stay together, let alone get married. Once, kids born out of wedlock were stigmatised. Whilst I don't advocate a return to such short-sighted views, I would like to see benefits in society for legitimate children, such as a significantly higher child benefit rate for instance. We already see atheists in this day and age choosing faith schools for their kids because of their high academic reputation. If marriage became just as "viable" to those who don't believe in it, we'd see a lot less underprivaledged kids from broken homes later on.
(3) People don't "go broke" because they lose all their cash-in-hand, but because they can no longer service any debts they have. Responsible lending should be in the eye of the beholder. If banks lend money, and then the borrower defaults, then either:-
(a) A creditworthy borrower fell on bad times
or
(b) The bank lent to someone unsuitable for credit (the scenario that more likely has led to today's economic scenario).
Since (a) doesn't deserve to be punished long term and (b) presents little likelyhood of the lender getting their money back, it would make sense for the lender to make the decision for the entire debt straight away, and remove the middle-men of debt collectors, insolvency practicioners, and court receivers. In other words, lending money becomes the gamble it is. If your horse falls, you lose your money invested - simple. The lender has a reasonable time frame to extract as much money out of what the borrower has at that time - not 5 or 15 years later as is the case now. The latter (current) scenario keeps borrowers in limbo for years, and might as well be a prison sentence.
(4) Education
There have been some changes over the years in education, but for the majority in the country, above average (but not genius) pupils are not encouraged through the full potential of their abilities by scholarships, and the like. If you have say, and IQ of 130-150 but come from a family of limited means, then you don't get to go to university, and the disenfranchised party might well end up 'batting for a questionable team'.
Society is not allowed to discriminate over race, religion, or nationality. However, there are no social safeguards for intellectual discrimination. A company is not obliged to employ the best qualified, merely the one who's face fits best AND meets the "minimum qualification" requirements. If such institutional "intellectualism" did not occur, then we would never hear the remark "This person is overqualified" by employers turning down the very smartest candidates, merely because they have taken a personal dislike to them. "Intellectualism" should therefore be added to the list of "non-discrimination" legislature.
Complain about this comment
May I draw your attention towards a change in the immigration law that was brought about in 2006 ( or thereabouts)
Until this change people who had legally lived and worked in UK for four consecutive years were entitled to an 'Indefinite Leave to Remain'.
With this change, people are now required to live and work for 5 consecutive years. So far, so good.
Should this have been applied retrospectively? People who came to UK say in 2004 or 2005 with 4-years in mind, should they now be required to live and work for 5. Should it not have applied only to people, coming to UK after the law was changed.
I believe this is akin to inviting people to board a ship at a predetermined fare; and then increasing the fare half way through.
Furthermore the state is considering implementing further changes; I hope not retrospectively.
Complain about this comment
At 10:10am on 13 Jan 2009, Rupert Allman - Radio 4 wrote:
Hello..
Couple of updates. Thanks for the comments here and elsewhere about where to go and what to look at this week.
Clearly, there there is on going interest / concern about the TFTD issue. We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made.
On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry.
The question has been asked - is it difficult for the BBC to report about the BBC? Yes. But each week iPM picks up on a number of suggestions from the blog / inbox. So the plan is never to cover just the one story though I accept we could have devoted the entire programme to the debate. We'll keep you posted regarding our follow up calls.
This week we're following some potentially interesting leads about looking after those in an apprenticeship, possibly something about the stigma of being made redundant, Jen's working on a story that involves dinner and we might talk football.
More here soon,
Rupert
( iPM Ed )
I'm sure many of your bloggers and listeners are eagerly looking forward to the issue being properly aired tomorrow evening.
You promised 'calls have been made' and 'more here soon'. Are you now able to give us an update?
If Mr Damazer or a senior official at the BBC is not prepared to debate this issue, it is a scandal and iPM is effectively worthless. I hope you appreciate the strength of feeling from the 444 posts on the main thread for this subject - clearly your most popular story for months (if not ever?).
Assuming you have journalistic integrity, I am sure you will do the right thing.
Complain about this comment
Something to consider,- did you know that more people from the UK are visiting the nasa.tv website,- more then from the US?
Complain about this comment
Please ask Mr Damazer to debate his policy live on air during iPM. I would be more than happy to ask the questions that he has yet to answer re TftD
Graham Davis
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS