« Previous | Main | Next »

The AM Glass Box

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 05:54 UK time, Thursday, 4 June 2009

glassam1.JPG
Welcome to the AM Glass Box - your chance to help shape tonight's PM.

You may have read your morning paper and listened to the radio, and have some ideas you want to hear on PM tonight.

Perhaps a question about something in the news you would like answered - or better still, direct experience of something topical. Or maybe there's an aspect to a big story you haven't heard explored that you would like to hear.

Just as the PM Glass Box emulates the meeting we have AFTER the show, the AM Glass Box will be like the real meeting we have every day at 11.00, in that all ideas are welcome.

Just like the real meeting, most ideas that are suggested will not make it on air. But we would like to try this to see how it works. It's best that you make your suggestion before 10am.

Comments

  • 1. At 06:19am on 04 Jun 2009, Joe_Palooka wrote:

    There have been no comments made here yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 08:33am on 04 Jun 2009, RJMolesworth wrote:

    The Guardian revealed the results of a readers poll which showed that, of its readers,

    84% want a written constitution
    82% an elected House of Lords
    79% want voting reform

    and that 50% thought that the reform that would make the most positive improvement to parliament is proportional representation.

    Perhaps PM could phone some of the other papers and ask them to run similar polls. Would Telegraph voters feel the same way?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 08:43am on 04 Jun 2009, madasastickchick wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 4. At 08:50am on 04 Jun 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    Well well, Eddie. I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't just heard it but - allegedly - an MoP with more front than - what seasides still have fronts in Great Britain - Blackpool perhaps?

    Edward Leigh just asked John Humphrys what he (John) earned on live radio! Data Protection Act quoted? Quelle courage, Monseiur Leigh.

    Top BBC presenters wages eh?

    So PM - on live radio, and under the just invented "Wish to Be Nosey Act" - can Eddie and Carolyn reveal their individual annual salaries - whilst sitting next to one another in a studio - and then - well - just keep the microphones on. lol

    A Member of Parliament on his - alleged - high horse about other peoples money. My goodness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 08:52am on 04 Jun 2009, godisaboy wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 6. At 08:56am on 04 Jun 2009, Richard_SM wrote:


    Ref 2. RJMolesworth

    When there are such important issues facing the country, it was extraordinary that PM Prog recently decided to find out how well people know their neighbours!

    They could have put their poll results to different politicians speaking on PM Programme time and time again.

    Are PM inept?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 09:01am on 04 Jun 2009, Anne P. wrote:

    Richard (6) but the PM poll revealed I think that we know our neighbours a great deal better than we know our politicians - at least until the recent revelations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 09:04am on 04 Jun 2009, DI_Wyman wrote:

    When is a child not a child? When they are 4' 11" tall!
    Surely discrimination because of their height?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 09:07am on 04 Jun 2009, skintnick wrote:

    Capitalistism is predicated upon growth, that fact would be accepted by any economist.
    That growth demands resources which are running out - unlimited growth is impossible in a world with finite resources.
    So, if we accept that over-exploitation of resources (fossil fuels, forests, oceans etc.) is what has taken the ecosystem we purport to be stewards of to the brink of collapse, and therefore reduce our use (at least) to sustainable limits, economic growth must be prevented and the capitalist system breaks down.
    This is the essential dilemma of our time and goes unacknowledged by ANY of the political parties (I wonder if the Greens are the exception).
    That provides me with a much more critical reason for political despair than "fingers-in-the-till" .

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:09am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    Can the moderators please explain why they are allowing through posts from somebody whose sole aim appears to be to advertise a sports betting site? This despite several complaints to them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 09:17am on 04 Jun 2009, Richard_SM wrote:


    Ref 4. steelpulse

    Somebody in the House of Commons raised the issue of a maximum wage yesterday. Many people are now realising that salaries running into millions of pounds cannot be justified in any way. If everyone's capabilities were measured on a percentage scale, nobody would be rated 100%. The difference between 'average' people and those given huge salaries would be relatively small. Why is someone paid 30 times more than another, when the difference in capability might only be 10%. And if anyone is still in any doubt, one only has to look at the bankers who have been paid 'fortunes,' and have not demonstrated any outstanding capabilities.

