« Previous | Main | Next »

The Glass Box for Monday

Post categories:

Sequin | 17:28 UK time, Monday, 18 June 2007

The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.
Just click on the "comment" link.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond. But as it's Friday they may just go home..... Only joking.

Comments

  1. At 05:31 PM on 18 Jun 2007, David Haines wrote:

    Lord Ahmed has very distorted view of responsibility in accusing Salman Rushdie of "having blood on his hands". He might like to remind himself that Rushdie only wrote a book - it was religious extremists around the world who intimidated, maimed and killed people. Yet again, religion is assumed automatically to have the moral high ground, yet that high ground crumbled away long ago.

  2. At 05:33 PM on 18 Jun 2007, King Zog wrote:

    Reference the death of Bernard Manning. They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead so.............................................................

  3. At 05:33 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Sid wrote:

    I'm astonished and perturbed to hear calls from Pakistan for Salman Rushdie's knighthood to be withdrawn.

    It really is time that we made it clear to all that we live in a secular society, not a theocracy. We seem to be in danger of allowing ourselves to slip imperceptibly towards a society in which religious elders tell us how to behave.

    Recently we have seen Catholic Cardinals attempting to pressurise elected representatives in Scotland, and we already have Anglican bishops built into our legislature. We're just saying goodbye to a Prime Minister who is happy to see increasing faith influences in our schools.

    Time surely to re-establish the separation of church and state. It is not acceptable for religious leaders to tell us whether or not we should honour our novelists and other artists.

    Religious leaders are welcome to hold their own opinions - but they should keep them to themselves and their faithful.

    Sid

  4. At 05:35 PM on 18 Jun 2007, peter watkins wrote:

    What a chatty programme. Personally I want MORE MEAT.

    Why is there no inquisition against Israel for what other newscasters are labelling as an impending humanitarian crisis in Gaza?

    Apparently Israel is going to mount a total blokade against 1.500.000 innocent civilians.

    And PM is eulogising Blair's parliamentary appearances.

    You have top interviwers. Now let's get some much sharper stories

  5. At 05:35 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Jane Roberts wrote:

    Listening to the comments of the guest on tonight's programme about the knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, I despair. Likewise the remarks made by the governments of Iran and Pakistan. How on earth can these people justify demonstrating their disapproval of anything by calling for the murder of the person who has offended them, let alone approve of the wave of killings that followed the publication of the Satanic Verses? Truly is case of 'East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' - and I hope it stays that way as long as followers of Islam continue to hold their foul views. I don't often approve of anything our current government does, but this time I hope they hold their nerve and tell the muslim objectors exactly where they get off.

  6. At 05:35 PM on 18 Jun 2007, VT Thinblot wrote:

    How anyone in this day and age can take the supposed crime of blasphemy seriously is beyond me. And yet it remains on the statute book! Let me check my calendar - what century is it?

  7. At 05:37 PM on 18 Jun 2007, brian Mchugh wrote:

    presumably Lord Ahmed will be handing in his Lordship as a protest about Rushdie, otherwise its just a lot of hot air.
    Suicide bombers are convinced by teachers called Imam, Mahdi, etc perhaps all muslims should dispense with all titles. In Islam there is only one prophet all otherse equal, so no titles!.

  8. At 05:48 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Ben wrote:

    Hello

    Just prior to the article on BBC bias, we listened to the female interviewer talking about Bernard Manning, as if the received opinion is that he was racist etc i.e. the viewpoint that was regularly promoted by the bbc over the years

    The tack taken was simply biased.... I don't believe the interviewer had any real factual basis for her standpoint... yes, it was what the beeb always said, but how do you know what the public thought of him?

    I honestly think you chaps don't even notice your liberal and frequently anti-scientific bias anymore...it seems to be second nature

    Ben

  9. At 05:51 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Andrew Armitage wrote:

    Why is the BBC being partisan this evening? Why is the presenter of PM asking a Muslim peer whether it's not time to 'forgive and forget' over Sir Salman Rushdie? The implication is that there is something to forgive. There is nothing to forgive. Just as they did with the Danish cartoons issue, Muslims are one again whining and bleating and threatening violence - and will no doubt soon be carrying it out - because of a perceived insult to a historical figure. Goodness, but religions are up there with all other public institutions to attract praise, criticism or ridicule, and it's part of the free-speech ethos of this country - the UK - that this should be so. If people don't like it, they can go to a country whose ethos is more to their liking, or just pipe down. British culture, British sense of fair play, British values - and among those values is a welcome to people of other ethnic groups, who are so quickly outstaying that welcome by bleating the way they do over something like religion, something that ought to be of hobby status.

  10. At 05:53 PM on 18 Jun 2007, mike fennell wrote:

    I've just listened to the BBC news headlines at 5.30pm during Radio 4's PM programme. The brief reference to Bernard Manning's death was another example of the BBC's institutional political correctness. Which BBC apparatchik decided to comment that many people disapproved of Bernard Manning's humour? Surely the fair assesssment is that either people had different views about his humour or that many people in the BBC disapproved of his humour. The report on BBC impartiality obviously hasn't reached the PM newsdesk

  11. At 05:57 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Acid Drip wrote:

    Did I miss something? Lord Ahmed says that Salman Rushdie has "blood on his hands". Did he ever kill someone?

  12. At 06:01 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Paul wrote:

    I note from entries made over the past weeks that several bloggers have aired their disquiet that the BBC does not appear to be impartial, myself included. Indeed, i commented online in response to Matthew Parris's column that in my opinion the media is the most powerful political party in this country, the only thing it lacks is a mandate. Sadly, Richard Tait failed to show the ability to take the points made on board in this evening's PM.

  13. At 06:03 PM on 18 Jun 2007, John Pringle wrote:

    Yes - the Welsh are so inherently musical that your (Welsh) reporter seems to believe that bass-baritones (of whom I am one0 are brewed in burton.

  14. At 06:11 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Stephanie wrote:

    So, now we are being told that Salman Rushdi's elevation to the knighthood is just cause for more suicide bombing in this country - and this from a "citizen" of this country.

    Perhaps a reminder that this is a country of free speech should firmly be stated.

    We do not put out Fatwahs to kill writers for their novels. If we are offended, we do not read, watch or listen to what offends us. We do not seek to kill anyone.

    This is what it means to live in this country, to be a part of this country.

    Lately, we have not made any firm stand against this murderous thinking.

    It is time we did.

    None of the world religions can be harmed by other peoples opinions alone. They are strong enough and have followers enough to survive, as they have for centuries.

    The only harm is caused by people seeking to kill others for their opinions.

    Let us stand firmly against this evil. Let us stand up for freedom of thought and discussion.

  15. At 06:13 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Oh good, a new box (even if it does claim to be Friday's).

    I want to say that I am utterly opposed to death threats against Salman Rushdie for what he has written, but I am also opposed to his being given a knighthood for his writing.

    It's not that I object to the content, it's just that I don't think he's that good a writer.

    If *he* deserves a knighthood, please can we have a gong of some sort for the far better writer Diana Wynne Jones, who has been writing far better books than his for longer than he's been on the scene, and given a lot of pleasure to many, many people? It's a national scandal that she hasn't been recognised at all. Almost all the children's authors who've been given gongs (and it never seems to be knighthoods) are now dead, and children starting to read seems to me to be very important and hardly likely to be encouraged by Rushdie's work.

  16. At 06:16 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Oh good, a new box (even if it does claim to be Friday's).

    I want to say that I am utterly opposed to death threats against Salman Rushdie for what he has written, but I am also opposed to his being given a knighthood for his writing.

    It's not that I object to the content, it's just that I don't think he's that good a writer.

    If *he* deserves a knighthood, please can we have a gong of some sort for the far better writer Diana Wynne Jones, who has been writing far better books than his for longer than he's been on the scene, and given a lot of pleasure to many, many people? It's a national scandal that she hasn't been recognised at all. Almost all the children's authors who've been given gongs (and it never seems to be knighthoods) are now dead, and children starting to read seems to me to be very important and hardly likely to be encouraged by Rushdie's work.

  17. At 06:43 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Clive Last wrote:

    It would appear from Lord Ahmed that it is inappropriate to criticise Muslims, Jesu Christ and Margaret Thatcher. I wonder if there are other subjects/people on the banned list?
    Such suppression of ideas only goes to reinforce the prejudices that lead to persecution not counter them.

  18. At 06:44 PM on 18 Jun 2007, don wrote:

    I look forward to watching and listening to future impartial programmes and news on the BBC. Today appears to be one of those days where the BBC has tried hard to follow their politically PC masters dogma, supporting the no knighthood for Salman Rushdie brigade, well Lord Amhed and the Pakistani and Irainian governments, only one of whom has a right to vote in this country and therefore has a right to voice his view, without seeking comment from a supporter of his award, of which there would have been many for it to have been awarded. We also heard of the death of Bernard Manning, God Blees him, and rather than accepting that he was, within the period he performed one of the best loved and hugely popular comedians in this country, today his presenation would not be acceptable and to a degree that is right, however the BBC should not try and apply today's southeastern PC attitudes on someone who made millions laugh, and will be missed by millions. An impartial BBC is all we tax payers expect, we live in an overly political nanny state, so please lets not have all of nannies friends in the BBC supporting this mantra.

  19. At 06:53 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Harry Perry wrote:

    Three Cheers for Sir Salman Rushdie! Lord Ahmed needs to get a grip. Free speech is one of the things that millions of Muslims have come to this country to enjoy. How dare Ahmed claim that Rushdie has blood on his hands because crazed Muslim fanatics went around killing people in protest at the Satanic Verses. Are we going to get another wave of Muslim madness? It is they who have blood on their hands, and by implication so do those, like Ahmed, who dare to defend them by switching the blame onto innocent parties like Rushdie.

  20. At 06:54 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Mike Winstanley wrote:

    Life would be so much simpler and pleasanter if no one received honours - no Sir Salman Rushdie - no Lord Ahmed - no Lady Thatcher - no Lord Blair.

  21. At 07:10 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Rachel wrote:

    Coo, lots of flack tonight. I don't think the BBC is biased or politically correct, whatever that means (but then I'm a wishy-washy-liberal-media-type, so I would say that). However, I do think Lord Ahmed should have been challenged more strongly on the 'blood on his hands' assertion. I was amused, though, by his assertion that Christians should also be offended because Rushdie had been rude about Jesus Christ and Margaret Thatcher. Is she a God now too?

    As for Bernard Manning - I can see it was a tough one to get right. If you couldn't ignore it altogether, perhaps a piece on how comedy has changed over time might have been preferable to the (for me, anyway) slightly nauseating tribute from Carson.

  22. At 08:09 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:

    I think there may be some mileage in the argument that Bernard Manning wasn't racist - he wasn't selective in who he chose to offend - he was willing to offend all minorities equally.

    Not my choice of comedian, but as the earlier posts on freedom of expression show, a society generally benefits from being free to have a wide variety of artistic expression, and if one is offended by it, or don't like it, then one does not have to listen.

    Of course, some will say that he encouraged racist views in others - but if some thugs tried to use his brand of humour as an excuse for a violent attack, then the 'Bernard Manning made me do it' defence would get pretty short shrift in a court of law.

    Of course, this comes with the caveat that I only heard him on television, and never attended his stage shows, so I may never heard some of his more 'uncensored' material.

  23. At 08:12 PM on 18 Jun 2007, admin annie wrote:

    Gosh, another Diana Wynee Jones fan! She should certainly get more recognition in some form or another.
    If you haven't tried her and want a flavour go into your local large bookstore, take from the shelf 'The Tough Guide to Fanrasyland', and turn to the section on swords. If you can read to the end of this without laughing at least three times I rather wonder what you're doing on this particular frog! as I have sort of assumed we most of us have a sense of humour. D W-J is just great.

  24. At 08:59 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    admin annie @ 23

    I am particularly fond of her "the horse in fantasy is either a bicycle, because they can gallop all day without rest, or a vegetable, because they clearly breed by pollenation" hypothesis (or should that be hippo-thesis?)

    and the pan-Celts, including Daibhaeaidhaibh MacAeraith (pronounced 'Dave Mate')

    and of course the entry on Stew (and other foods, and Scurvy).

