The Glass Box.

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 5:03pm on 18 Nov 2008, Dr_Hackenbush wrote:

  Shouldn't the Chancellor know that people don't pay their gas and electricity bills at the petrol pump?

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 5:19pm on 18 Nov 2008, Screamingmuldoon wrote:

  Quite right Dr. We have yet to see the "plummeting" oil costs in our bills. And anyway, .95p a litre might be a big reduction from the high point, but it is hardly cheap. I'm listening to Lord Lawson - doesn't he sound old? The problem is the banks have spent all our money. That is why they are not lending. They have nothing to lend. And where the government is going to borrow money from is a mystery. Take a leaf out of Barclays book perhaps?

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 5:33pm on 18 Nov 2008, Happyhomeworker wrote:

  Thank you for selecting several different viewpoints on the economic issues facing us - far too often we hear only from the Government, with Gordon deluding himself he is leading the world on the economy. Sometimes, in desperation I find myself reading the world press for a different view of things. Funnily enough, Gordon doesn't feature heavily there...

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 5:42pm on 18 Nov 2008, lbeagle wrote:

  Could the Minister please name the lawyers whom he believes are acting inappropriately?

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 5:43pm on 18 Nov 2008, Screamingmuldoon wrote:

  The best lawyer joke .....
  Satan and God have a monthly meeting on the border between heaven and hell. For Satan, it means climbing mountains of fire and brimstone to get there. He is that knackered when he gets to the meeting that he feels he never really gets his points across and God always carries the decisions. Satan has a plan. He gets the doomed hordes to build him a pair of escalators to take him to and from the meeting. God is furious. He says, "You've completely broken our agreement Satan. I'll sue!"
  "Good luck finding a lawyer" says Satan
  

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 5:51pm on 18 Nov 2008, gallantSocrates wrote:

  Whatever you may think about the complexies of the 'Social System'..see for example George Monbiot in Today's Guardian where according to him J M Keynes ideas were not really ever implemented correctly and only helped the Rich to exploit the poor (well what's new)...although we were always told at University that when ever an economic crisis happened.. the State had to step in to create a demand with in the system... David Cameron does not seem to understand this idea, but considering that Keynes ideas have been out of fashion for over 30 years....it may hard for him to agree with it, as is to admit that Capitalism does not really work without State subsidies...Hence I would suggest that RB was probably correct in his analysis of this current crisis, today and Lord Lawson mostly wrong...
  
  Brian
  
  Brian V Peck

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 5:51pm on 18 Nov 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

  "No systemic failure" on the BBC's part regarding the Ross/Brand affair?
  
  So it's not a systemic failure to allow production of a celebrity's programme to be outsourced to a company owned either by the celebrity themselves or their agent? Is this not a matter of policy that needs reviewed before the BBC Trust systematically abdicate all measure of control over their programmes and presenters?

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 5:57pm on 18 Nov 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

  "Lolita"? Isn't that a small "Laugh Out Loud"?

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 5:59pm on 18 Nov 2008, barriesingleton wrote:

  Is no one aware that at 11.10pm, yesterday (17th) the BBC News Channel eclipsed Ross and Brand's 'prank' with video obscenity supporting an update of the 'Baby P' atrocity?
  
  Should you care to check, you will find arty footage of cot bars - slow focus change to interior (empty except for soft toys) focus returns to the bars, AS TWO HUMAN SHADOWS TRAVERSE THE COT.
  
  This was CONTRIVED. Not even spur-of-the-moment.
  
  With the BBC doing stuff like this - come back the two prats, all else is small beer.

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 6:02pm on 18 Nov 2008, brian_catt wrote:

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

• 11. At 6:13pm on 18 Nov 2008, invincibleoldandwise wrote:

  Do I believe that some lawyers might be "working the system" in the asylum seeking industry? You bet I do, from what I've seen some of them get up to in other fields e,g, ambulance chasing.
  I don't need them to be named.

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 6:26pm on 18 Nov 2008, Josuja wrote:

  Heared a guy on the car radio ealier, I think his name was Lawson. Could anyone tell me if this is the same Lawson who gave all the money to the rich and put the poor out of work? I seem to remember it was called the 'trickle down' effect.

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 6:56pm on 18 Nov 2008, Colin McAuley wrote:

  I have no idea why no one even talks about lynching economists; for they are truly the charlatans of the 21st century!

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 7:15pm on 18 Nov 2008, ourvoice wrote:

  BBC/COPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.
  
  If we are talking about broadcasting codes and how such a code might practically work. Well, I heard a contributor to the 'Any Answers' program put forward the simple suggestion..., if we as contributors to BBC blogs write or suggest something that does not pass the moderator shouldn't what the BBC put out in it's broadcasting have to pass the same standards imposed on the rest of us. For instance, if I am not allowed to use gratuatious language or concepts deemed offensive or legally suspect, should we not have the same protection from stuff coming the other way?
  
  The problem for the BBC is that it is not like other companies, as it is funded essentially by a poll tax. Yet, like regular companies, it wants to put forward a case of, few complaints equals not serious?
  
  For instance when the producer of top gear was interviewed about a gratuatious remark by Jeremy (who else) Clarkson in a recent edition, insinuating that all heavy goods vehicle articulated lorry drivers are murderers, the producer's only defence was to sight that they had only two (no evidence supplied) complaints concerning this matter. Is this the way the BBC should be defining weather or not the code has been broken...by the number (or lack of) complaints?
  
  I return to my original assertion, if we as service recipients wouldn't get passed the moderator, why should the service provider not come under the same moderation?
  We expect (rightly so) all other tax funded services to to treat us individuals and with respect. The BBC should not be allowed to relinquish its responsibility in these areas.
  
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 7:35pm on 18 Nov 2008, Colin McAuley wrote:

  I have a question. What is the antonym of "not insignificant"? Also, what the H does "not insignificant" really mean? Only a bleeding lawyer could use such a phrase without the gag reflex kicking in!

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 9:18pm on 18 Nov 2008, Screamingmuldoon wrote:

  I hate myself for even letting Ross / Brand non-news enter my consciousness. But I had a thought. If they had done what they did into a recording of Andrew Sach's voicemail, and not his actual voicemail, would they have been "retired" for flouting the telephone guidelines?

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 9:26pm on 18 Nov 2008, Chris_Ghoti wrote:

  I'd say that if something is being said not to be 'a not insignificant minority', what he wanted to say but didn't have the bottle for was that it was a 'significant minority', which I would parse as 'rather a lot, but less than 50%'. That would be the sort of statistical minority that got the government into power the last several times, then?

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 1:33pm on 19 Nov 2008, Charlie wrote:

  Scream...@05
  
  Nice one. A bit too near the mark though, if you don't mind me saying...

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 5:05pm on 19 Nov 2008, Blogarooney wrote:

  I would like to complain about the huge overuse of the word 'huge'. No news item on the BBC or other meedjah is complete without someone referring to huge problems, huge increases, huge implications, huge budget problems etc etc. Can the BBC please get the communal Thesaurus out and start to use other adjectives. How about vast, enormous, corpulent (in relation to banking) ample, massive, voluminous, leviathan....

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 12:41pm on 21 Nov 2008, Chris_Ghoti wrote:

  Blogarooney @ 19, there was a period not so long ago when no large thing could be mentioned without it being a 'major' this-that-or-the-other. They get a word stuck in their minds for a while, then move on to another one. It's only laziness, nothing more sinister.

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 11:11pm on 06 Nov 2009, lucien desgai wrote:

  The thing is, Preston, that you could really get on peoples nerves by bringing old threads back to life.
  ;o)

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 11:14pm on 06 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

  If they were better identified it wouldn't confuse people.

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS