« Previous | Main | Next »

Dominic Raab update

Eddie Mair | 12:49 UK time, Tuesday, 25 January 2011

There's been a big blog response to our Dominic Raab interview.

We thought you might want to hear the full interview. Because it was recorded very close to transmission and then had to fit into a very busy programme, we broadcast less than three minutes. Here's the unedited version:

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.


  • 1. At 2:28pm on 25 Jan 2011, vainly_here wrote:

    You mean, we've written over 80 comments based on incomplete information. Well, really. No wonder we can't all agree.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 2:42pm on 25 Jan 2011, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    vainly_here (1) - You posted comments on the original thread saying: "Although I did not hear the interview... "
    Your information wasn't merely incomplete...

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 3:13pm on 25 Jan 2011, vainly_here wrote:

    TIH (2) Don't be so uppity; I was trying to inject some lightheartedness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 3:30pm on 25 Jan 2011, James P wrote:

    I think hearing the full interview does make the interview sound a lot better and more balanced.. Dominic was clearly a bit nervous but in the end I think it is a good interview, the abridged version gives a false picture.. editing that reminds me of the Aussie Channel 9 putting together their Ashes highlights lol. (Where you get to watch a lot of Alastair Cook missing the ball or playing the odd defensive shot and then what do you know.. he's got 200 runs! lol)

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:45pm on 25 Jan 2011, Big Sister wrote:

    The interview was prompted by Mr. Raab's article. I would say that, listening to the full interview, Mr. Raab is somewhat backtracking from what he wrote, or at least endeavouring to temper its tone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 5:22pm on 25 Jan 2011, James P wrote:

    I think Mr Raab was a bit nervous.. I thikn he's a new intake MP and Eddie is no mean interviewer, I think he was trying to stck to his guns but nerves got in the way. NOnetheless I think he made his point and stuck to his guns.. he perhaps was worried about being tripped up.

    When Eddie asked him about 'didnt mean cause hte banking crisis then' he could have said, "well what percentage of the bankers were jewish? are you saying it's ok to say that jews caused the banking crisis?".. whcih would have made an excellent point that it's not about the statistical facts in thsi debate, it's about certain things beng taboo and other things not. No one would DARE say that Jews caused the banking crisis, it would be a very wrong thing to say, and yet you could probbaly find some stat to justify it if you wanted to.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:25pm on 25 Jan 2011, Country Squire wrote:

    If Peter Reid thought that Keys and Gray were 'joking' why did neither of them laugh. Is Reid as much of a sexist dinosaur as these two overblown pundits?

    Sacking Gray was spot on. Keys should have gone too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:28pm on 25 Jan 2011, davmcn wrote:

    v-h 3, Don't try that with TIH.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:11pm on 25 Jan 2011, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Anyway, if anybody sees that young lady clubin' somewhere...

    Offside is Law XI in the publication Laws of the Game written by the IFAB and published by FIFA. The law states that, if a player is in an offside position when the ball is touched or played by a team mate, he may not become actively involved in the play. A player is in an offside position if he is closer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last defender, but only if the player is on his opponent's half of the field (pitch).

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:24pm on 25 Jan 2011, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    I saw an advert not so long ago but can't remember who it was for or what about. However, what I did remember vividly was, in the advert at a certain poignant moment a women pinched the arse of a man. (perhaps he was a waiter or shop assistant or something)At the same moment she gave a knowing seductive stare into the camera that seemed to say look what we can get away with. Imagine the complaints such an advert would have generated if it was a bloke doing the pinching.

    The other point I would like to make is, page three; do the women who get paid for baring their breasts to all and sundry have any less responsibility in this matter than the school kids who take her to the toilet with them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 10:25pm on 25 Jan 2011, Lady_Sue wrote:

    JamesP@4: LOL! That's just what the English have been doing with their cricketing highlights for... how many years is it now? Oh yes... 24. Years. Yep, 24 years, count 'em.

    *tee hee*

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:56pm on 25 Jan 2011, James P wrote:

    Oh come on your Ladyship, there's nothing so one eyed as the Aussie media.. I remember when they didn't show Steve Redgrave winning his fifth gold at the Sydney Olympics.. even the Aussies complained about that! :).. ps.. I like how the Aus cricket fans were so embarrassed by their teams performance that they came to the grounds disguised as plastic chairs..

    3 wins in 4 Ashes.. I can count that much :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:43am on 26 Jan 2011, mittfh wrote:

    Re: Post 11 (Lady Sue)

    One thing that tickles me with sports of all kinds is that whenever the (English / British / UK) (team / individual) gets involved in an international competition, the media hype them up to insane levels, then invariably they crash out before the final (in the case of football, usually via a penalty shootout). In the words of a certain football anthem, "England get so far then they blow it all away."

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 11:22am on 26 Jan 2011, James P wrote:

    re football.. agreed.. but then that whole sport, esp England footy, is massively overblown anyway. It's a popular game no doubt, and England have good players, but that's all they are.. good.. not great.. and they certainly don't come together to make a great team.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:17pm on 26 Jan 2011, Lady_Sue wrote:

    mittfh@13: very true. As you know (and JamesP probably doesn't) having lived in this part of the world for so long, I actually rather like it when the English win as it cheers everybody up. The Ozzies win enough stuff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 1:59pm on 26 Jan 2011, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    "The Ozzies win enough stuff."
    Yeah, right! When was the last time they won an Olympic or World ski-jumping title?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 3:49pm on 26 Jan 2011, mittfh wrote:

    List of World Cups and the current holders: cricket and rugby are interesting examples:

    Cricket World Cup (One Day International): Australia
    Women's Cricket World Cup (one-day international): England

    ICC World Twenty20 (Twenty20 format, men): England
    ICC Women's World Twenty20 (Twenty20 format, women): Australia

    And also:

    Hockey World Cup: Australia
    Women's Hockey World Cup: Argentina

    Rugby World Cup Sevens (men): Wales
    Rugby World Cup Sevens (women): Australia

    Touch Football World Cup: Australia (both men's and women's)


    GB 47 games (26 summer, 21 winter)
    Au 41 games (24 summer, 17 winter).

    Total medal count:
    GB Summer: 207 G, 255 S, 253 B; Winter: 9 G, 3 S, 10 B; Total: 737
    Au Summer: 131 G, 137 S, 164 B; Winter: 5 G, 1 S, 3 B; Total: 441

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 4:24pm on 26 Jan 2011, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Mittfh, the Rugby World Cup (Sevens) isn't really the top level of sevens, to be honest, and it'll disappear before Sevens is a part of the Olympics in 2016. If you want to look at the premier level of international sevens, you should look at the IRB Sevens World Series. That's generally seen as the title to aim for...

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 7:28pm on 26 Jan 2011, Lady_Sue wrote:

    Mr. Horse, no-one really cares about them.

    mittfh, thanks for all that listed information. You are a mine of same.

    What about the relative differences in population? How many gold medals per capita for each nation, I wonder?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:29pm on 26 Jan 2011, Lady_Sue wrote:

    Further to mine above, I should point out (I often do) that Rugby isn't played in all of Australia, only a few states. The real men play Ozzie Rules. If you guys were playing against the whole country, well, you wouldn't stand a chance, obviously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 8:10pm on 26 Jan 2011, Sindy wrote:

    20. Lady Sue

    Well, that would be like 22,543,235 against 15, wouldn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 11:17am on 27 Jan 2011, mittfh wrote:

    Population of Australia: 22,568,000 (21 January 2011)
    Population of the UK: Unfortunately nowhere near as up to date as Aus!

