« Previous | Main | Next »

AM glass box for friday

Post categories:

Sequin | 06:00 UK time, Friday, 12 February 2010

GetWellGB.JPG

Thanks to Lady Sue for this morning's box, after I mentioned yesterday that Ed was feeling a bit poorly. As usual, if you have any ideas that you would like the Editor Joanna Carr to consider when drawing up the programme running order then put them here. We'll be holding our meeting at 11am so if you can, let us know your thoughts before that.

All the best,
sequin

Comments

  • 1. At 07:29am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

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

  • 2. At 08:08am on 12 Feb 2010, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Clearly the big news in all media today is the suicide of Alexander McQueen. Sad obviously as any suicide is, but perhaps you could do a piece to explain why someone that so many people had never heard of merits this kind of coverage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 08:12am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    The Master of the Rolls v. MI5 Director-General

    The Master of the Rolls says there is a “culture of suppression” at MI5.

    MI5 Director-General says that is “the precise opposite of the truth”.

    Plenty to get your teeth into there. How about getting Jonathan Evans on your programme tonight?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7217438/Jonathan-Evans-conspiracy-theories-aid-Britains-enemies.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 08:23am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    Why have these unique new aerial photos of the twin towers on 9/11, taken by an NYPD officer, just been released?

    Why did they need Freedom of Information action to get them released?

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow?id=9763032

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 08:25am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    Is it spin to call sleep deprivation, threats and shackles "torture" when you also, when you report it, call the rape, mutilation and YouTube execution of people the very same thing, "torture". Both apparently are just "torture"

    If you keep on calling these two different things the same name what is the result on the debate and what happens in the real world?

    Surely the activities are worlds apart?

    I don't seek to justify the techniques used in Gitmo, although it seems to be a case of firm interrogation rather than torture to me. I just seek some perspective in the way you report the news. What a naive individual I must be eh? I think if you give people all the facts presented without any bias they will be able to make their own minds up without you telling them what the "correct" answer is!!

    Ask yourself this you editors and scribblers. Who dissents from the editorial line in your team (do you have a neo con on board for example) and what effect does such dissent have on what you broadcast? Is this healthy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 08:29am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @The Stainless Steel Cat #2
    "...why someone [Alexander McQueen] that so many people had never heard of merits this kind of coverage."

    According to Sid on last night's PM Glass Box, everyone has heard of him, bar one person who made a similar point yesterday.

    #;+)

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 08:30am on 12 Feb 2010, Sindy wrote:


    I didn't know, at that point, that Stainless Steel Cat hadn't heard of him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 08:33am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    How about addressing the excellent Adam Curtis film recently broadcast on the best show on the BBC, Charlie Bookers Newswipe? (last week on BBC 4, series 2 episode 4)

    It explains how the media is destroying our society, in the vernacular, "Breaking Britain"

    You can find the video on the usual video web site You use on your Tube by a simple search for Newswipe and Adam Curtis

    This is seminal stuff. Can you address it? Or even acknowledge it? It is, after all, about you!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 08:36am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:


    #24 SirStarryKnight asked: "That fashion designer bloke whose death has just been announced, and which was given air-time on PM .. am I the only one who's never heard of him?"

    #28. Sid replied: “SirStarryKnight - yes.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 08:41am on 12 Feb 2010, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Maybe I'm moving in the wrong circles or I'm just completely out of touch. I'd no idea fashion designers were public figures on a par with politicians or film stars.

    Maybe I should broaden my horizons and switch off Radio 4 once in a while and go and read Heat magazine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 08:58am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    5: If you are referring to the case of Binyam Mohamed, his treatment involved more than 'sleep deprivation, threats and shackles' and specifically, it is alleged, involved mutilation of genitals with razor blades. Now, there are certainly different, and more extreme, forms of torture about - in WW2 there were many instances of exreme torture by the Japanese, for example - but I, for one, do not regard it as inappropriate to describe some of the treatment that Mr. Mohamed endured as 'torture'.