    There's a different debate on those who risk their own capital, but salaried positions which carry no financial risk should be realistic.



    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 09:19am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    On today's programme I would like the following:

    No talk of Hazel Blears, or other defectors (unless there are any newcomers to their ranks today)
    No talk of emails circulating around Westminster


    I'd like to hear about voters exercising their democratic duty, but using the ballot box wisely and with due consideration of the consequences of their actions.

    I'd also like to hear about positive steps to sort out the MPs expenses mess, which is not a party political issue, but which affects us all inasmuch as it influences how we feel about politics and elections.

    I'd also like to follow the progress of Mr. Obama in the Middle East, since he is in a position to influence issues there and help promote peaceful coexistence in the region.

    In short, I'd like to teach the world to sing .... Oh, you know what I mean - I'd like some positive news!

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 09:22am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    DiY (8): Interestingly, this still qualifies the MP for Salford for the cheaper menu. ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 09:31am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    I am sorry to go back to this point but this seems to be the only place where I can raise the issue.

    Post 5 above linked (before the url was removed) to a betting website. If you click on the poster's name, you will see that s/he has been posting links to this website across BBC blogs again today, having tried this tactic on other days.

    When I complained to the moderators about this, my complaint was rejected.

    When did the BBC blog network consider it correct to allow the advertising of betting websites to be appropriate on their blogs? Quite apart from anything else, and despite the several contraventions of the House Rules which are involved, these forums are open to children and I would have thought the BBC would not wish to be seen to promoting access to betting (which is gambling!) sites to minors.

    Can somebody PLEASE get a grip on this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 09:33am on 04 Jun 2009, madasastickchick wrote:

    Eddie, one small step for man, get these researchers on the programme to answer questions of pointless time wasting.

    Was there ever any doubt these were the immortal words Armstrong uttered when first alighting? Why such inane research now.

    And relax

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:58am on 04 Jun 2009, U12196018 wrote:

    Big Sis (14) - The link to the betting website was posted to six different BBC websites, within a six minute period this morning, by the same poster. There may be other sites that I haven't seen.

    Of those 6 sites, the link has been removed on 3 of them. It may not be the same moderators for each site and/or they may have not made the connection between them. Removing the link seems reasonable enough.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:59am on 04 Jun 2009, jonnie wrote:

    Best just to ignore it BigSister

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:00am on 04 Jun 2009, Richard_SM wrote:


    Betting Website Links:

    "Of those 6 sites, the link has been removed on 3 of them."

    Oh well that's OK then!

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:03am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    Jonnie: Like the moderators, eh?

    I suspect I'm not alone in thinking their approach to this is very odd given how quick they are to act against regular posters. ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:06am on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    Sorry, as an addendum to my last post. I am a moderator on a forum myself and know it is extremely easy to set up a ban on an IP address that keeps trying to spam in this way. Godisaboy was removed from BBC websites a few days ago as a result of a similar spamming episode. If moderation is to mean anything, I would have thought the BBC mods would have wanted to clamp down on this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 10:24am on 04 Jun 2009, CarolineOfBrunswick wrote:

    Is Jersey bracing itself for invasion (by Mark Thomas)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:44am on 04 Jun 2009, Mr Chris Rock wrote:

    The recent crash of the Air France flight from Brazil has, rightly, dominated the news.
    Why isn't the same focus given to deaths and injuries on British roads? Numbers run into thousands each year, but this is ignored by the media and public to an astounding extent. It's anarchy out there on the roads (speeding, illegal parking, crossing red lights, tailgating...), yet it's all brushed under the carpet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:45am on 04 Jun 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Big Sis,

    I'm with you 100%.