    Population (mid-2006)
    Eng: 50,762,900
    Sco: 05,116,900
    Wal: 02,965,900
    NIre: 01,741,600
    UK_: 60,587,300

    Medals per capita? Guess what - there's a dotcom that tells you just that. Australia comes fifth, Great Britain twenty seventh. If you look at weighted medals per capita (Gold = 3, Silver = 2, Bronze = 1), Australia comes sixth and Great Britain twenty second. By gold medals alone, Australia comes sixth and Great Britain fifteenth. By Gross Domestic Product, Australia comes thirty seventh and Great Britain comes fifty fourth.

    Oh, and Samoa are the current holders of FFred's preferred competition. I was just quoting examples from the Wiki table of the world cups for all sports that featured the two countries.

    (Meanwhile: don't ya just love topic drift?! And Wikipedia?!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 3:45pm on 27 Jan 2011, James P wrote:

    Aussies win enough stuff? Well they used to but really in terms of sports anyone cares about they only win at swimming these days.. long gone are the days of Australian sports domination alas..

    As for the sporsts listed, much as I will risk my position as commentator on Sky Sports for saying this it's a bit much to compare the men's version and women's version of a game in cases like cricket.. Tennis maybe, but football, cricket, rugby? Whilst I was disappointed to hear England's lady cricketers had lost the one match test series to Australia (the only two countries who ever play ladies test cricket) it didn't exactly ruin my joy at the men's team's victory, and I'm sure it didn't for most poeple either.

    Now.. we all know that's true, so why do you think it's so unpopular to say it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 4:58pm on 27 Jan 2011, mittfh wrote:

    It's a bit tricky to compare the male and female versions of sports where the rules are different, e.g. tennis and golf, but from the few fixtures featuring female teams that are televised, it may be possible to draw broad comparisons of the skill and professionalism of the players, and possibly compare / contrast with their male counterparts.

    Obviously, as the various sports governing bodies generally prohibit M vs F or mixed teams, it's hard to compare accurately the skills of the male teams vs the female teams. However, in terms of overall participation it's probable that there are more male players than female players in many sports.

    Media and public recognition of female teams still remains very low - for example, most professional football clubs have female teams, but I suspect many people are unaware of their existence, let alone how their performance compares to other female teams. This may eventually change over a period of decades, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are schools which offer different sports to boys and girls in PE lessons (e.g. offering rugby only to boys, netball only to girls), so gaining significant media / public interest in any female teams will remain an uphill struggle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 5:39pm on 27 Jan 2011, Sindy wrote:

    23. James P
    "Now.. we all know that's true, so why do you think it's so unpopular to say it? "

    I'd guess that it depends who's saying it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 6:53pm on 27 Jan 2011, Fearless Fred wrote:

    James P (23) That's certainly not the view of a vast number of rugby fans who watched the Womens RWC last year. The teams played excellent, fast paced and skillful rugby that would shame some teams in the top levels of the mens game. One of the English squad was named as the Rugby Writers World Player of the Year (Maggie Alphonsi), an award that is taken seriously and was awarded to Brian O'Driscoll the year before.

    Time to get rid of those blinkers, I think...

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 7:19pm on 27 Jan 2011, Lady_Sue wrote:

    mittfh@22: once again, you dazzle me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 2:29pm on 29 Jan 2011, DMarshall wrote:

    I was offended to see the one-sided nature of the "interview" with Dominic Raab. Eddie would not let him speak and did not focus on what Raab was actually saying, but rather, he tried to twist it

    Raab's points aren't discriminatory against women, they're arguing for a balance between men and women.

    Men are subjected to subtle sexism throughout the media. A large percentage of senior bankers are Jewish. Is it fair to say Jews caused the banking crisis? No way. So why is it fair to say men caused the crisis?

    In the Media, the Boots adverts display men as feckless. The Feminax advert features a woman pressing an eject button on a man and flipping him out of the room. I remember the diamond car advert that said "women are better drivers". But you'd never see an advert of a man flipping his wife out of the room for nagging. You'd never see an advert saying - "men are better at maths" so our university only caters to men. There is a substantial double standard in handling men and women's rights.