    The UN Convention against Torture offers the following definition - which, by its very source, will be regarded by most as the benchmark:

    "... the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

    Source: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

    In my opinion, this definition might also reasonably cover sleep deprivation, btw, as this is likely to cause mental suffering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 08:59am on 12 Feb 2010, Walrus wrote:

    With MI5 being in the news it would be interesting to know what other designators there were as they are now called SIS and whatever. MI5 was the old term for Military Intelligence 5 presumably for Home Security. MI6 was Military Intelligence 6 for Foreign Affairs. Now what was MI1 to 4 and dare I say MI7 or more? Do you have an expert like Christopher Andrew who can answer this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 09:00am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    10: It may just be that your are of the wrong age group and gender, Cat ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 09:04am on 12 Feb 2010, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Big Sis (13):

    Story of my life!

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 09:09am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    Can the PM team investigate this further, Carolyn?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7217200/Goldman-Sachs-faces-Robin-Hood-tax-vote-rigging-claims.html

    As I was following that site on that particular day (thanks to Eddie's post), I watched those numbers as they rose incredibly - and did myself suspect that there were shenanigans going on somewhere and that bankers were involved. It would be very interesting indeed to follow this story to its conclusion and to find out just what Goldman Sachs and the other party involved have to say for themselves ...

    Makes you realise just what a load of toads there are out there. After all, we are only talking a 0.05% tax - Sheesh!

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:10am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    Cat (14): You are delightful, lovely, and I and many other regulars love you. Please don't ever change!

    PS You can quote me on that on Sunday ;o))

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:11am on 12 Feb 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    GDS (9)
    You forgot my post below from the PM glass box agreeing with SSK. I have my suspicions about why an obscure fashion designer (to the wider world at least) might exact the amount of air time hes being given but, I wouldn't want to be accused of sighting connections, favouritism and vested interests...Interesting glass am glass box btw. Btw, my referred comment yesterday that seemed to cause so much upset to a certain party has been reinstated by the mods. Don't know what all the fuss was about.


    At 6:19pm on 11 Feb 2010, you wrote:
    SirStarryKnight (24)

    I Had the same thought about 20 mins in and they were still going on about him. Perhaps its because I can only afford charity shops and a well known supermarket's clobber! I wonder how relevant it was to the majority of listeners? I suspect he was only important to his own circle of influence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:17am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    FJD (17): I suspect that there were two things which perhaps raised the prominence of the McQueen story. Firstly, it was a bit of a slow news day, and secondly, his death was entirely unexpected and the result of suicide. I suppose you could equate it with the death of Michael Jackson in that regard. And anyone who isn't a pop fan would probably have had a similar reaction to the news coverage of his death.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:20am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    The MI5 Director General’s rebuttal in today’s Telegraph looks weak to me.

    The British officers who interviewed Binyam Mohamed in the spring of 2002 could have been MI5 or MI6. By denying that MI5 has colluded in torture, is the head of MI5 pointing the finger at MI6?

    The head of MI5 admits they were “slow to detect the emerging pattern of US mistreatment,” but that argument doesn’t hold up. The intelligence services were aware of Binyam Mohamed’s capture in the spring of 2002. Were they checking on his whereabouts with the Americans from time to time over the next three years when he disappeared? Were they insisting he had access to legal representation during this time? Did they contact his family to let them know what was happening in the three years before a lawyer was granted access to him?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:34am on 12 Feb 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Whatever happened to ministers and any other authority involved never being allowed to comment on matters of sub-judice?...oh forgot, except on the services that are going to protect them from the stone throwers in the big rise up. The big rise up, I ask myself? Sorry, I meant in the big 'What do we want? gradual change'. 'When do we want it? in due course'. Apologies, Just getting us mixed up with a certain European country at the moment that is purported to have held the first Olympics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 09:42am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Walter Russell #12

    MI5 are correctly called the Security Service (SS) and MI6 the Security Intelligence Service (SIS). Yes - there were many different section numbers. It went up to section 20, I think. Military Intelligence, Section 1 (MI1) and others have become GCHQ. MI7 was public relations and propaganda. There was a Radio 4 programme about them last year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:52am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten #5
    As pointed out by Big Sister above, Binyam Mohamed's case includes torture with scalpels and razor blades. From your comments above and on on the 'The treatment of Binyam Mohamed' thread, it appears you're not aware of the case and the allegations, and the attempts to frustrate its progress through the courts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:19am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    11 and 22, no I was not aware that the finding made by the judges was that razor blades had been used on the man's genitals. I am aware that this is an allegation made by Mr Mohamed.

    Clearly such violence is torture in the real sense of the word.

    But these are unproven allegations aren't they? If so (please correct me if I am wrong) then surely it is too early to pass a verdict? All I have seen from the court case reported are findings of sleep deprivation, threats and shackling.

    And no, I do not include an admittedly unpleasant experience as torture. I think to do so devalues the word.

    I think this is firm interrogation until we perhaps find that the mutilation you refer to is indeed what happened, in which case I agree, it is torture. Even then however it is not correct to lump it with everything else we call torture. There are degree's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:25am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    In his Telegraph piece, the head of MI5 justifies the refusal to cooperate with the courts "in order to protect the vital intelligence relationship with America" and claims "the US, in particular, has been generous in sharing intelligence with us."

    If the US is so cooperative in sharing information, then presumably the US told our security services about the techniques and treatment they were using. Can the head of MI5 confirm that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:41am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    Mike Coulten, the recognition of Mr. Mohamed's torture was made by the US courts. Indeed, it was the fact that such details were in the public domain in the US which led to Wednesday's ruling here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 10:53am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten 23:
    "But these are unproven allegations aren't they?"

    How do you expect them to be proven if access to relevant information is – let us say, hindered - and which also has corroborating implications in other cases?


    "If so then surely it is too early to pass a verdict?"

    Isn't that what you're doing when you wrote on the other thread, "This wasn't torture, it was a firm interrogation" ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 10:57am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten

    You wrote at #29 yesterday on the other thread: "Perhaps the self loathing contributors can tell us where the boundary is to hysterically shout "torture"?

    Which self loathing contributors would those be?

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:13am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    27. Which ones do you think they are?

    I posted above in #8 about Adam Curtis' excellent short film. Watch it on You(r)Tube and then reflect on the idea that we are all self loathing nowadays as this is the fashion.

    If this does turn out to be sleep deprivation, shackles and threats and not genital mutilation with razor blades then I suggest that to equate this behaviour of the US/UK authorities with mutilation, rape and summary extra judicial execution as all "torture" is indeed self loathing in spades.

    And to be clear, if it was mutilation then people should be held to account. Presumably Mr Mohammed's testicles would have provided some evidence as he was released? Were they inspected? If I were him and I had been razored I would perhaps have been flashing them at anyone who would agree to look!! Yet I don't see any pictures on the net, just beheadings?

    Is an allegation to be treated as proven?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:30am on 12 Feb 2010, Big Sister wrote:

    Mike Coulten: No doubt inspections have been made, but why on earth does a man have to flash his genitals all over the internet to make his case? Your comments, seem to imply that you have already made up your mind about this case - guilty until proven innocent, apparently.

    I only know what I have read about. The UK government have themselves (albeit belatedly) shown sufficient concern about this case that it is clear that something went very wrong. If they hadn't tried to suppress papers by not making them available to Mr. Mohamed's legal team, it might have all been a lot easier to get to the truth of the matter.

    My mind is still open, as it is to judgments over what constitutes torture. I don't think we can use extreme torture as the benchmark.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:46am on 12 Feb 2010, davmcn wrote:

    Is having the area of your genitals shaved before an operation considered to be torture?

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 11:48am on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    Fair enough BigSister, we agree this is an unproven allegation.

    Until it is proven, what we have as already proven is sleep deprivation. This is what the judgement made yesterday was. Not the unproven allegation of razor blades.

    If and when the other allegation is proven I recognise it as torture that should be investigated and people held to account.

    In the meantime it seems just as likely that Mr Mohammed might be exaggerating. I dont know, and I suggest neither do you. Everyone is surely innocent until proven guilty?

    Fair enough?

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 11:54am on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @ Mike Coulten #28

    "Which ones do you think they are?"

    I don't know - that's why I asked you? So, which ones were you referring to?




    "If this does turn out to be sleep deprivation, shackles and threats and not genital mutilation with razor blades..."

    It doesn’t seem they’ll have much difficulty proving it took place. He had a medical examination on being handed over to US custody in spring 2002 and a medical examination on being released from US custody in Feb 2009, backed up by photographs and video of his lacerated genitals. The court is the place for his lawyers to present all their evidence. I doubt his lawyers would want to put it on the internet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 12:08pm on 12 Feb 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Quote of the week

    From Number 28 at 11.13 am on Feb 12 2010

    Presumably Mr Mohammed's testicles would have provided some evidence as he was released?



    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 12:10pm on 12 Feb 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    David MvNickle

    Hello, Where have you been? Nice to have you back.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 12:12pm on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    On another topic, since most of Iraq's existing oil fields have now been contracted to foreign oil companies in transparent televised auctions isnt it about time someone reported the overall outcome for Iraqs oil?

    My understanding (I used to work in the Industry btw) is that.

    1. Service Contracts were awarded that are different to Production Sharing Agreement's. The Service contracts awarded in Iraq give a fixed fee that is less than 1% of the additional revenue created (at $70 oil price) for the foreign oil companies and the rest for Iraqis (99% to sovereign Iraq, more if oil prices are above $70, these are fixed fees) and and no ownership or control of Iraqs oil. These are it seems to me very attractive terms for Iraq being literally (and correctly) servants terms and servants wages. Wood McKenzie the Scottish oil consultants estimate the net present value of the 20 year CNOC/BP deal to be a paltry $3billion (see Business Week). Grossing this up the total value of all the contracts awarded to foreigners over their 20 year life might be $20 billion

    2. The contracts have been awarded, in order of size of overall stake in Iraq's oil, to companies from

    a. China (the USA's alleged resource rival) - the biggest stake by far b. Other Asian
    c. Russian
    d. European
    e. Last and smallest, the USA

    The spilt between international and state owned oil co's is also revealing, state owned/controlled companies have the lions share!

    These contracts will make Iraqis richer than Saudis in terms of annual oil income within 10 years if the projected production increases are delivered.

    Yet your listeners seem to have been told nothing about this. The last time I am aware of Radio 4 or the wider BBC reporting on this in any depth was when Today gave lots of air time to the Platform Group who proceeded to argue that some dark plan was afoot to rob Iraqis of their oil using odious term PSA's (maybe like the ones Saddam had negotiated with French and Russian oil companies before 2003?!!)

    Now, extremists everywhere are incited by feelings of grievance. By not reporting the reality of Iraqs oil it seems to me that the BBC and the wider media have played a major part in providing this grievance where none actually exists.

    Who can say why UK people are radicalised here and then blow themselves up on London tube trains. But the idea of colonial oil theft is clearly a part of it unless Iraqis object to political freedom which I believe they do not

    Surely its time for some responsible journalism? I don't want propaganda, I simply want you to tell the facts which we can now see
    so your listeners can be paid the respect of letting them make their own minds up.

    I only know about the people I meet day to day, but I can tell you that 99% of them have a completely unreal view of what has happened to Iraq's oil. They by and large think it has been stolen. Surely given the huge importance of this subject, this is to say the least a failure by the media who we rely on to inform us?

    Why not report it? Who got what Iraqi oil and on what terms. Then compare what you find to the various claims made over the last 8 years by people (you?) and ponder what the effect of any claims found to have been false might have been on the insurgency in Iraq and terrorism at home in the UK. I think Chilcot should be looking at this.

    I hope this attempt passes the moderator. If it doesn't perhaps you could be specific as to why as I could not understand which House Rule I broke last time I tried to post this. Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 12:21pm on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    32. I think you seem to be displaying a desire to proclaim Mr Mohammed's allegations of genital mutilation as already proven so perhaps I mean you?

    on the alleged evidence of genital mutilation, I cannot find it using an internet search. I don't discount it as false, I just ask you to wait until it is proven which, as you say, would seem quite easy to do if it is true.

    Also, it is not conceivable that a Gitmo detainee might attempt to fabricate such allegations and maybe even self harm to "prove" them if they were committed to the cause of the jihadists and wanted to discredit their enemy? After all, a bit of self inflicted genital mutilation seems much less severe than suicide bombing and might even be seen as Ashura if done on the appropriate day?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:38pm on 12 Feb 2010, Walrus wrote:

    @GeeDeeSea 21
    Thanks, must find the programme.