    Even if I ignore it, my kids might not as many vulnerable people might not. Apart from it being illegal!

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:46am on 04 Jun 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    I'm just off to vote now. Won't make up my mind till in the booth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:48am on 04 Jun 2009, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    FJD (24):

    Say hello to Cherie while you're there...

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 10:50am on 04 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    I've submitted a complaint against each of the posts across the various BBC blogs that they've appeared (including Springwatch!). So far one has come back saying that it doesn't breach house rules....

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:06am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 10, I just got back from working at a polling station to discover that a post of mine had been removed. I have no idea what rule it broke.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:21am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    I see the 'Green Ink Brigade' are at it quite early today.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:29am on 04 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    D McN (28) When someone is sending Spam posts to a number of BBC blogs, containing a link to a gambling site, I'd hardly call referring that to the moderators a "green ink" moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:29am on 04 Jun 2009, Thunderbird wrote:

    David (27) I have a post removed last week for electioneering. All I was doing was expressing an opinion

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 11:31am on 04 Jun 2009, U12196018 wrote:

    Fearless (26) - The link to the betting site has now gone on all the blogs that I can see. The rest of the post remains for the majority of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 11:35am on 04 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    In a couple of cases, they've actually taken the whole post. There's been a few cases of spam appearing on the blog system over the last few months. I hope we don't see a flood of them appearing....

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 11:36am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    Tbird 30, Sid's been electioneering for the L-Ds for some time, and I've been coming close to it.

    TIH 31, You can rest easy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 11:46am on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    I complained about 14 posts by giab yesterday - I've had confirmation of removal for at least 8. His profile currently shows only 5 'live' messages, of which one didn't contain the link, and the remaining four have had it removed.

    I suppose we should talk about this on the moderation thread, but it would be nice if the moderators could be given leeway to look at users' profiles and automatically remove spam (i.e. same message posted to 12+ BBC blogs within a few minutes of each other). Given all his 'live' posts earlier this week contained the link, I have to wonder how he got through the new user pre-mod period (unless this process is largely / entirely automated)...

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 11:49am on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Needless to say, if you spot something that looks like spam, as well as complaining about the particular post you've seen, it's worthwhile viewing the user's profile and complaining about the rest of the spam they've posted elsewhere in the BBC Blog network...

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 11:49am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    A little old lady stopped at a roadside cafe used by truckers and asked for a demitasse of coffee. The waiter brought her a large trucker-size mug. When she said that she asked for a demitasse, the waiter told her to drink wh\at she wanted and leave the rest. Moral, read the posts you want and ignore the rest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:08pm on 04 Jun 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    David (25)

    Same thing with my (24). All I did was tell people that I was going to vote now, wish me well. I didn't mention any party. I got modded!?

    WHY!?

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 12:09pm on 04 Jun 2009, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    DMcN @ 36, I think the point here may be that the individuals who complained are unlikely to want to go to a betting-site themselves (and if they do will be able to find one for themselves without someone proselytising for it) but object, and I think reasonably, to advertisements for a betting-site being placed on what is supposed to be an non-advertising blog, and in a place where someone might come across it by accident and be tempted to use it.

    I woud object equally to advertisement for drugs (such as viagra) or alcohol on this blog; It's the wrong place for this sort of nuisance.

    Sure, I can scroll past these posts just as I do past very long posts that I have reason to think will be boring and irrelevant, but I shouldn't have to.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 12:11pm on 04 Jun 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    I meant david (25)

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:12pm on 04 Jun 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Der! (27)

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 12:12pm on 04 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Chris (38) Which very long posts that you think will be boring and irrelevant would that be? :-p

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 12:36pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 43. At 12:55pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 44. At 1:00pm on 04 Jun 2009, Sutara wrote:

    This issue of the BBC not disclosing to the NAO the amounts of remuneration paid to its 'stars' is surely just as potentially damaging for Auntie as the reluctance of MPs to permit their expenses to be scrutinised.

