Glass Box for Friday PM

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 4:44pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  I can just see how well 'vetting and barring' is going to work...
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8250712.stm
  
  Does anyone think that the wrong people are being stigmatised here ?

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 5:04pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Oooo Goody, I'm just about to become the proud owner of a puppy...perhaps I'll get a name for him from tonights edition.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 5:06pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Bruce Forsyth, Is he still with Samantha? Or did she die of boredom yet?

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 5:07pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  I'd like to know what all these people are being paid now that they've all took a pay cut?

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 5:10pm on 11 Sep 2009, capncapncapn wrote:

  my ribs are splitting...Mandy spouting crap about the directors not being fit to do their jobs and they should give all the money away and declare themselves unfit to be directors in the future.
  
  we really are in a glass box aren't we?

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 5:12pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Brucie's Pay cut...higher...lower...higher...no lower dear...oh gaw blimey...

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 5:14pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  #5 - Indeed, Mandy giving lessons to anyone on financial probity is rather like Henry Kissinger giving someone a stiff talking to on the topic of war crimes...

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 5:19pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Peter (I'm a Turbot not a Kipper) mandelson said, If they don't commit employment harry carry, he'd take them to court...Mmm that might be interesting...

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 5:25pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  A distinctly average and below par programme this evening. Bring back Eddie.
  
  http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=6991&edition=1&ttl=20090911172140&#paginator
  
  This is the topic everyone is talking about - who give's a monkey's about the Phoenix Four which is water under the bridge ??
  
  And the Alan Turing apology - This is only because Gordon Brown will not apologise for anything like the botched, er, 'rescue' attempt in Afghanistan where he might have to take actual responsibility and might therefore reflect badly on him.
  
  C- Must try harder...

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 5:31pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  An absolutely pathetic interview which was nowhere near long or searching enough.
  
  Let us hope that Any Questions can do what you singularly failed to and hold the Government to account on this.

  Complain about this comment

• 11. At 5:35pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Anybody feel they want to believe theres a perv behind every bush?
  
  That woman couldn't answer if you would be disbarred for shop lifting. What about those people who specifically want to do work because they have now turned their lives around and want to be a role model and a warning to other kids?

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 5:38pm on 11 Sep 2009, Lady Sue wrote:

  lordBeddGelert: you seem particularly grumpy about PM today. I'm rather enjoying it.

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 5:39pm on 11 Sep 2009, lucien_desgai wrote:

  I think you need to calm your temper a little. PM has covered the issue that so excites you and it was a perfectly good interview - you can't fault the presenter because her blood was not bubbling at the same temperature as your own that's not her role.
  
  I'm not sure whether this is a good idea or not but I find it difficult to see why it enrages you so. People who are known or credibly suspected of being a threat to children will not receive a certificate, that must be a good thing.

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 5:40pm on 11 Sep 2009, steelpulse wrote:

  Goodness knows what I have said in the past? But another word with my South African contacts seem in order. That jeer at the wonderful profession of ballet recently by someone who should have known better from there - rugby the sport.
  
  Today - allegedly - "I will declare a Third World War if something doesn't happen.........?
  
  The treatment of this lady has shocked most of us but Sir. Rev sir even. Chill!
  
  Yeah. Before I say anything further I had better check what I have muttered sotto voce on the WWW?
  
  Exits - stage left - chased by a bear (faced cheek)! lol

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 5:40pm on 11 Sep 2009, lucien_desgai wrote:

  Sorry, my post 13 was addressed to LordBedd

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 5:40pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  Fair point Lady Sue, but in comparison with the masterpiece fronted by Humphrys and Stourton this morning it seems, as Simon Cowell might say, 'distinctly average'. But call it like you see [hear?] it.

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 5:49pm on 11 Sep 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Sequin, I've already got a cat called Reg. Someone suggested I call the dog Ronnie.

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 5:52pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  lucien - I am enraged because it will inevitably lead to 'scope creep'. I work voluntarily for a charity with very limited resources that works with the visually impaired. The amount of bureaucracy is already significant and we have had to 'take a stand' on saying NO to CRB checks for volunteers because we simply will not patronise people by saying that VIPs are 'vulnerable adults' when they are intelligent and independent adults.
  
  Such a determination would make signing up course guides or volunteers so expensive and troublesome that we would throw the towel in. That seems to be the case for many other organisations and is NOT going to protect children but lead to the 'unintended consequence' of exposing them to more danger and I am very annoyed that people are capitulating to the authoritarian nonsense from this Government.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 5:58pm on 11 Sep 2009, Big Sister wrote:

  Monty, like Jilly Cooper's pooch, was also named after a town. My last dog's name translated as Beloved (which he was), and an earlier dog was named Buster, as an homage to Mr. Keaton and to reflect the black 'eyeliner' that was his trademark. Another dog was named after a Hindu goddess ....
  
  Lovely item, anyway, Sequin. Thank you.

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 6:09pm on 11 Sep 2009, lucien_desgai wrote:

  18 LBG - You may well be right that it's wrong to label the visually impaired as vulnerable. I'm not sure that your case is so strong when it comes to the protection of children.
  
  It's only over the last decade or two that access to, and care of children has been meaningfully monitored and controlled. Until then abusers had free reign - as carers, clergy, family members and friends - to mistreat children. It is the abusers I direct my anger toward for forcing society to place these barriers between genuine caring adults and children/young people.
  
  You can argue around the edges about definitions of vulnerability but surely you can see the case for the state intervening to prevent inappropriate access to children.

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 6:14pm on 11 Sep 2009, Sid wrote:

  My brother once had a cat called Burglar ... frightened the neighbours at closing time.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 6:23pm on 11 Sep 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  lucien - fair point, but why not focus on the sex offenders themselves ?
  
  Even the more targeted approach in the US with "Megan's Law" still allowed Garrido to slip through the net, so this highly complicated over-ambitious system will be so complex that it will deter the innocent but fail to stop the guilty.
  
  You argue that children need protecting, but surely there is a very high likelihood that they will move from a situation where they go to sports clubs and after school activities [very low risk] to activities where they are not accompanied at all and are subject to even greater danger.
  
  I won't bang on about this any more but we will see how this works in practice. I suspect that many people will just ignore the legislation. My point still stands that there doesn't seem to be a clear procedure for, say, visually impaired students to say that they are not 'vulnerable' but that official guidelines resort to 'judge each case on its merits' claptrap. And then you are swept up into the world of legal bureaucracy which is going to totally stifle projects to improve the lives of the people who most need it.
  
  If even Esther Rantzen thinks this is a bad idea then one really has to ask how we ended up here. By the way, my earlier point was not that Sequin's interview was particularly bad, it was that the GOVERNMENT should be on defending this who really could have been given a hard time by her, as it is 'their' policy. The Childrens' Society can explain the policy but it is not really their job to defend it - unless they were instrumental in drafting it.
  
  I may be making a fuss out of proportion to the issue - but the fact that this is the number one 'have your say' topic leads me to suspect not.

  Complain about this comment

• 23. At 5:44pm on 12 Sep 2009, Lord Elpus wrote:

  It's a disgrace that the BBC should take money away from a 'poor' OAP (Brucie) If they want to save money, why not give all those boring sports programmes to the sports channels and use the money saved for entertainment, education and information.

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS