Comments for http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml en-gb 30 Thu 17 Apr 2014 18:00:05 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=96#comment32 David in the clip I saw there was voice over which precluded any background sounds being heard. The dogs look like their mouths were shut. Are you alleging the police dogs are ventriloquists? Sat 11 Apr 2009 10:58:51 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=93#comment31 L_S 31, You're deaf, they WERE barking. Of course, I might have watched a video with better sound. It had sometning to do with the Guardian. Fri 10 Apr 2009 16:19:47 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=90#comment30 Good point n-n. Whoever the photographer was must have been over the moon at the scoop. This begs the question, if they shared the Top Secret information, were they paid and does this constitute some kind of 'treason'? David: btw, I looked at the video again too and the dogs were not snarling and barking. Fri 10 Apr 2009 13:17:34 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=87#comment29 what i was wondering whilst i was listening last night, was not about the photographer taking the snappy snap, but rather, if he/she circulated Top Secret info to other broadcast media or to the public; that could be more significant that just taking a shot and then sitting on it. Fri 10 Apr 2009 09:56:37 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=84#comment28 L_S 27, As I said, but nobody seemed to have noticed, Hitler's artwork is available foir viewing on Google images.I assume the photographer was only after a photo of Quick and discovered later what he had photographed. Fri 10 Apr 2009 09:48:38 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=81#comment27 DI_W 26, I have three origami books... Fri 10 Apr 2009 09:41:47 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=78#comment26 (24) hillwalker2005: Further to my comment that I thought Eddie was suitably tactful introducing the piece. What he says, while introducing it is: "...even how I tell you the story has implications. Do I start by telling you about the piece of art, or about the crimes committed by the artist?" That's pretty tactful in my book.He also presents the story and interviews the people concerned in a well balanced, non-judgmental way.The interviewee, while being persistently asked whether he thought artistic ability should count towards parole, persistently replied that it would be up to the parole board. It was inconclusive as to whether artistic ability would count towards early parole or not. What the interviewee did say was that, with some offenders, art and creative pursuits help them realise the implications of their criminal actions and may help to "be a route out of crime for them".Surely that is a good thing? Fri 10 Apr 2009 08:32:23 GMT+1 DI_Wyman http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=75#comment25 Really_Paul, re keeping documents safe....The answer's quite simple........simply fold it in half - printed side inward. They are police officers not experts in origami. Thu 09 Apr 2009 19:13:21 GMT+1 Samsara Surfer http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=72#comment24 I'm sure somone on p.m. tonight implied that the i.d. of the photographer was being protected by the "media". Was it Blunkett? There is an interview with him in todays Telegraph, he is called Steve Back.Some protection. Thu 09 Apr 2009 19:00:44 GMT+1 hillwalker2005 http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=69#comment23 Lady_Sue: Think Eddie was suitably tactful introducing the piece.But he persistently asked the interviewee if this should lead to an early release, which is what incensed me into sending this comment. Thu 09 Apr 2009 18:59:06 GMT+1 Peter Bolt http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=66#comment22 As is usual a "Charity Organisation", because its aims are laudable and obviously well intentioned is allowed to make a sweeping generalisation without demur.In this case we are told that "art classes" are good for convicted criminals and help towards rehabilitation.They may or may not be; Let us have the evidenceI know we would all like it too be so, but is it actually so ? Thu 09 Apr 2009 18:31:22 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=63#comment21 (21) hillwalker2005: I didn't register that there was any question of the prisoner being "released early because of artistic ability". As I understood it and I could be wrong, it was the question of whether a convicted felon should have their artwork on display and purchased.I can not imagine the horror of having a child of mine murdered and seeing the murderer's artwork not only displayed in a public place but bought by the government (am I right in this? who bought it? who got the money?). As I said in a previous comment - it is a difficult/thorny question. Think Eddie was suitably tactful introducing the piece. Thu 09 Apr 2009 18:22:54 GMT+1 hillwalker2005 http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=60#comment20 It is quite preposterous to suggest that any prisoner, whatever their crime, should be released early because of artistic ability. What other abilities might qualify - football, cooking, tightrope walking? Why should those of us with no particular talent be discriminated against?PS I tried to email this comment but quite apart from being limited to 255 characters it just kept coming up with a warning to be read before I sent the message and no apparent way of carrying on to send it. Thu 09 Apr 2009 17:45:44 GMT+1 RachelG http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=57#comment19 Leave the photographer alone. He was doing his job. Quick's failure was not that a news photographer could take a picture of the document but that anyone could have done so with the right equipment. It was his responsibility to keep them safe and he did not do so. Thu 09 Apr 2009 17:15:52 GMT+1 steelpulse http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=54#comment18 Referring to an early post of mine - the reason Formula One drivers wear those caps is because they say I belong to so an so Racing Team.Mark Stephans/Stevens? Lawyer.He definitely proved he was metaphorically wearing his - I belong to the Media in a Lawyering capacity baseball cap - allegedly.I listened carefully to the gentlemen and found no hint of shame on behalf of his clients as to how the media behave nowadays. On all occasions. Yes the photograph can be taken and then with most of us, a small thing called responsibility should kick in. All the critics talk about the policemans "judgement" and yet it appears to be a one way street in what was formerly Fleet Street.Given "responsibility" - this was NOT a front page story - but a behind the scene kick up the back side of those seen at fault.The faux pas could have been used to advise all concerned what not to do in future. And censure could have been more down key and maybe resignation still.The film "Blow Up" all those years ago - it took the hero the whole film to