    In politics - a US senator was removed from his position for asking a female senator to be more 'lady like'. Meanwhile, female senators have told their male peers to 'man up', 'grow a pair' or 'be a man'. Harman said 'the issue with men is there aren't enough planes to fly them out of the UK'. Christine LaGarde said 'women make better politicians' - she gave no evidence. Nothing has happened in the face of these bigoted comments.

    Fathers do not have good access to their children and there are numerous studies and examples of lack of punishment for mum's that disobey court contact orders for the father. A friend of mine was told by his legal advisor that he shouldn't bother contesting custody of his two children because as a father, he wouldn't stand a chance - even though he had swathes of evidence that the mother was an unfit parent. Even social services had warned her.

    Boys are underperforming in education, but we do not bother to invest any resources into figuring out why or adjusting the system. However, we pour millions into supporting girls in getting into technology, mathematics and the sciences.

    In employment, we continue to introduce new laws to 'close the gender pay gap' - as if that is an indicator of flagrant discrimination. But women in their 20s-30s earn more than men. If there is discrimination when girls earn less, why is it not discrimination when boys earn less? Or better still - as Raab was saying - in the face of these facts, why do we need more discrimination against men in the form of positive discrimination and quotas?

    40% of domestic violence is the UK is AGAINST men. Yet media attention and funding resources only focus on women's DV.

    No. Raab's point isn't discriminatory against women. And throughout, it only cites facts about the neglect of men. It's arguing for a balance in addressing issues that face men. It's arguing that men deserve to be heard just as much as women.


    PS. And before responding, please reflect on whether you think anything I have actually said is derogatory or discriminatory to women. Or actually, is it just commentary on men? If the latter, then, what's wrong with that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 4:11pm on 29 Jan 2011, Big Sister wrote:

    DMarshall: You are misreporting what Ms Harman said. She once joked that, if she were PM, "there wouldn't be enough airports for all the men who would want to flee the country".

    While I know it suits your case to put it the other way round, I'm afraid you are misrepresenting her in this respect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 4:52pm on 29 Jan 2011, davmcn wrote:

    DM 28, Part of what you say is valid, especially about TV ads, but your post was too long for me to read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 6:45pm on 29 Jan 2011, Sindy wrote:

    28. DMarshall
    "Raab's points aren't discriminatory against women, they're arguing for a balance between men and women. "

    And feminists aren't discriminatory against men, they're arguing for a balance between men and women.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 01:11am on 04 Feb 2011, entreri100404 wrote:

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

  • 33. At 01:15am on 04 Feb 2011, entreri100404 wrote:

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

  • 34. At 02:40am on 05 Feb 2011, Charles wrote:

    "And feminists aren't discriminatory against men, they're arguing for a balance between men and women."

    A good 50-60% of feminist might fit into this category. Unfortunately a significant minority clearly hate men and regard them as the enemy. Worse still the most obnoxious and sexist feminists tend to be the ones who get into positions of power/influence especially in politics, government and in academia. For example we had ones of the most anti-male people around running the country for a short time last year!

    Mr Raab is quite clearly correct and the BBC's treatment of him has been a disgrace (not just on Radio 4 either).

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 10:17am on 05 Feb 2011, Big Sister wrote:

    "For example we had ones of the most anti-male people around running the country for a short time last year!"

    Good grief! I've clearly missed something along the line - Is he referring to Gordon Brown or David Cameron, I wonder? Or has he forgotten about the election?

    And as for these 'men hating' feminists, in all my years (both in academia and elsewhere), I don't recall ever meeting one. Though I have met a number of men with some very dodgy attitudes towards women, it has to be said, and this may be why some women are wary of some men.