    Note to anyone who thinks this sounds interesting, look for her under J. The surname is Jones, and Wynne is a good old Welsh forename.

  25. At 09:16 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Druck wrote:

    In my opinion the interviewer ought to have reminded Lord Ahmed that he lives in a democratic, tolerant society where any form of policy should not be dictated by hatred.

  26. At 09:33 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Tim Towers wrote:

    I was shocked to hear the interview with lord Ahmed on PM today and the wholly inadequate response of the interviewer to his quite outrageous comments. To say that Mr. Rushdie "has blood on his hands" is a preposterous view of his role in the furore surrounding 'The Satanic Verses' . Why didn't the interviewer point out that it was Mr. Rushdie whose life was threatened, and his only 'crime' was to write a novel - a perfectly legal activity. It was he who was forced into hiding for a decade. It was the innocent translators and booksellers who were threatened and some actually murdered by fanatical Muslims. And yet Lord Ahmed had the temerity to suggest that it was the victims of murder and intimidation who are to blame. The perpetrators apparently are entirely innocent.This was wholly unchallenged by the interviewer who meekly accepted what was said, even his half-hearted and muted disapproval of the Pakistan threat to resort to suicide bombings. When a member of the House of Lords comes so close to condoning terrorist acts it surely merited some disapproval from the interviewer ? Why, when it comes to questions of faith, does the BBC alway display a craven acceptance of the most outrageous assertions and distortions that would certainly be challenged if made in a secular context ?

  27. At 10:32 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Incidentally and whilst I am in literary mode, that verse of Kipling's, 'The Ballad of East and West', isn't quite as obvious in its message as the first line appears if one doesn't read the rest. The point is that the two strong men in the ballad, one an Afghan and the other an Englishmen, are equals, and they can and do meet; when they do, the Afghan representing the East shows the greater heart and behaves with even more honour than the Englishman representing the West.

  28. At 11:30 PM on 18 Jun 2007, saaied hakami wrote:

    what on earth this coverment trying to proof by giving salman rushdie the knighthood, is this going to help the situation in iraq or going to help those non-radical muslems who trying hard to patch the things up between mslem world and western kind of democratic world, well is not going to help neither.salman rushdie knew by writig that book could make many muslems very upset but he did not care, all he wanted fame and he got that because until then nobody knew who on earth is SALMAN RUSHDIE.

  29. At 11:48 PM on 18 Jun 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mike Winstanley (20),

    I'll second that! Best comment of the lot.
    xx
    ed

  30. At 06:27 AM on 19 Jun 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    So Saaied (28):

    Would it be OK for me to threaten violence if Joanne Rowling was made a Dame in the honours list? I find her books very upsetting - being the kind of patronising nonsense that so very nearly put me of reading when I was very young.

    I feel very strongly that a good, thought-provoking book is one of the highest achievements of mankind, and those who can produce such books should be lauded and those who produce less good books... should be encouraged to do better.

    But even where people despise books and those who write them, I would never condone violence against them, just pity them.

  31. At 09:55 AM on 19 Jun 2007, Peter Rippon PM Editor wrote:


    Hello,

    The irony of the impartiality issue did not escape us last night. In the report itself news programmes actually come out quite well.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm

    We knew that Lord Ahmed's view would annoy many people, that's why we wanted to talk to him rather than a Rushdie defender. We could have challenged him more but the debate is very well trodden so I'm not sure it would have been that enlightening. I felt it was more important to get the view out there and it has been widely picked up by the rest of the media.
    On Bernard Manning we interviewed a friend of his who defended him very effectively. We could have interviewed a critic. To suggest that we should just have eulogised him is just silly. He was a controversial figure. 'Racist in Peace' is the Sun's front page today.
    If we challenge a contributor vigorously it does not mean that the position the interviewer is taking is the BBC's view. It just means that we want to test and illuminate the debate that way.

  32. At 10:10 AM on 19 Jun 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    I enjoyed The Satanic Verses - does that make me an Islamaphobe? And it is, after all, FICTION.