know what he had photographed and why everyone was after him for the pictures.But might I suggest the identity of the policeman entering Number 10 Downing Street would give the more recent photographer some idea.Yeah Mr Stevens/Stephens. Look it up. That word. Responsibility.But in your current billet - I doubt you will ever have to use it. Thu 09 Apr 2009 17:13:41 GMT+1 Really_Paul http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=51#comment17 Re Keeping Secret Documents Secret.The answer's quite simple, keep it in a folder or an envelope or simply fold it in half - printed side inward.There should (for someone up to speed on his brief) be no reason to re-read any documents during a few minutes of being driven through London. Thu 09 Apr 2009 17:13:22 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=48#comment16 Further to mine @5: how is it the webcam is so primitive? Don't the BBC do telly? Thu 09 Apr 2009 17:03:26 GMT+1 Happyhomeworker http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=45#comment15 Re photographersBefore everyone starts lynching photographers for taking photographs, could we all please remember that Bob Quick was subject to the Official Secrets Act. What he did was the equivalent of reading or leaving secret documents on a train. It was an extremely stupid thing to do, and not something most businessmen would do when attending an important meeting, let alone someone dealing with highly sensitive material. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:55:03 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=42#comment14 Photographers can't photograph what isn't there. The policeman should never have taken that document out, let alone in a way in which it could have been photographed. An "admitted lapse of judgment"? Oh come on! Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:53:29 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=39#comment13 1- Oh good, now we're supposed to feel guilty about eating anything that comes in tin cans.2- Hitler's artwork can be viewed on Google images. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:52:43 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=36#comment12 The prison art question is a thorny one. Clearly the families who suffered a tragic loss from such a terrible crime are upset - rightly so. Why should the person who raped and murdered their beloved daughter/sister benefit from becoming a "celebrated" artist, albeit anonymous - someone knows who he is and the artwork was purchased. Who got the money? On the flip side is a man who is possibly trying to turn his life around and has perhaps discovered a talent he was not previously aware of. If his life had taken a different turn early on, perhaps this talent might have been recognised and the crimes never committed.I don't have a clear opinion on this other than to say it is good work on the charity's part who are obviously doing great things with prisoners. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:51:41 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=33#comment11 The thought police took my No 1 away. It was a perfectly reasonable comment. I know how all you subversive lot feel now. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:44:09 GMT+1 Lord Elpus http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=30#comment10 This post has been Removed Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:42:17 GMT+1 Happyhomeworker http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=27#comment9 3. irontormodnorI think Eddie forgot that it is now illegal for anyone to photograph police officers. I thought that David Blunkett was suggesting photographers should not be allowed in Downing Street anymore? Until the last few years, I would have thought I had misheard, but not anymore. After all, we are a democracy, aren't we?Eddie - beware! You might be carted off to prison for reporting on this! Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:41:41 GMT+1 Gillianian http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=24#comment8 irontormodmor(3) I suppose the point that David Blunkett may have missed is that anyone could have taken photographs of the document concerned. How are we to know who was in amongst the group of photographers? Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:41:32 GMT+1 oldgifford http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=21#comment7 I would love to put my art on display, does this mean I have to go to prison before I can get it displayed?That glass box isn't glass is it?C'mon guys come clean it's plastic isn't it? Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:40:47 GMT+1 invincibleoldandwise http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=18#comment6 Good report from Nick Ravenscroft.But where was Ken Livingstone's contribution on this matter? After all, the Bob Quick incident happened in London, didn't it? Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:37:32 GMT+1 Colin McAuley http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=15#comment5 Maybe psychoanalysts should have their own Radio4 show. They can call it "Psychobabble" Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:32:38 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=12#comment4 Eddie: I've just found the webcam thing but none of you move. Are you all stuffed? Please wave your arms and smile so I know you are all OK. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:32:03 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=9#comment3 CT @ 2, I think he says that it is virtual glass. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:28:45 GMT+1 irontormodmor http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=6#comment2 In his interview with David Blunkett on the Bob Quick affair, Eddie Mair seemed to gasp with astonishment when he thought that Blunkett was suggesting that the photographer who took the shot of the secret docuemnts was at fault.Well, what kind of amoral creatures must photographers be if we must assume, as a matter of course, that they will publish, sell or otherwise make a photograph of a secret document available to our enemies?We know that celebrity-chasing "paparazzi" are totally devoid of any morals or decency, but must we now assume that news photographers are the same? Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:24:01 GMT+1 CairnTerrier http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=3#comment1 Glass - i don't think so , looks like polycarbonate. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:16:57 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/04/thursdays_glass_box_2.shtml?page=0#comment0 Did I hear right? The copper gets a pay off and an indexed linked hundred and ten thousand a year for life? wheres the down side in that? Wouldn't anyone want to potter around the garden and golf course on that for the foreseeable future. It gets sicker don't it when you get British children having to receive help from the Red Cross for malnutrition. Thu 09 Apr 2009 16:16:50 GMT+1