« Previous | Main | Next »

More Windows On Your World pictures HERE!

Eddie Mair | 09:34 UK time, Saturday, 9 December 2006

Lissa has been a busy body. As opposed to a busybody, which she would NEVER be...and until Monday when we can get them properly put in the column on the right, here are more of the pictures listeners took on Tuesday at 5pm.

We should try to keep the categories right so, I think this is number 11 and number 12 (I had to do something I try to avoid, and come back and change a posting, as I'd put up two the same, thanks to a misunderstanding between Lissa and me. Removing a repetitious "13" saves a LOAD of trouble later when we try to match everything up. This way, no-one's pics should slip through the cracks. Sorry!)

By the way, while I'm on, a friend fo mine is having trouble with cats c****** in her garden. Not that she doesn't love cats she does...but their poop is getting everywhere. She's tried the cat detterent things you can buy that emit a noise only cats and opera singers can hear. Plus the old "water in the coke bottle" trick (!) but still the pussies refuse to buy a nice Armitage Shanks and flush after themselves. Thoughts?


  1. At 10:57 AM on 09 Dec 2006, John Cooper wrote:

    Well done, WoyW 13 is actauly a link to WoyW12... how many more have you got to go? For all the joshing is an amazingly quick job you've done in putting the pictures up!


  2. At 11:04 AM on 09 Dec 2006, Jackie Nimmo wrote:

    Oh dear! I`m still looking for my photo, sent in by email, and have noticed that galleries 12 and 13 are the same ... AND my photo isn`t visible yet! I`ll just keep visiting ...

  3. At 11:19 AM on 09 Dec 2006, eddie mair wrote:

    Oops - I had better remove 13 or this is going to get very very confusing. Sorry! And Jackie (2), we had more than four thousand...so be patient!

  4. At 11:25 AM on 09 Dec 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    Re the cat situation, has she tried a deterrent called "SSSCAT" (and that IS the correct spelling)

    It's a movement detector which emits an audible (to humans as well) noise plus a spray of water. I'm not sure if it's designed for outdoor use.

    Failing that, she could threaten to put a thermometer up their bottoms - it always makes me unpopular with my patients.....

  5. At 12:10 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    There seems to be some delay in refreshing several pages of the blog, notably the Iraq thread & this week's beach.

    Helen Sparkles pointed me to THIS, which I reckon would make a nice frontispiece for next week's beach (or every week's?) It seems to encapsulate the idea of escape so well.

    Yours Aye,

  6. At 12:51 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Lissa, PM Blog Busy Body wrote:

    Hands up - I skipped a number and went straight to number 13. Ellie is currently uploading more photos to try and fill galleries 11 and 12 so hopefully we'll get to 13. She has 4 hours of her shift to go.

    I'm busy editing Saturday PM with Sequin. How exciting is that. 5pm like weekday PM but only half as long. (Sequin sends her love and a big kiss to all the bloggers).

    On the cat poop question, to deter Mr Knibbs pooping in my flower pots I stuck shards of teracotta with the pointy bits sticking up in the soil which seemed to put him off but that might be difficult in a larger garden. Please don't call the RSPCA. He does have a litter tray.

    PS Carolyn says: Eddie read the Guardian on Sharon Osborbe and poop.

  7. At 01:36 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Eddie, it may not look nice but I gather orange and lemon rinds and peelings do the trick ?

  8. At 02:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Phil wrote:


    The WoyW project is fascinating and a great idea.

    The video editing group I belong to also do something very similar taking video during a specific period of the year, because the group features members from all over the world the results are equally interesting.

    See http://www.ulead.com/userstory/msp/peterB.htm for more information and some of the entries.

    Snapshot in Time is now in its 3rd year.

  9. At 02:52 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    The pictures are excellent.

  10. At 03:19 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Re cat deterrent - try an Airedale. Works for us!

  11. At 03:25 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    How right you are Ed, I wonder if Bansky would mind, I think he might like the idea of our beach!

  12. At 03:58 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Your friend needs to get her own cat, Eddie. That's the best deterrent. A big bruiser, preferably. Something along the lines of no. 14 in gallery 12 ( or is it 13 - I'm a bit confused - anyway he's a BIG fluffy beast). No cat makes a mess in our garden, owing to resident incumbent - and even he goes somewhere else!
    I don't think the bottle of water thing helps, & all those pellets, sprays etc only last til it rains then you have to do it again. Best to try & minimise the favourable environment - ie anything that looks & feels like cat litter. Go for ground covering plants, or prickly bushes, not gravel & nice loamy earth. Or set aside a little corner & try to make it MORE attractive for them, in the hope they'll go there only. It might work!
    Impressed that you are all working so hard on these photos, even though it's Saturday. Do I get the feeling that next time you have a team meeting to thrash out some new directions, & Eddie opens his mouth to say "Hey, I've had this great new idea "- everyone else will shout "NO!!!! "at the top of their voices, then put their fingers in their ears & start humming very loudly?

  13. At 04:20 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Re cats- e-mail George W, he'll call an air strike and blow your house up- but think of the compensation, a book, tabloid earners and film rights!
    Seriously, get a dog and call it Tony.

  14. At 04:44 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Eddie, Lissa,

    Some very disturbing news has come to my attention -- Lies and dishonesty!!

    Firstly I would ask you to look at this photo supposedly taken on the 5th December at 5PM by my friend James, he alerted me to it last night.


    Now after driving past his house this afternoon I had a sneak in with my camera and took this shot


    What should we do ? Put him in a rogues gallery as an example ?

  15. At 05:11 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Gillian Stone wrote:

    Re James' garden....please tell James his gnomes have been kidnapped!

  16. At 05:14 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Also interesting how James got his photo up there and sent it two days late - and many of the ones including my own - and some regular froggers who sent them in on the 5th still haven't appeared. No problem - just curious.

    BTW for those curious or who don't know-- if you right click any of the e-mailed photo's and then save them somewhere, for example the desktop.

    Then right click on the downloaded (saved) file and click on properties, the summary tab will reveal all the photo info, make, model exposure time taken etc.. if the correct time was in the camera.

  17. At 05:19 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I’d rather like someone else to present PM on Saturday, if possible. Sorry if this sounds unnecessary.

  18. At 05:28 PM on 09 Dec 2006, susan grist wrote:

    At risk of sounding rather dim, could some one please give me directions to gallerys 8,9 and 10 please ? Enjoying them very much by the way !

  19. At 05:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Haha Gillian -- excellent and very funny. I will alert him.

    I realise on this afternoons photo there is no one standing there for perspective but that tree is HUGE!

    Oh BTW Eddie you could show your friend with the cat this website, it has some tips, one of the tips is installing a cat litter box -- seems sensible enough!


  20. At 05:33 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Dr Hackenbush (17)

    What's the matter!

    Lissa and Sequin - surely the A team no ? well and Ed

  21. At 05:36 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Hi Susan,

    Just scroll up to the top and Eddie had put the links up

  22. At 05:47 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Susan (18)

    ie: Scroll up to where Eddie put todays posting

    More Windows On Your World pictures HERE!

    Then look on the right in blue and you should find all the links.

  23. At 06:25 PM on 09 Dec 2006, hippie wrote:

    I think cats avoid citrus, so like someone else said, lemon and orange peelings and juice sprayed around should help.

    Also, I think that should they still be able to smell their own, um, poo, they will continue to, um, poo there, so anything that could remove the smell may help to stop them thinking the garden is a litter box.

    Good luck!

  24. At 06:50 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: 17 Dr HackenBush

    Sorry to bring this up again but as your remark was a bit out of the blue and I think it would be nice to expand on it.

    As someone who has been involved with choosing presenters in a Radio capacity in the past I fully appreciate that it's virtually impossible to please everyone. Some people have great voices but don't have the best interveiwing technique etc.. Personally, without naming anyone I find it hapt to listen to Front Row for the majority of the time.

    It's perhaps something we could do a Poll on - for fun --

    Come up with nine presenters and then see who comes out top.

    I'd like the nice man who does overnights on ITV1 -- Joking of course!

  25. At 08:18 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Johnnie, I don't know how to spell his name, because I can't find it anywhere, but I would like that nice continuity announcer Neil Newness to be on air a little longer. His voice is like treacle, or molasses more accurately, because he has a certain drawl about him. The only trouble is that I hear him most often on the World Service as I drift off, so I might just fall asleep automatically every time I hear him.

  26. At 08:24 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Hi Johnnie, posted a comment about Chris for you on the "We talked on the show the other month" thread of 8 Dec 06. I wouldn't want you to miss my best line so shall repeat it here; I am disgusted with Tonbridge Wells!

  27. At 08:25 PM on 09 Dec 2006, whisht wrote:

    Hi Eddie, Lissa and team,

    This is telling you something I'm sure you already know but....

    people will keep on asking about their photo for ages because most people probably don't scan back through old blog postings so don't realise that you'll have close to 100 galleries of these things.

    Finished by.... mid january?