    I did find this on Spooks

    "Bobby MacGregor asks:
    'Technically, do MIs 1 to 4 still exist?'
    When the original Secret Service Bureau became part of the Directorate of Military Intelligence in 1916, there were already a number of departments assigned an 'MI' number. MI1 handled Codebreaking, MI2 covered intelligence to do with Russia and Scandinavia, while the rest of Eastern Europe came under the remit of MI3. MI4 looked after 'Aerial Reconnaisance', and so on. The other MI departments were either dismantled or else their work was absorbed into that of MI5 and MI6, and later the Government Communications Headquarters - GCHQ. "

    Now I guess after the SS, SIS and GCHQ split up from the Military and the MOD started using the all-embracing joint service name " Defence" as in DIS Defence Intelligence Staff, there became new versions like DI4 etc, though I'm sure they must have missed numbers 5 and 6 because they were "taken"

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 12:52pm on 12 Feb 2010, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Big Sis (16):

    Aww, *blush*.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:40pm on 12 Feb 2010, Crataegus Monogyna wrote:

    Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you
    lose your job. These economic downturns are very difficult to predict,
    but sophisticated econometric modeling houses like Data Resources and
    Chase Econometrics have successfully predicted 14 of the last 3
    recessions.

    ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:00pm on 12 Feb 2010, vainly_here wrote:

    DavMcN (3) Not if it's under anaesthetic; and you've just reminded me about something I should have put on my web page. It's not there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 3:00pm on 12 Feb 2010, vainly_here wrote:

    Sorry, that should have been (30).

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 3:11pm on 12 Feb 2010, vainly_here wrote:

    Since we've moved on since yesterday's PM Glass box, I thought the God & Science discussions was pretty dull and too short. However, if anyone wants to get a copy, may I suggest:
    1. Obtain a recording program such as audacity;
    2. Switch on Listen Again during the next few days;
    3. Record the programme using the chosen program;
    4. If the chosen program doesn't create MP3 files immediately, use it or another to convert to MP3.
    Simples.
    Personally, I don't believe in evolution.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 3:12pm on 12 Feb 2010, vainly_here wrote:

    OOps; another typo; sorry, discussion(s) shb singular.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 3:15pm on 12 Feb 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    Instead of all this political stuff, shouldn't PM be featuring this death?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8512193.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 3:17pm on 12 Feb 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    42. Vyle Hernia - 'Personally, I don't believe in evolution'.

    How unevolved of you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 3:19pm on 12 Feb 2010, vainly_here wrote:

    DD (45) I do like the current advertisement, "The evolution of VAN."

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 3:19pm on 12 Feb 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    I have a van, but it's pre-modern

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 3:22pm on 12 Feb 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    37. - isn't Spooks fiction?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 4:00pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    "isn't Spooks fiction?"

    ... just like the reason that records disclosure would threaten national security.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 4:07pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten #36
    "Also, it is not conceivable that a Gitmo detainee might attempt to fabricate such allegations and maybe even self harm to "prove" them..."



    Do you think these detention camps - which appear to have denied the most basic needs, like sleep, food, water - issued 'some of the most dangerous men on the planet' with razor blades?



    "...so perhaps I mean you?"

    Don't be shy – see if you can pluck up the courage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 4:12pm on 12 Feb 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    33. Testicular evidence, that's what we need, when do we want it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 4:17pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    Those on the World at One today defnding the reputation of the intelligence services seemed to arguing points which hadn't been asserted - avoiding the question, in other words.

    Their main argument seems to be that disclosing intelligence will affect national security.

    They are conflating 'intelligence' with 'records' - probably deliberately. It is their records of events relating to this prisoner that were needed for the court case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 4:19pm on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    50. I doubt they were issued, so therefore you seem to argue they cannot have been present!

    All I was asking for was to wait for the evidence to be tested. It seems this is a suggestion that some find unacceptable in their rush to declare the verdict right now. I prefer to wait to see and, on a verdict, I shall condemn any torture revealed, just not until then that's all. This would to me be a "safe" conviction maybe??

    Did you see the Adam Curtis video I mentioned above? Perhaps you should take a look?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 4:33pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten #53

    You keep making that assertion, but I haven't rushed to a verdict. I suspect you're referring to your own comments yesterday. I'm aware of case and what has gone on. You're playing catch-up. You'll get there eventually - though, unlike those subject to waterboarding I won't be holding my breath.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 4:39pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    The economies of the countries in the Eurozone grew by 0.1% in the last quarter, according to the (preliminary?) figures. Isn’t that the same as UK growth in the last quarter?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/12/germany-economic-recovery-stalls

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 4:44pm on 12 Feb 2010, mittfh wrote:

    Torture
    If repeated psychological torments and physical "stressing" (e.g. sleep deprivation, forced to adopt a "stress" posture) don't count as torture, what do they count as?

