« Previous | Main | Next »

The Glass Box for Thursday

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 16:37 UK time, Thursday, 12 July 2007

The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.

Just click on the "comment" link.

The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.

The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond.

If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?

Comments

  1. At 05:12 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    I'm with Ann Tarrant - the HMQ story is a non-story, and certainly not worth the coverage time so far.
    UGH!
    ed

  2. At 05:16 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Rory McSwiggan wrote:

    Why is Kelvin McKenzie trying to ruin documentaries by insisting that contributors don't sign release forms until they've seen the finished product?

    Are we to assume that everybody he's ever written about or interviewed has had the power of veto over what was published? Unlikely

  3. At 05:23 PM on 12 Jul 2007, d. green wrote:

    BUSH-
    "Based on principles, not on politics"

    Does that mean Bush's politics have no principles?

  4. At 05:26 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Colin McAuley wrote:

    Often I have wondered exactly on what planet George W. Bush born. Now I know. It was the "Planet of rose-tinted Glasses". Apparently a collapsed star, or black hole, exists nearby. It is called "Cheney's Bane".

  5. At 05:35 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Charles wrote:

    I am shocked that the Queen should have been smeared in this way on the same day that she has been at the Menin Gate paying tribute to 300,000 British and Empire soldiers who gave their lives for King and Country in the most horrific circumstances. The BBC should do more than just apologise for what has happened today.

  6. At 05:48 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Markham Weavill wrote:

    Well the interview with Whittam Smith showed exactly why the majority of the British public and the rest of the world think that honours are Ruritanian. Did I believe his explanation for Rushdie's honour? No. I didn't tonight or when he was on the Politics Show the other week.

    This is a man who edited a major broadsheet newspaper for years and he didn't see the political beartrap? Does he think we all read the Daily Sport?

  7. At 05:51 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Ann Tarrant wrote:

    I see I failed, threatening to come & burn the script didn't change the lead 'story'.
    The prog. redeemed itself with Hugh Sykes' as ever admirable reporting, & the snippet of the interview with Iraqi MPs, though I wish you'd repeated all of it.

  8. At 05:52 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Eloise Pasteur wrote:

    Liked the Japanese elections piece, about campaigning in Second Life and online.

    Nice to see you're staying cutting edge though Eddie, it was all over the SLogosphere a month ago though: http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/06/11/suzuki-sans-virtual-office-may-be-illegal/

  9. At 05:59 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Frances Minto wrote:

    About Bottled Water.
    I am immunesuppressed due to a transplant and have been advised not to drink bottled water, but only tap. That shows that not only is piped water cheaper and not wasting resources, but better for you too. Bottled water is like selling air, you should have a right to access clean water at any time, not having to buy the right to drink safely.
    Frances Minto
    West Yorkshire

  10. At 06:05 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Charles wrote:

    Re Mr Weavill's comments about the Andreas Whittam Smith interview, there were some interesting omissions. For example, AWS seemed vague about how the Rushdie name came to be on the list for consideration and careful about naming other decision makers - I wonder why?

    ps. That's a rhetorical question!

  11. At 06:10 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Money's-too-tight-to-mention wrote:

    Thank goodness I am blessed with the kind of tightness that insists on tap water, even in the most expensive restaurants. I just love the look on their faces when I clarify that I am indeed asking for tap water. Priceless.

  12. At 06:17 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Frances Minto,

    I agree that clean water, like air, is an inalienable right. I rejoice in my good fortune, having gravity-fed spring water as our 'mains'. It has provided me any my family with a thoroughly balanced internal flora and general immunities.

    We flush our toilets with better water than you
    can buy!

    xx
    ed

  13. At 06:42 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Tim Jones wrote:

    Far from being a "non" story the incorrect editing (aka lying) of the Queen's photo shot, is a major breakdown of trust. If we can not believe what the BBC tells us on air and screen then we lose trust in what we hear and see. How can we believe that Hugh Sykes is reporting from abroad and not the comfort of broadcasting house? Or Eddie even, might not
    be real?

  14. At 06:48 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Peter Bolt wrote:

    The former Editor of The Sun (can`t spell his name) has convinced me.
    The BBC should get out of TV which is, by its nature, `populist` rather than popular.
    The Beeb should put all its resources into Radio where, I think, its world position is almost unassilable.
    The role of the BBC in TV should be as a Distributor, and in that role it could exercise real control, which is exactly what happens in the cinema.

  15. At 07:09 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Charles wrote:

    Absolutely, Mr Jones.

    The most significant item in today's news should be the Queen's visit to Passchendaele. This profound occasion has been irreparably compromised by the BBC smear. Whoever is responsible should resign immediately.