    What possible justification can BBC managers have, given that they are paying these stars money from the public purse as a public broadcaster for not cooperating with the National Audit Office's scrutiny of their ability to deliver value for money?

    It's like a Social Services Department refusing to co-operate with an investigation into how they handled a child protection case.

    And it can only harm the BBC's reputation unless resovled quickly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 1:02pm on 04 Jun 2009, Sutara wrote:

    #38. Chris_Ghoti

    Simpler than that - it's contrary to the House Rules that participants agreed to comply with.

    If people do that sort of thing on BBC blogs then they should expect to be sanctioned or, in extreme cases, be banned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:05pm on 04 Jun 2009, Sutara wrote:

    27. At 11:06am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    "... to discover that a post of mine had been removed. I have no idea what rule it broke."

    That IS something of a problem with the BBC Moderation systems.

    Especially if, in the Mods' view, you may have defamed someone or something - it can be difficult sometimes to guess just what or who they think you have defamed and they don't make that specific in the email they send to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:09pm on 04 Jun 2009, T8-eh-T8 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 48. At 1:21pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    Can Charles save the monarch and his own kingship?

    Can Fred the Shred save his pension and knighthood?

    Can Gordon save the banks and capitalism?



    Should they? Just because they can? Should they even try?

    Aren't there better ways to arrange things than monarchy, huge inequalities and capitalism? Questions no PM seems to consider often. Is now the time?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 1:22pm on 04 Jun 2009, DI_Wyman wrote:

    Crickey - more spam!

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 1:23pm on 04 Jun 2009, arealjohnsmith wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 51. At 1:25pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    We are the Maters' now

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:27pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 53. At 1:27pm on 04 Jun 2009, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    As usual, I'm too late to be suggestive, erm, to make suggestions for tonight's programme, but is there any chance you'll be covering Simon Singh's decision to take his libel case to appeal?

    For those who don't know, the British Chiropractic Association have been suing science journalist Singh after he implied that some of the claims that chiropracty can cure non-back-related disease might be "bogus".

    There's an issue here not only about criticising non-evidence-based claims, but also about whether the English libel system is "fit for purpose".

    I won't tempt the Mods by posting a URL to more information but it's easy enough to find using your favourite interweb search engine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 1:28pm on 04 Jun 2009, T8-eh-T8 wrote:

    I bet my best conker and two blue marbles that this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8083056.stm

    appears on HIGNFY tomorrow night.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:29pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 56. At 1:30pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    Is local activism in political organisations on the increase, right now?
    Is membership of parties going up?

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 1:34pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 58. At 1:35pm on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    And the winner is .......

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 1:50pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 60. At 1:56pm on 04 Jun 2009, Thunderbird wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 61. At 1:56pm on 04 Jun 2009, arealjohnsmith wrote:

    My second attempted post (first still being moderated).
    Can PM obtain an explanation as to why we accept apologies from public bodies (when something fundamental has gone wrong) and the immortal phrase "we are learning lessons" is used?
    I always thought that one of humanity's saving qualities was our ability to learn from past mistakes but it seems that this is not the case with our public servants who have, after all, been "taking care of business" since their "business" was invented.
    Is there anyone out there who is prepared to take some personal responsibility for the function that they carry out?
    I remain, ever hopeful!

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 2:06pm on 04 Jun 2009, Thunderbird wrote:

    NO WAY

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 2:08pm on 04 Jun 2009, Thunderbird wrote:

    Is this the farming-today blog...... only for sheep?

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 2:13pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 65. At 2:15pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 66. At 2:17pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 67. At 2:18pm on 04 Jun 2009, Thunderbird wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 68. At 2:20pm on 04 Jun 2009, SentIntheClowns wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 69. At 2:39pm on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    With regards to the BBC radio presenters salary issue; as far as I understand it, the BBC was willing to release the details to the NAO, but only if they signed a non-disclosure agreement. The NAO refused to sign the agreement because they believed it would hamper their reporting of the case.