    Perhaps like you I have no idea what to think/ do with these photos but other people seem to be actually looking at each and every one!! wow! And, as has been mentioned by other posters, similar projects have been done before and provide a record and a resource to historians, artists and the curious (mainly of interior design).


    and thankyou to the "poor sods" who are having to put these darn things up. OK, this is just before xmas, its a workload on top of what had been planned but it will be used by people across the world.


    I just have no idea how!!

    but then I'm not an artist or a historian.

    but now I'm curious.
    (though not about kitchens)

  28. At 09:00 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Whihst, I shall repeat myself somewhat because I already posted this elsewhere, but I find the mundane is elevated to something quite profound through our collective efforts.

    Eddie has been quite candid about not thinking this through properly, & Lissa has been a star, as have many others I expect. I really appreciate their hard work as I am sure lots of PM-ers do.

    Yes other people are looking at all of the snaps, & I am one of them! I don't really care if this kind of project has been done 100 times, I like this one here where we are now, I am just interested in other people's lives and a snapshot in time, despite not being an artist or historian.

  29. At 09:02 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re Helen Sparkles (25) Yes indeed Neil Nunes from Jamaica.

    I have him logged as your choice so when we get nine I'll set the Poll going.

  30. At 09:11 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Sparkles - I think it's Neil Nunes... and I vote we add him to Appy's Yum Yum list - in a totallly non sexist way of course.

  31. At 09:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:


    Thanks for the links and kind words of support regarding Chris Jarvis and his horrid neighbours in Tunbridge Wells.

    He's popping in on Sunday so I'll show him.

    Oh and BTW I didn't take the photo of the lady in the tube who was reading. It was a Jonathan but not me, just in case someone thought it was me.

    Poor Woman -- She'll be shocked if someone alerts her or see's it herself. Haha ;-)

  32. At 09:49 PM on 09 Dec 2006, eddie mair wrote:

    Not only that, Jonnie (14) but we've had a few daylight UK shots that couldn't possibly be true! Some people...

  33. At 10:56 PM on 09 Dec 2006, james wrote:

    re: jonnie (14)

    now driving past his hotel today I had a sneak in with MY camera and took a shot of the 'illuminations' for want of a better word - consider the enormous carbon footprint this is creating - just think of those ice caps

  34. At 11:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed I and Sparkles,

    Please see my apology on the Theft thread.

    Sorry to all for being a bit of a misery this week.

    A. x.

  35. At 11:40 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I don’t want to say anything uncomplimentary.

  36. At 11:56 PM on 09 Dec 2006, valery p wrote:

    At 05:19 AM on 08 Dec 2006, Rosalind wrote: Forgot to say, Val P, love the strapline.

    Does anyone know what the strapline said? I was sulking somewhere and didn't check the Blog at all yesterday....

  37. At 11:58 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Eddie (32) you or impostor? Lissa, methinks charlatans should have their IP's revealed!

    Aunt Dahlia (30) Neil Nunes then, you spotted him too huh?! He just seemed to pop up on the world service a little while back, I wanted more, & there he was, announcing continuity all over R4.

    Johnnie (29) shall look forward to the list, & what happened to Chris was just horrid & unnecessary; silly people. A friend of mine took a leaflet from a ‘Christian’ woman we both know, only to find it advocated stoning gay people on religious grounds. I’m not sure what happened next, action was taken, but I wasn’t involved. As well as being horrified, we both think it funny that the pamphleteer had handed her tract over to a lesbian ex-dominatrix! The ‘Christian’ would have known this, so we wondered if she was supposed to stone herself, or perhaps invite me to.

  38. At 01:04 AM on 10 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: eddie mair (32) Indeed !

    & James (33) Interesting as I plan to do the lights this morning -- such porkie pies James and you a town planner!

    Re: Dr Hackenbush (35)

    I understand that you don't wish to cause offence,
    However the original comment you made (17) was rather ambiguous and it might serve more of a purpose if you expanded as to the reason you would like a different presenter for PM on Saturday. Otherwise, personally, I think it was a somewhat unnecessary comment.

    I'm sure Carolyn would appreciate any valid criticism and equally respect the fact that you have your own point of view. Indeed many presenters and continuity staff often get a grilling on 'Feedback' as indeed did Neil Nunes recently. Anyway I'll leave it at that as I normally value your postings -- but it's 'Good to talk'

    Re: Sparkles: (36) Again thanks for the words for Chris Jarvis. I will trawl him through the blog in the morning.

    And sorry I posted so many comments today. I'll be busy the rest of Sunday putting up trees and lights but may pop in and say hello when I have a cuppa.