  16. At 07:33 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Piper wrote:

    ...still waiting, some 3 hours later, for the "Mandari discussion" @19.31..?

  17. At 08:15 PM on 12 Jul 2007, anth wrote:

    I missed much of PM, but did catch the water debate.

    The problem with tap water is that it's frequently rather warmer than the bottled water. Even if they do throw a couple of ice cubes in the jug. Now I know that humans have an (inherited) suspicion of warmish water over cold spring water, but I really do prefer my water cold. I do enjoy sparkling water on occasion, I would be very worried if that came out of a tap.

    My (Thames) tap-water is extremely hard, and the chalk build-up is a dirty brown (that in E Anglia was almost blue-ish white), so I filter mine for drinking/cooking, keeping some in the fridge for the as and when.

    Today I was on the road, and stopping at a petrol station, all I could find was bottled water, bottled fruit juices and a huge selection of "pops". Even if I had dared to ask for tap water, there was nothing for it to be served to me in (and anyway the bottled water was cold, but these open fridges are a huge energy waste...

  18. At 08:19 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Philip wrote:

    I was extremely upset to hear Eddie's pusillanimous behaviour over the Rushdie Knighthood. The BBC has no problem offending Christians or Jews, yet the appeasing grovelling and suggestions that the Knighthood should have been witheld because it might have upset some Muslims was yet another example of the BBCs sickening toadying to the forces of illiberalism and extremism. They can fake interviews with the Queen, rip off the children on Blue Peter, but perish the thought they should stand up for liberal values and free speech where Islam is concerned. All we need now is Mr Mair walking off a plane from Tehran waving a piece of paper saying "it's free speech for our time".

  19. At 10:43 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Tony Lake wrote:

    I think I heard tonight that someone was using glasses to invert an image and live with it. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS.
    When I did my degree in Applied Science we studied the case of a scientist who tried it. His brain did re-invert the image and he was able to work thereafter. When he took the glasses off his brain had a serious malfunction from which he only just emerged. In my opinion the current experiment is foolhardy and could lead to long term mental damage.

  20. At 11:21 PM on 12 Jul 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Re; Ed I and Anne Tarrant.

    I'm afraid I have to disagree with both of you.

    The Paris Hilton story was really a non-story - apart from the fact she is rich, and made a porno film on the Internet, she is of little interest.

    Here we have the National public service broadcaster (BBC) misleading the press by providing false information about the scene in the clip.

    It all boils down to trust.

    If the BBC can't get this right then can we believe all we hear on PM? -

    Most people will know the BBC motto: Nation shall speak unto Nation.

    In 1934 (and an old engineering book of mine holds testament) the logo was changed to

    'Quaecunque'

    meaning 'Whatsoever' - things are honest. During the 2nd world war the original motto returned.

    Has the BBC forgotten the short lived, possibly more important motto?

  21. At 12:00 AM on 13 Jul 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Oh - and forgot to mention that I like the little Glassbox comments feature.

    Amanda has the most wholesome voice and can read with the upmost eloquence and style adding the precise amount of panache to the programme.

    Well done to Amanda and the team. It's lovely to observe one's ex colleagues progression in life through the media.

    Dogs anal glands at Five in the morning with Bradley on LBC through to Eddie's Glassbox letters at Five in the Evening on the BBC. ;-) - you are moving in the right direction.

  22. At 01:12 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    And, on bottled water, I'd like to remind all froggers that a certain brand known to sponsor snooker is owned and operated by absentees who are practicing clearance in the 21st century. In my opinion, based on the evidence, all that matters to these landowners is their precious brand and hunting deer and such for more rich absentees.

    A good subject for a brand-based boycott, I reckon.

    xx
    ed

  23. At 10:58 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    I could care less whether someone in Islamabd or Teheran gets upset about the Rushdie knighthood.

    What I'd like too know is; Given that his literature is terminally turgid and unreadable why did anyone think to offer him an honour in the first place? It would be right to honour him (or anyone else) in Britain if their work and life has made a significant difference to the lives of the British people, or to the world. But has he? What has he actually DONE which means that he deserved such an honour?

    Si.

  24. At 12:03 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    23 You are 2/3 of the way to a knighthood already. What do most knights do to deserve Si(r) in their name? Do they donate to party funds or something? When I was a student they used to say that a large benefactor was looking for a knighthood.

    I've just checked, and he succeeded.