    [Note: wary isn't the same as hating]

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 11:25am on 05 Feb 2011, lucien desgai wrote:

    What is it with misogynists and Harriet Harman? Unlike her male predecessor as deputy leader of the Labour Party she was never deputy PM. She has long existed in a male dominated environment, goaded and taunted by the other side and sometimes her own side too, her articulate but 'shrill' voice shouted and harumphed down in the House of Commons. There is nothing she has ever said or done to support the claim that she 'hates men' which is quite extraordinary given that she has been the focus for so many years of sexist vitriol and contempt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:27pm on 05 Feb 2011, Big Sister wrote:

    Ah, Lucien, the scales have fallen from my eyes! Charles was referring to Ms Harman? When did she run the country? How some people try to distort the truth to suit their case!

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 04:10am on 08 Feb 2011, Charles wrote:

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

  • 39. At 04:14am on 08 Feb 2011, Charles wrote:

    "And as for these 'men hating' feminists, in all my years (both in academia and elsewhere), I don't recall ever meeting one"

    If you want to meet some man haters try meeting those running 50% of domestic violence services, 90% of those running women's studies or gender studies courses and a not insignificant number of female Labour MPs.

    Alternatively just try going to Sweden, "the Saudi Arabia of feminism".

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 09:00am on 08 Feb 2011, lucien desgai wrote:

    39 Charles
    I have visited both Sweden and Saudia Arabia. I have to say how shocked I was that in Sweden men are allowed to play no role in government, that men have few legal rights and are treated as a fraction of the male counterparts by the courts. The men in Sweden are not allowed out of the home unless covered from head to toe, they must not fraternise with any man who is not their husband or close blood relative and they are forbidden not only to drive a car but even to sit in the front passenger seat. Many Swedish men even have to share their wife with multiple other husbands.

    ... or is one of us confused?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 09:41am on 08 Feb 2011, lucien desgai wrote:

    Oh dear, I think I may have got a bit gender confused in my last post. Easily done!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 10:30am on 08 Feb 2011, Big Sister wrote:

    Oh dear, Charles, you seem to be very angry.

    Now, let me put my cards on the table. Without going into details that would be too intrusive and personal, let me assure you that I have some experience of how badly some women are treated, by men, as a result of their gender. For example, I suffered a serious physical assault at the age of 15, was the subject of four attempts of serious sexual assault in my twenties and thirties, was (along with some other female colleagues) denied promotion within my profession by the head of my organisation who quite openly admitted that he favoured men over women because they 'were the main breadwinners' (yet I, at the time, was the only breadwinner in my household), was denied access to mortgage funds on the basis of my gender and therefore condemned to rented accommodation for many years (which was not my choice) ... I could, but won't, go on about the discrimination and offence that I've suffered as a result of my gender over the years and which have affected my life, my wellbeing, and my life choices.

    Here's the good news: I do not hate men. I am not even angry. I understand, even if I don't condone, some of the behaviour that has impacted upon my life. I don't blame a whole gender for the actions of individuals, I have many friends who happen to be male, and I am now married to one. But my experiences have shown me at first hand the injustices and problems experienced by so many - possibly the majority - of women, not only in less enlightened countries than our own, but also within our own shores. Is it no surprise that there are women who feel they have to stand up - and, where necessary fight - for the rights of women?

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 9:01pm on 08 Feb 2011, Charles wrote:

    I'll try again seeing as the moderators wrongly deleted the last comment.

    The BBC falsely smeared Mr Rabb on their website. There's various blogs talking about it. Here's the absolute proof thanks to the brilliant Newssniffer site:


    This post is 100% on topic and relevant, you have no excuse for deleting it whatsoever. If you do so again I will take the matter further. Perhaps if you're so concerned about the issue then don't' add these false accusations to your site in the first place, it's too late now to pretend it never happened.

    When you make these false allegations license fee payers have the right to highlight them and discuss your bias. We will not be silenced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:44pm on 08 Feb 2011, Sindy wrote:

    43. Charles

    Well, I have to say - if you think NewsSniffer is brilliant, you really need to get out more!

    And why do you call him Mr Rabb?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:57pm on 08 Feb 2011, jamie_robertson wrote:

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

View these comments in RSS


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.