    Night x

  39. At 01:20 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    At 05:59 PM on 08 Dec 2006, Leslie Williams wrote: I had a photograph but it's all too complicated for an old codger of 81 like me! Les W.

    Hello Leslie,
    If it's a genuine paper type photo, send it with one of those old fashioned postage stamp things to:
    Window On Your World, PM, Room G601, BBC News Centre, London W12 7RJ
    I got the address from here:
    If you can't get a proper picture then write again. One of the bright young things around here may be able to help.

    By the way, if you're the handsome Leslie Williams that I met in Leicester Square on V.E. Day, can I have my stockings back, please?

  40. At 01:20 AM on 10 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:


    Just re-read what you said re: Eddie Mair being an imposter.

    I have no way in knowing but it's a Radio 4 blog with mostly sensible froggers and it's the type of thing that Ed would pick up on, re: the false photo's.

    I actually feel quite strongly about these false photo's as - like you - I've trawled through them all and enjoyed viewing them, trusting that they were all taken at, or around 5PM on the 5th 2006, and not in the 1980's.

    Eddie will let us know if it was an imposter I hope.

  41. At 02:11 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Ian Yewendo wrote:

    Fifi drew attention to a couple of "less usual" photos. Here's another in the same vein:

    Stuart and Maggie Allison
    At 1700 the moon had just come over the horizon. It looked huge but is perhaps an optical illusion, when viewed upside down it is the same size as when directly above.


    A likely story. I think it's just an excuse to moon at the moon.

  42. At 02:21 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Ian Yewendo wrote:

    jonnie & Sparkles,

    For what it's worth I think the e.m. post is genuine.

    It was (the) Stainless Steel Cat who first flagged up the possibility of pseudo 5.00 pm piccies, by coining the word "fauxto".
    Nice to be able to use the word again.
    SSC, could we make it an irregular plural: "fauxtaux"?

  43. At 07:45 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    How to discourage cats coming into your garden? Borders with big bushes that they can't jump over and onto...

    And constant vigilance and a handy supply of sharp flints or other local stones with your catapult.

    So report me. They don't get hit (often) but they do get scared off. People shouldn't keep pets they can't properly look after and control. You wouldn't tolerate anyone letting a dog behave like that so why should there be a double standard for beeping cats!

  44. At 08:52 AM on 10 Dec 2006, eddie mair wrote:

    Jonnie (40) and Helen (37) it was indeed me! Although I don't suppose I have any way of proving that... I am hoping to see Chris in panto at some point. Yesterday involved a long-arranged trip to see Patrick Duffy in Buttons. I have a wand that lights up now. (Insert your own joke...or indeed the wand, here...)

  45. At 10:33 AM on 10 Dec 2006, eddie mair wrote:

    Actually (44) he was in Cinderella. There are a number of other jokes I'm sure but I'll leave it...

  46. At 11:08 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    A water pistol filled with ammonia works pretty well on felines and canines.

  47. At 11:29 AM on 10 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Thats no way to clean your teeth Ed.

  48. At 12:01 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Ed I (46) I trust you are joking about the ammonia. That would be cruel & no animal deserves to be treated that way. Unlike us, they do not "know" that they are doing "wrong" (ie something we don't want them to do), so I think it unfair & irrational to do something so disproportionate in return.

    Having said that, my husband once spent an entire afternoon constructing a slingshot (involving welding - a serious piece of kit) in order to let fly at a stray tom who kept invading our cellar, eating our cat's food, beating him up, then p**ing before leaving the premises. The cat never suffered from the slingshot, as by the time SO had found it, found the unpopped popcorn (which was all I'd allow him to fire in it) & loaded up the slingshot, the cellar was empty with only the aroma left to mark his visit. Still, kept SO happy for a day as he felt he'd done something to remedy the problem...

    Since we seem to be talking about panto, can I recommend the York Theatre Royal one starring Berwick Kaler? I have no idea what it is this year, but it doesn't matter, since Berwick is the star of the show whatever it's supposed to be about. It is without fail the funniest show I see all year.(and I am a VERY fussy punter). Berwick writes, directs & stars in it, & the man is a genius. He's been doing it for over 20 years, & every year it just gets better. (I'm not related to him, btw!) We happily make to 160 mile round trip to see it every year - I would travel twice as far if necessary, as it really is brilliant. If anyone lives near York & hasn't been yet - catch it while you can!

  49. At 12:12 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Thanks Eddie, the thrill of being addressed personally shall remain with me as I brave Selfidges in Brum, I hope.