    Besides which, this controversy is old - the original investigation was back in February - the only reason we're hearing about it now is that the Commons' Public Accounts Committee have finally decided to add their 2p worth.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7872923.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8081083.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 2:49pm on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Meanwhile, in other news, it appears as though the misfits entering a certain location in London this evening are in for a shock...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/entertainment/newsid_8081000/8081728.stm

    If only we could have a Westminster Big Brother - lock all the Honourable Members (ha ha) in The Commons for a few weeks, and see what happens...
    Black Rod could dole out the porridge each morning (how long could they resist doing an Oliver Twist and asking for more?)

    After all, the place is already rigged with cameras...

    Even better, screen it on prime time TV, have telephone voting to evict the most irritating members (hang on, perhaps we could name it "I'm an MP - Get Me Out Of Here!"), and whoever wins the contest becomes the next PM...

    Added onto which, all the money generated from the phone lines could be used to reduce the National Debt...

    I hereby place this idea into the public domain, so if Endemol are interested they don't have to get me embroiled in detailed legal and contractural negotiations. Just remember where you saw the idea first :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 2:57pm on 04 Jun 2009, T8-eh-T8 wrote:

    Wouldn't it be good if we could watch the parliament channel and as someone was speaking, press the red button to send an electrical charge up their trouser leg?

    As soon as they started on with some old flannel - bzzzzzz

    Spin - bzzzzz

    not addressing the issue - bzzzzzz

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 2:59pm on 04 Jun 2009, arealjohnsmith wrote:

    Re 70 (now referred).
    How about "Britain's Got Vacancies"?
    Form a queue behind me for the Simon Cowell role!

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 3:06pm on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Ho hum...someone's getting trigger happy with the Complain link...

    Perhaps it's someone at BBC HQ enforcing purdah, as it's polling day.

    Interestingly, my post didn't mention or allude to any specific groupings, but perhaps because it mentioned politicians in general, someone decided to pull it for proof reading...

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:14pm on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    Sutara 46, I might have defamed God when I said, "...God knows...' and maybe they thought I said something about God's nose.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 3:19pm on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    C_G 38, We drink coffee at bar/cafe/betting places (PMU), in France all the time and haven't placed a bet or been corrupted yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:20pm on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:

    fJd 40, My name ain't Der.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 3:21pm on 04 Jun 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

    Stainless Steel Cat - Bang on the money !!

    I think the Simon Singh case is very very important, and should be highlighted, just as 'Dr' Gillian McKeith and Raj Persaud were brought to a wider audience.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 3:39pm on 04 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Mittfh (73) I believe you may be right. During elections the Beeb (as well as the commercial broadcasters) have certain rules regarding what is reported/broadcast, in case it may unduly affect the election. That's why I'm steering clear of political comment here today....

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 4:03pm on 04 Jun 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 80. At 4:05pm on 04 Jun 2009, Sid wrote:

    SSC & LBG - hear, hear!

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 4:10pm on 04 Jun 2009, Sutara wrote:

    #69. mittfh

    Well that's one way to look at it.

    Another would be to ask who are the BBC to tell the National Audit Office what they can, or can't, know in terms of that agency assessing how the BBC delivers value for money in terms of funding from the public purse?

    I think, due to it's parallels with MPs trying to hide their dodgy expenses that it's a highly contemporary issue.

    It's a bit like a CEO telling shareholders they have no right to know what he's been spending money on.

    How, as the National Audit Office, could they possibly sign up to not telling anyone? What if MPs demanded to know how they had come to their decisions or viewpoints?

    Are BBC Managers really that naive?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 4:25pm on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Meanwhile, I've just heard that Derbyshire and Lincolnshire will be tweeting their results tonight...

    I wonder if any other councils will be brave enough to take the Web 2.0 plunge?