    Waterboarding is widely regarded as torture, yet doesn't leave any physical evidence behind (so is difficult to prove without photographic/video evidence), so what differentiates it from the techniques mentioned above?

    Alexander McQueen
    SSC isn't the only Frogger here with such a sheltered upbringing they weren't aware of who the late fashion designer was until he died...

    God and Science
    I'm sure you've all heard the tale of the insomniac, agnostic dyslexic by now... you know, the one who sat up at night wondering if there was a Dog?

    Other News
    Meanwhile, Eurostar's been given a rap over the knuckles for the chaos it caused in the Chunnel during the snowfall a few weeks ago, a mother and her partner accused of murdering her seven-year-old daughter by starving her to death have admitted her manslaughter, Haiti is holding a day of national mourning a month after the earthquake struck, Prince Andrew 'hit a Met officer' with his car outside Buckingham Palace, and Frisbee inventor Walter Frederick Morrison has died at the age of 90.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 5:38pm on 12 Feb 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    Where does all the concerned hand wringing and human rights stuff and fighting to get Binyam Mohammed back sit with the Home Office a few years ago getting Chief Constables lobbying MPs on the 42 days detention for suspected terrorists.

    It doesn't add up does it? Or we only do human rights, concerned faces and the police state has been found to have got it wrong.

    I was wandering around the Jurassic Coast yesterday. I don't need to go to Pakistan to find myself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 5:40pm on 12 Feb 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    So the rights of a British resident outweigh those of someone born here?

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:43pm on 12 Feb 2010, Mike Coulten wrote:

    54. [but I haven't rushed to a verdict]

    Well I beg your pardon, I thought you had said earlier that there was clear and incontrovertible evidence? You said

    [He had a medical examination on being handed over to US custody in spring 2002 and a medical examination on being released from US custody in Feb 2009, backed up by photographs and video of his lacerated genitals.]

    Well, this may be so, but until the court has examined this evidence it is not proof. When and where were the photos taken? As part of the medical or later? I dont know, do you?

    [The court is the place for his lawyers to present all their evidence.]

    Quite so, I want to wait until I hear the judgement. Do you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 5:49pm on 12 Feb 2010, davmcn wrote:

    MC 59, Probably the results of a botched circumcision when he was a child.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 6:03pm on 12 Feb 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    Alexander McQueen, I spent about 10 hours in the car yesterday taking a relative visiting from the colonies to visit friends and relatives. Radio 4 is the default radio station for me. We thought the coverage of Alexander McQueen was overdone.

    It made me question whether it was the Princess Diana effect. As I said it my distant relative was thinking the same think.

    I'm not sure I'd ever heard of him before? Did he get an R4 profile piece like Gordon Brown's missus? The profile pieces are to inform R4 listeners that we really should know who these people are?

    So yesterday in the car we weren't impressed with the amount of coverage he got, but the piece on him on Last Word at 16.00 was quite good listening.

    Perhaps yesterday was a no news day?

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 6:33pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten #59

    "Well I beg your pardon, I thought you had said earlier that there was clear and incontrovertible evidence?"

    Well, you thought wrong. I didn't mention the words "clear" or "incontrovertible," in post #32. I wrote:

    It doesn’t seem they’ll have much difficulty proving it took place. He had a medical examination on being handed over to US custody in spring 2002 and a medical examination on being released from US custody in Feb 2009, backed up by photographs and video of his lacerated genitals. The court is the place for his lawyers to present all their evidence. I doubt his lawyers would want to put it on the internet.


    You seem to have difficulty reading simple words on a blog. You've done it several times now. Never mind - it's probably just the way you are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:02pm on 12 Feb 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Mike Coulten #59
    I didn't say it was "proof."
    Yes
    Yes

    C ya.

    #;+)


    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:17pm on 12 Feb 2010, Lady_Sue wrote:

    Alexander McQueen: as with all those above and I think this was covered on yesterday's PM GB, it is very sad that a talented person has killed themselves but the amount of air time was, IMHO, disproportionate to the newsworthiness of the subject matter.

    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.