    I know people have been trying to mention it for some time, but I've just realised it's Christmas really quite soon & I have nothing to put under the tree... I feel the need for swanky wrapping paper if nothing else!

    Johnnie, don't apologise for posting a lot; it's just a delight to have you here. I'm not so bothered by the photos, the 1980's might be pushing it a bit, but that might be because I know for sure the clock on my camera is never right!

  50. At 12:28 PM on 10 Dec 2006, valery p wrote:

    One of the problems with cats (as I've already admitted to not being in tune with felines) is that they are all mad as a box of frogs, and there's no way you could train them to stay in your own garden, so you can't compare theirs to canine behaviour can you?

    Mumble, my heretic thoughts on hearing the Cats with Alzheimers story this week - how would you know? Sorry cat lovers, I should have resisted that one really, shouldn't I? I'll get my coat.

  51. At 01:14 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Oh, & Eddie, don't be getting jealous of Neil, I don't want anyone else on PM ever!

  52. At 01:24 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    I was joking (sort of), but it solved the problem I had with an aggressive dog long, long ago when I used to deliver newspapers from a bicycle. One shot and I was never troubled again. It would be best to dilute, and I suspect one's own urine (or SO's)would be a good substitute, or garlic juice, or even lemon, considering the aversion to citrus noted above.

    No crueller than an electric fence? If it was proposed to introduce the domestic cat to our biosystem (they are not truly native) for the first time, they would not be allowed. Ahhhh, hindsight!

    Our domestic pets have a better standard of living than one third of the Earth's human beings.


  53. At 01:33 PM on 10 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Sparkles, Ian and the Fautaux,

    I'm not really bothered although as James had a camera he may have well taken a nice shot of Blandford Forum as opposed to a photo of an old photo.

    How very very dare he ;-)

    My outside lights will have to wait as it's bloody cold and now drizzling outside, so looks like an internal project today.

  54. At 02:35 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I offer an order of importance:
    1. Human beings;
    2. Other animals;
    3. Gardens.

    Cats are not 'trainable' as dogs are and many, many other (wild) animals will leave deposits in your garden too. It is a nuisance but cruelty is going too far.

  55. At 03:17 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    As a Deep Ecologist, I am as wary of any order of importance which places humans above gardens as I am of those who place economics above ecologics or eco-ethics.

    Anthropocentrism is at the root of our greatest present problem - living beyond our means, beyond the capacity of the Earth.

    Ravish capacity: reap consequences.
    Man claims the first a duty and calls what follows Tragedy.
    Insult -- Backlash. Not even the universe can break
    This primal link. Who, then, has the power
    To put an end to tragedy? Only those who recognize
    Hubris in themselves.

    Vaya con Gaia

  56. At 03:37 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed, I place human beings above everything else, always.

    Is the saving of the Earth not largely for the benefit of future generations (of human beings)?

    The consequences of anthropocentrism that you outline are of one type of this, to which, I might add, I do not subscribe. Caring about people above all else is not a thing of which to be ashamed: I contend it is something of which to be proud. It does not necessarily manifest in the direction that you outline, nor mean that one does not care about other things.

  57. At 04:04 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    Human beings are only a miniscule part of (and contained within) 'everything else'. We depend upon the Earth. She does not depend upon us.

    A tribe said to the universe,
    "Sir, We exist!"
    "So I see," said the universe,
    "But your multitude creates in me
    No feeling of obligation.

    The environment contains The Economy, not the other way around. Anthropocentrism embodies the most persistent perceptual misconception in our vast store of them.

    I commend the writings of Lynn Margulis (widow of Carl Sagan) and her son Dorian Sagan.

    James Lovelock would have got nowhere with his Gaia hypothesis without her support.

    Vaya con Gaia

    Every single day sees an INCREASE in population equal to the number killed by the Tsunami.

  58. At 04:33 PM on 10 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Oh Dearie me!

    I've landed myself in hot water with James and his garden picture (see 14 above)

    It looks as if it was a PM mistake!

    James has just paid us a visit and said he marked the picture 'ADVENT CALENDAR' on his e-mail to PM.

    - so big Apology James!

    so perhaps the picture can be removed from WOyW - or some fine tinkering when everything is uploaded

  59. At 06:06 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:


    I think you are trying to suggest that caring about human beings means putting economics above all else??? By all means tell if that's not what you mean, but if it is, I utterly disagree. In fact I would claim the opposite.

    I don't disagree with anything you've said about the universe, the environment and the population. Are you infering from my posting 'people first' that I do? That's something of a leap and certainly not what I meant.

    Are you trying to convince me that I should not put people first? If you are you will not succeed. Otherwise I don't grasp what you're driving at - I haven't said anything that outlines how that manifests in my life: apart from maybe suggesting that I don't like cruelty to cats...

    I am more than a tad confused by your postings. Care to enlighten me?

  60. At 06:50 PM on 10 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    Helen, you are truly brave to brave Birmingham at the weekends.

    I live there and never venture into town. I shop in Solihull, much less stressful.

    Hope you had a good shop though!


  61. At 07:17 PM on 10 Dec 2006, whisht wrote:

    ooh lummy,

    Helen Sparkles, please don't take what I write as a criticism of the idea of Window on your World. Honest, I have no idea what will be done with these (if anything) and it seems like simply posting them is enough as it is giving enjoyment to people simply for being there.

    I was trying to be amusing but not critical. But actually I was mainly trying to say that people will be saying "grr I can't see mine still" and it's likely to get irritating (to me if not the production team!)

  62. At 07:39 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    The last thing I would want to do is confuse you. I simply mean that putting humans first means putting everything else second (or lower), and I do believe that way lies destruction for humans.

    It's related to the difference between total individualism and recognition of community, but at a much igher level than just the community of humanity.

    I can't say it better than that, but perhaps Aldo Leopold:

    One basic weakness in a conservation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value. Wildflowers and songbird are examples. Of the 22,000 higher plants and animals native to Wisconsin, it is doubtful whether more than 5 percent can be sold, fed,
    eaten, or otherwise put to economic use. Yet these creatures are members of the biotic community, and if (as I believe) its stability depends on its integrity they are entitled to continuance.
    --Aldo Leopold (http://www.tipiglen.dircon.co.uk/landethic.html

    or Rachel Carson:

    "The more clearly we can focus our attention
    on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction."
    -- Rachel Carson © 1954

    Putting Humans first is tantamount to suicide.

  63. At 08:20 PM on 10 Dec 2006, KitT wrote:

    I have to thank you for expressing an ethos that I have up till now only felt, and acted upon, but never been able to articulate. Even if the description needs a big matchbox to hold it. Is there a shortcut I can use? - other than 'it's a whole thing thing'. Gosh all that HE wasn't wasted was it?

  64. At 09:31 PM on 10 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:


    Your first paragraph:
    I simply mean that putting humans first means putting everything else second (or lower), and I do believe that way lies destruction for humans.

    In other words, to avoid destruction for humans, attend to the environment -- and everything else to which you've referred -- first. Which brings one full circle back to human beings... I don't think that we're disagreeing about methods, just expressing motivation differently. (Unless you're advocating population culls or some such thing).

    Originally all I was trying to suggest was that animal poo in ones garden was no excuse for being cruel to said animals (the example in question being cats). I placed "gardens" (not "the physical environment", note, just "gardens") below animals on a short scale of importance. From that you've posted all sorts about economics and the environment as if what I said logically leads to the conclusion that I don't care about these things. Yet, again, I say that these things must be considered and are vitally important - for the sake of human beings.

    Your definition of "putting humans first" is clearly quite different from mine. Whatever you have extrapolated from that one phrase, it certainly isn't what I meant.

    I think perhaps you are being mischeivous!

  65. At 12:00 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    valery p

    Does anyone know what the strapline said? I was sulking somewhere and didn't check the Blog at all yesterday....

    Now, Dear, you're far too young to go sulking. "If the wind were to change" etc. I used to do a lot of that when Mr. Naughtie was here, but we don't speak of him, and just look at me now. I've got wrinkles on my wrinkles.
    If anyone had told me on V.E. Day that one day there'd be enough skin on my face to cover a tennis court, well ... I'd have gone to the foot of our stairs.

    I've been turning my brain cell over and over since you aked the question the first time and, gradually, a letter at a time, your comment has come back to me. It might have come back to me sooner if I hadn't taken as advice, a comment somewhat similar made by an American chap just before I was forty. I do get a little confused but I'm pretty sure that your strapline was:
    "PM - turn on, tune in...simple as that"

  66. At 12:55 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    whisht, do excuse me for my defensiveness, I may have just been baulking at having my morning coffee interrupted with demands to make my presence felt in Birmingham, & I took it out on you.