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 4:35pm on 04 Jun 2009, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    DMcN @ 75, the difference is that you choose to go there, these wretched spammers come to where I am and get in the way.

    madasastickchick @ 15, I have know since, oh, about 1970 that the "first words on the moon" had probably been doctored because he had tried to memorise what he was meant to say ("one small step for a man, one giant step for mankind") and fluffed his line.

    Did anyone really think that was going to be spontaneous? D'uh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 4:42pm on 04 Jun 2009, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    sutara @ 45, I don't mind about the House Rules anything like as much as I mind about the nuisance, to be honest. The enforcement of the House Rules is very arbitrary at times, and sometimes as much of a nuisance as a spammer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 4:51pm on 04 Jun 2009, U14016520 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 86. At 4:52pm on 04 Jun 2009, U14016520 wrote:

    A suggestion.

    Since it is polling day, shouldn't special rules apply?

    The ones about commenting on the election are special, after all.

    But I'm suggesting another special rule.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 4:55pm on 04 Jun 2009, U14016520 wrote:

    I'll suggest it without even mentioning the election, otherwise its purpose could be lost.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 5:03pm on 04 Jun 2009, U14016520 wrote:

    From 10 tonight (?) after the polls close, lots of fresh faces will want to comment here because PM is one of the BBC's political flagships.

    So how about the new posters rule changing.

    I suggest posting them straight away and then post moderating them.

    Of course, if there is anything breaking rules fellow posters will surely complain toot d' sweet.

    So the risk of something getting under the radar, albeit temporarily, is surely about as high as the risk of someone posting benignly 5 or six times and then slipping something hideous in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 5:05pm on 04 Jun 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Perhaps the BBC and the NAO could agree on reporting within the context of broad salary bands (e.g. under 50, 50-99, 100-199 etc.).

    An interesting argument in the debate is that if the salary figures were in the public domain, it would prove advantageous to competitors wanting to poach the most well known staff by offering them higher salaries (particularly if they had a TV project in mind).

    Although the BBC does not need to be as concerned about the number of listeners to its programmes as commercial rivals, it could be argued that (particularly with the national stations) they need to maintain similar audience figures to comparable commercial operations to both offer fair competition and justify their existence.

    In much the same way as the TV audience for "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" would probably decline significantly if it was "Friday Night with Someone You've Never Heard Of Because We Can't Afford Jonathan Ross", the same could potentially be argued for some prime time programmes on Radios 1 and 2 (which do have a fair degree of commercial competition).

    Of course, the "celebrity factor" probably influences Radio 3 less (as they only effectively have one competitor, and that's aimed at a slightly different audience profile) and Radio 4 even less (can you name a commercial competitor?) - although the main "grilled interviewee" slots (e.g. Today, PM) really need experienced journalists who are experts at looking behind the message their subject is trying to communicate (usually filled with weasel words and ambiguities) and pin them down to a specific point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:05pm on 04 Jun 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    Hallelujah! 5 is no more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 08:28am on 05 Jun 2009, radiofan357 wrote:

    After several violent outbursts, my ex-partner was sent to prison for offences including possession of a firearm. During his time in prison, he was supposed to be relocated to another area but was released on probation and ordered back to my address on pain of further arrest. I was not informed of his release and he came to the house while I was babysitting a five-tear old and subjected me to three hours of verbal and physical abuse when I told him he could not stay. His (third in 18 months) Probation Officer did not believe my account of events and had to be pursuaded to have him re-arrested. A year later he was released again, this time with no fixed abode and came straight to my house. Thankfully, on this occasion he was apologetic and in control. However, I had to help him find accommodation and sort him out financially until he could get some benefits. I did this to safeguard myself rather than through real altruism. at one court appearance, Probation could produce no file about him after 18 months of visits to them. No-one had compiled any reports or bothered to handle his case in any way professionally. Being overworked is not an excuse. People seem to be at risk Nationwide. What on earth is happening? Somebody needs to do some serious work on the Probation Service. It is a joke on the streets. How can it all have gone so horribly wrong?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

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.