  33. At 10:25 AM on 19 Jun 2007, admin annie wrote:

    well I have to say that leaving unchallenged the assertion that 'Salman Rushdie has blood on his hands' etc is not illuminating anyone since it comes across - alhthough I'm sure it wasn't meant to - as simply craven.
    The debate about the book might be well trodden but the new debate about his knighthood cannot be by definition since he's only had the thing 5 minutes.

  34. At 10:36 AM on 19 Jun 2007, Rachel wrote:

    Peter, for once you have made me a bit cross: "We knew that Lord Ahmed's view would annoy many people, that's why we wanted to talk to him rather than a Rushdie defender."

    I'm all for provoking the audience, but in doing so you took on responsibility for challenging him on our behalf. And you didn't. It is a very weak defence to say that other media picked up the the story later.

  35. At 12:18 PM on 19 Jun 2007, carolyn quinn wrote:

    From Sequin: Thanks for all your comments about the Lord Ahmed interview. I know many of you have strong views about it, and some of you have questioned why I left unchallenged the assertion that 'Salman Rushdie has blood on his hands' . There was a practical reason for this, as well as the editorial reasons listed above by Peter Rippon. Lord Ahmed made his "blood on hands" comments right at the end of the interview in which I had already run over time, so I wasn't able to come back to him. I'm afraid the studio producer had already told me to wrap up the interview and it would have caused problems for the rest of the programme if I'd carried on. Had I had more time I would have pursued it, because that was a point that could be challenged, but throughout the interview before that I felt it was more interesting to hear why he felt so strongly.

  36. At 12:32 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peter,

    I have listened to the piece involving Lord Ahmed and find it not particularly offensive. The "blood on his hands -sort of" is in the context that there were more deserving writers, e.g. Robert Fisk (I agree!).

    I believe we should be very careful of statements made in foreign languages and presented to us in translation, no matter how professional and even-handed the translator.

    I think it is quite possible the Pakistani Minister said that such a grant of honour could be used as a justification for [insert action], rather than justifies [action]. Such is the subtlety of language and the capacity for misinterpretation, wilful or otherwise.

    For example, it remains a matter of interpretation whether Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel or simply predicted that it would be erased from the map of history. We choose the interpretation which suits our prejudice - we do it all the time.

    Thank you for your good work.

    A satisfied customer/license-payer
    ed

  37. At 12:35 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Sequin: I fully understand your difficulties on the Lord Ahmed interview and, at the end of the day, it was his opinion, and one which he clearly holds very strongly. I

    don't think that, had you challenged it (which you couldn't, for the reasons you've given), it would have made an iota of difference as it is an opinion passionately held by many people.

  38. At 12:58 PM on 19 Jun 2007, tom wrote:

    I just don't get it. In the eyes of believers GOD is all powerful. So he can look after himself, he does not need us to do it for him.
    If the believers are right then there is a heaven. If Salman Rushdie has offended GOD then when he gets there, GOD can send him to the other place.
    I'm drinking with a Norwegian tonight, I hope I don't say anything bad about the thunder. I'd hate GOD/THOR etc to send the Valkeries after me.

  39. At 01:00 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Sequin@35, it seems to me that the position is covered by whoever it was who said words to the effect, 'of course we must have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure that includes the right to shout FIRE! in a crowded theatre.'

    Salman Rushdie did *know* that he was being deeply offensive to a whole lot of people. He just underestimated how furious it would make them. Bad call. And blood, though not his own, *was* shed because of his poor judgement.

    I really don't see that pointing this out, which is what it seemed to me Lord Ahmed was trying to do even if rather ineptly, is unforgivable; it may be silly, in fact as silly as Rushdie was in the first place, but it isn't actually false.

  40. At 01:33 PM on 19 Jun 2007, RJD wrote:

    Sequin - I think that the Lord Ahmed interview was apposite and balanced other media coverage. The "blood on his hands" remark would ideally have been challenged but your willingness to provide an explanation and analysis illustrates the worth of this electronic glass box to us listeners. Thanks for that.

    Peter Rippon - ditto regarding Lord Ahmed. Also, I thought the coverage on Bernard Manning was just right. I suspect everybody has their opinion of the man and it is unlikely to change with his passing

    Sorry to be so appallingly supportive!

  41. At 01:50 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Rachel wrote:

    Carolyn,

    Thanks for your explanation. I am reassured that given more time, you would have made Lord Ahmed justify his words. Perhaps we need to extend PM to 6.30 (or on those days when the 6.30 'comedy' slot is anything but, to 7?)

    R

  42. At 01:51 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    All,

    From Peter's 'day job'

    xx
    ed

  43. At 02:31 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Tom wrote:

    Pathetic interview with Lord Ahmed. Declaring that a writer has 'blood on his hands' - and is responsible for the violence of those who want to kill him - deserves a tough question in response. I don't care if it added a few seconds to the programme - you should not be able to say that kind of thing without being challenged.

    The toughest question this man got was whether he should 'forgive and forget' Rushdie, for daring to write a book in a free country. Peter Rippon's wrong to say that the choice of questions doesn't give an impression of what the BBC thinks - it's quite plain that if a skinhead thug had said the government had 'blood on its hands' for letting in so many immigrants for them to beat up, he'd be challenged in the strongest possible terms.

    The fact that you rolled over and said nothing suggests that you're scared of challenging the Lord Ahmeds of this world, or you think he's making a fair point. I'm undecided which is worse.

  44. At 03:07 PM on 19 Jun 2007, M Buch wrote:

    I listened to Carolyn Quinn's interview with Lord Ahmad yesterday with astonishment. Why did she only ask him questions that he could answer from his own position of prejudice? Why not ask about freedom of speech? I carry no candle for Salman Rushdie, but he has the right to write what he pleases and not be abused for it. He cannot be held responsible for the fundamentalist attitudes that instigated riots over the publication of his book. He has no blood on his hands. Lord Ahmad should uphold our fundamental freedoms, rather than join in the unreasoned response from a foreign country, or else consider his position as a peer of the realm in the United Kingdom.

  45. At 08:16 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Ed @36 wrote:

    'I think it is quite possible the Pakistani Minister said that such a grant of honour could be used as a justification for [insert action], rather than justifies [action]. Such is the subtlety of language and the capacity for misinterpretation, wilful or otherwise.'

    I was having a busy evening and caught only bits of news programmes between 5 and 6.30, but I am fairly sure I heard something to the effect that he had said today that he had indeed intended the meaning 'people could use this to justify' rather than 'I think this justifies'.

  46. At 08:35 PM on 19 Jun 2007, Roger Stedman wrote:

    I agree with Tim towers and others - That we were totally let down by the interviewer of Lord Ahmed. His views were ridiculous and potentially give self justification and encouragement to extremists. He has every right to say it but should have been challenged vociferously. Freedom of expression is an absolute right in this society. Rushdie thoroughly deserves his honour - not because of the Satanic Verses per se but because of an extraordinary canon of literature over a life time.

  47. At 11:48 AM on 20 Jun 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Once more, the Fishy One says it better and more succinctly.
    xx
    ed

  48. At 01:06 PM on 20 Jun 2007, eeore wrote:

    i am not surprised that ill-eductaed types are upset at the knighthood for Salman Rushdie.

    Though I am surprised that educated types are not upset at the award to Shami Chackrabati.

    We live in strange times when the state awards people for being in favour of terrorism, and bending all truth to defend those who would like to murder the rest of us.

  49. At 01:20 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    eeore (48),

    What did I say about wilful misinterpretation? (36)
    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

  50. At 03:46 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed, Mr Fish, you both make an awful lot of sense.

  51. At 04:15 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Aperitif @ 50, eeek!

    Someone must have ground up one of The Tablets and sprinkled it into my ice-cream-and-Peach-Schnappes, if I have started to make sense.

    I think I had probably better panic now, and avoid the July rush.

  52. At 11:27 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    CG (51) What a bizarre diet for a fish! :-)

  53. At 11:31 PM on 20 Jun 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    CG (51) What a bizarre diet for a fish! :-)

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.