    Madmary, I still want to call you marymary really because I am imagining you being quite contrary (in the nicest maddest way) with silver bells & cockle shells in the garden you haven’t got; my imagination can prove to be a parallel universe. Despite yelling at Sat Nav repeatedly (well, it beats shouting at me!) we got to busy Brum, SO became exasperated, but all presents were acquired except his & the odd oddment. I am afraid

    I have hidden shallows & find Selfridges meets those needs. A glass of wine in Café Rouge finished me off nicely & our over indulgent purchases from the food hall kept us going on the M6 tailback.

  67. At 12:57 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    I am a bit mischevious, admittedly, and, while the idea of population culls is not very pc, we are already pretty well 'up against it', and it would take some 2.8 Earths to support a "Western" standard of living for the present 6.5 billion of us, and as noted, there are 211,000 more of us every single day.

    It ain't climate change that's the problem, but climate changers - us. The 'other' Pachyderm in the pond. (Scroll down)

    Another take on the same problem is here, and there is Garret Hardin's excellent (if troubling) "Carrying Capacity as an Ethical Concept"

    You are right, of course, that if we wish to save Humanity, we had better consider the rest - One for all and all for one, as it were.


  68. At 01:38 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Oh goodness, I fear I may fall out with you all (Ed) now because while I wouldn't advocate cruelty to anyone or thing, one of my pet rants is on how much we donate to animal charities in this country compared to human ones. It makes me feel that we don’t care about people as much as we do pets, Sam is georgeous, & I might even have a dog one day (if I can get past the poo issue) but that bothers me.

    Far from being a deep environmentalist, I’m afraid recycling is my limit & while I believe the climate is changing, the jury is still out on why for me. The evidence which is currently given most weight is also informing the political agenda, but there is as much evidence to support global warming is just what our planet does sometimes. It doesn’t make the situation less serious, but green policies are only being adopted purely to win votes, & I find this infuriating. It vexes me that taxes are being mooted to address this issue, when we still have people experiencing deprivation in our society, & that’s before I get to the rest of the world… but I think Bono & Bob are handing that one with a red credit card?!

    It shouldn’t be a binary decision, although it will be because poverty isn’t nearly as sexy as saving the planet, but I know where I would rather my taxes went. It isn’t that I just don’t care enough about animals or the planet; I just care about how people live now rather than how some hypothetical future might manifest itself.

  69. At 01:59 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    Please read the linked papers.

  70. At 02:27 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    I will Ed, but I have to say I have read a lot, as well as talking to scientists.

  71. At 02:37 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Prof. S. R. Pedant wrote:

    Ed I.

    You are more than capable of presenting your own thoughts and I have been loth to interfere ... but ...
    Do you know of any effort that may have been made to estimate the likely current UK or Euro - population if it had not been for the events of 1914 - 18 and 1939 - 45?
    Admittedly there were government initiatives to increase population which may not have been enacted had the loss of life not occurred.
    Pretty much an impossible task?

  72. At 07:29 AM on 11 Dec 2006, eddie mair wrote:

    Thank you for all the cat ideas which I will pass on and report back if any are implemented...

  73. At 09:04 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    At 04:20 PM on 09 Dec 2006, Peter Wharton wrote: Re cats- e-mail George W, he'll call an air strike and blow your house up...- but seriously, get a dog and call him Tony.

    I read that to a colleague, and he said a lap-dog would be useless.

    But really seriously, is the cat messing on the lawn? If so, it may be possible to deter same by keeping the grass shorter. It works for us.

  74. At 09:11 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Spakles - " It vexes me that taxes are being mooted to address this issue..."

    Just another excuse to raise taxes, as far as I'm concerned. When I hear Greenpeace, it makes me see red.

    And while I'm on, ID Cards and Road Pricing have only one aim - work for big business.

    Sorry I don't have time to read all your references, Ed I, but sometimes the same evidence repeated many times looks like a lot of evidence.

  75. At 10:20 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    I also read a lot, have been a scientist, and was well on my way to an MSc in Human Ecology before the "burden of awareness" became too heavy...Vyle, I know the concept - 'repetition of a lie does not make it the truth' - I only wish it were the nature of the present pachyderm (or is it an 800 pound gorilla?).

    I realise not all of us have the time to read masses of papers, so I'll use a few small extracts:

    "Such a Marxian disjunction of rights and responsibilities inevitably tends toward tragic ruin for all. lt is almost incredible that this position is supported by thoughtful persons, but it is. How does this come about? In part, I think, because language deceives us. When a disastrous loss of life threatens, people speak of a "crisis," implying that the threat is temporary. More subtle is the implication of quantitative stability built into the pronoun "they" and its relatives. Let me illustrate this point with quantified prototype statements based on two different points of view.