  25. At 12:50 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Neil Hainsworth wrote:

    Mr Rushdie's knighthood upsets muslims. Well I get upset too by the likes of Bono getting a knighthood (honorary, I know). Such entertainers earn millions from doing what they enjoy and then get an award to say how wonderful they are. However, theycan all sleep easily as I have no intention of issuing any kind of fatwa.
    The whole honors system should be scrapped.
    Neil Hainsworth

  26. At 01:23 PM on 13 Jul 2007, mac wrote:

    Two points.

    Even on re - edit it does sound as if the Queen is no longer with us.

    'Less dressy'
    'What do you think this is?'


    A joke or demntia?

    P'haps Charles will be on throne sooner than we hoped.


    Secondly:

    If Fincham is looking for a reason to resign there are plenty.

    One is the way announcers hold monopoly positions.

    Two years ago was 7/7. A country and a capital uncerain, fearful.

    So what happens to Question Time? Well, D. Dimbleby goes off on his hols. So no public access TV discussion.

    This week the PM says 'Lets discuss policy before the Queen's speech since by then its already becoming law.'

    Where is QT to lead a TV discussion on the bills-to-be?? Sorry, but D.D. is on holiday again.

    Why can't the BBC run QT without David?

    Related is how we can elect a new government but not choose our news casters. Moira for the 8 pm cast!

    Mac.

  27. At 04:27 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Giles Butler wrote:

    I had to chuckle at the bottled water fiasco - Consider that water costs more than petrol per litre from a shop......is flown to Afghanistan and Iraq at $17.00 a litre bottle- and that the troops that do not have bottled water -get heavily chlorinated filth because the MoD have not got round to enabling the provision of clean tasting water away from base to its complete Army infrastructure.

    Over 30 recorded cases of sickness alone from Camp Bastion since March from water disease causatives -
    Maybe the $17.00 a litre is worth it from us Uk taxpayers?

  28. At 09:34 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Paul wrote:

    Philip (18) I agree with everything you say. If you you mention for example, Israel's right to exist you get the BBC's grovelling cronies on your back.

    They know who they are.

    Talk about spin misrepresentation and downright lies. Look no further than the BBC.

  29. At 11:58 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Pauln (28),

    "If you you mention for example, Israel's right to exist you get the BBC's grovelling cronies on your back."

    Sorry but I'm not a crony nor a groveller, but I would be truly grateful if you could explain to me just exactly what leads you to believe Israel has a right to exist.

    I'm not certain that it has, but I'll be glad to hear your reasoning. Convince me.

    In anticipation,

    ed

  30. At 08:18 AM on 14 Jul 2007, Paul wrote:

    Ed. Thanks for graphically illustrating my point.

  31. At 11:18 AM on 14 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Paul 30),

    Call that an answer? I specifically stated that I'm neither a crony nor a groveller. What are you? An apologist for the rights of arrogance, cruelty, racism and aggression?

    Israel's "right to exist" is founded, if at all, in her membership of the UN, and since admission, she has constantly refused to fulfil the obligations thereof. Thus any "right" appertaining thereto must be in doubt.

    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

    People have an inherent and inalienable right to exist; nations do not.

  32. At 03:45 PM on 14 Jul 2007, Paul wrote:

    Ed Once again thank you for illuminating the sort of intellectual arrogance which is endemic in the BBC.
    Oh, and that's not just my opinion.

  33. At 06:54 PM on 14 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Paul,

    How about some arguments or facts, for a change?

  34. At 08:12 PM on 14 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Ed;
    Don't feed them....

    Si.

  35. At 09:40 PM on 14 Jul 2007, Paul wrote:

    That's right Ed don't feed them. Hail all those like minded bigots.

  36. At 08:35 AM on 15 Jul 2007, Tam wrote:

    It was report this morning that the BBC was at the centre of a new row over DOCTORED footage. It was admitted that the 'Newsnight' programme changed the sequence of events in a film highly critical of Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown's office complained that footage was UNFAIR, UNBALANCED, UNESSERRILY PERSONAL AND DISENGENUOUS. They claim the film was ALTERED in an attempt to make him look a thug.

    Once again we the public have to watch while the BBC 'doctors' and manipulates current affairs in order to support it's own political and ideological viewpoint.

  37. At 02:21 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Paul Spice wrote:

    I've been listening all week to the "new idea" of an opt out system for organ donation. Back in the early eighties (25 years ago) I was the founder and president of the Non Donor Register, which I established without government aid as an opt out system to ensure adequate supply of organs for medical tranfer. Although the NDR received some serious publicity, mostly I was ridiculed as a crank, and even had some hate mail and one death threat!
    Times change, I am pleased to see that (maybe) some persons now realise this is the only way to help the dearth of organs.
    From the President of the Non Donor Register, Paul Spice.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.