    Crisis analysis: "These poor people (1,000,000) are starving, because of a crisis (flood, drought, or the like). How can we refuse them (1,000,000)? Let us feed them (1,000,000). Once the crisis is past those who are still hungry are few (say 1,000) and there is no further need for our intervention."

    Crunch analysis: "Those (1,000,000) who are hungry are reproducing. We send food to them (1,010,000). Their lives (1,020,000) are saved. But since the environment is still essentially the same, the next year they (1,030,000) ask for more food. We send it to them (1,045,000); and the next year they (1,068,000) ask for still more. Since the need has not gone away, it is a mistake to speak of a passing crisis: it is evidentiy a permanent crunch that this growing "they" face -- a growing disaster, not a passing state of affairs." -- Garret Hardin "Carrying Capacity as an Ethical Concept"

    "We humans have problems controlling our population. We apply the "Hardinian taboo"—a refusal to consider or discuss population control—so as to prevent ourselves having to deal with the problem adequately. Our worst problem is demographic entrapment. If the Hardinian taboo on entrapment is not removed, there will be increasing slaughter and starvation throughout much of Africa and elsewhere (malignant uproar), as recently shown in Rwanda.1 If it is removed, there will be intense discussion (benign uproar), followed—we argue—by behaviour change in the countries of the North (sustainable lifestyles) and of the South (reduced fertility). Which is it to be? Do we open the dialogue or don't we?" -- Maurice King & Charles Elliot in the British medical Journal, 1997.

    A few urban myths:

    1. There is no overpopulation
    2. The government has a grip on immigration and the impact of an increasing population
    3. I am perfectly entitled to have as many children as I like
    4. Sustainable growth is not an oxymoron
    5. Technology such as "all the things the Romans did for us" will overcome the problem

    An effective gate keeper of the mind does not call attention to itself. It actuates a psychological mechanism called a taboo.

    "A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero."
    – Garret Hardin

    "If the theory about the taboo is right, then you will not be able to consider or voice your opinion in public and this will be yours and everyone’s downfall. …"

    Three fallacies of the mainstream economic and technological model:
    1. "Marie Antoinette Economics", (the assumption of substitutability)
    2. "Custer's Folly", (the technological cavalry will save us from ecological disaster), and
    3. "False Complacency from Partial Success"
    -- Eric A Davidson, You Can't Eat GNP

    We really should give these matters some thought.
    Economics as if Ecology Mattered

  76. At 10:59 AM on 11 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    P.S. Eddie
    The Airedale deterrent only works if you boot the lazy toad off the sofa and get him out patrolling the grounds. Regardless of the slight intemperance caused by a full scale gale.

  77. At 11:56 AM on 11 Dec 2006, valery p (Tumbleflump Holly-Hippoface) wrote:

    Mrs Naughtie, my thanks to you once again - I appear to be indebted? (Not painful, though it does sound like it).

    So were you 40 in the 60's then? I can't quite recall who coined the phrase which I paraphrased for the strapline - T Leary Esq? I hope you didn't take his psychedelic advice too literally. I knew a few who did...

  78. At 02:18 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Ed (75)

    Thanks for your efforts. I cnnot help commenting on these two:

    3. I am perfectly entitled to have as many children as I like - how do you deal with the ones you subsequently don't like?

    4. Sustainable growth is not an oxymoron
    - presumably you believe it is. I snort every time I receive a communication from my local Council which has "Sustainable development" as a motto.

  79. At 11:08 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Simon Pitkin wrote:

    I am curious. Why is crap OK here?


    Or indeed here?


    But not OK here?


  80. At 12:59 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Simon (79),

    Clearly because there is a proper place for cr*p and this isn't it! ;-)

  81. At 02:26 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    Vyle Hernia

    I snort every time I receive a communication from my local Council which has "Sustainable development" as a motto.

    My Dear Vyle,
    I am not sure that this is a good place to mention any asociation with banned substances, and valery p's funny name (77) indicates the harm that can come to a young person by merely mixing with people who use them.

    When you get to my age, you'll thank me for this advice, but I expect I shan't be able to hear you,

  82. At 01:21 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Mrs Naughtie,

    You are a consumate entertainer. :-)

  83. At 12:40 AM on 25 Jan 2007, Philip Draycott wrote:

    Where do I find the online row about Neil Nunes' Jamaican accened voice please?

    I love the way he sounds. Can we soon please have specifically Asian and African voices as continuity? Why should my Radio 4 voices sound different from the voices I hear outside on the street?

    Listen, change, adapt or die is my motto.

This post is closed to new comments.

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

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