Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 25 Oct 2014 08:03:48 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at radiofan357 After several violent outbursts, my ex-partner was sent to prison for offences including possession of a firearm. During his time in prison, he was supposed to be relocated to another area but was released on probation and ordered back to my address on pain of further arrest. I was not informed of his release and he came to the house while I was babysitting a five-tear old and subjected me to three hours of verbal and physical abuse when I told him he could not stay. His (third in 18 months) Probation Officer did not believe my account of events and had to be pursuaded to have him re-arrested. A year later he was released again, this time with no fixed abode and came straight to my house. Thankfully, on this occasion he was apologetic and in control. However, I had to help him find accommodation and sort him out financially until he could get some benefits. I did this to safeguard myself rather than through real altruism. at one court appearance, Probation could produce no file about him after 18 months of visits to them. No-one had compiled any reports or bothered to handle his case in any way professionally. Being overworked is not an excuse. People seem to be at risk Nationwide. What on earth is happening? Somebody needs to do some serious work on the Probation Service. It is a joke on the streets. How can it all have gone so horribly wrong? Fri 05 Jun 2009 07:28:17 GMT+1 Big Sister Hallelujah! 5 is no more. Thu 04 Jun 2009 22:05:29 GMT+1 mittfh Perhaps the BBC and the NAO could agree on reporting within the context of broad salary bands (e.g. under 50, 50-99, 100-199 etc.).An interesting argument in the debate is that if the salary figures were in the public domain, it would prove advantageous to competitors wanting to poach the most well known staff by offering them higher salaries (particularly if they had a TV project in mind).Although the BBC does not need to be as concerned about the number of listeners to its programmes as commercial rivals, it could be argued that (particularly with the national stations) they need to maintain similar audience figures to comparable commercial operations to both offer fair competition and justify their existence. In much the same way as the TV audience for "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" would probably decline significantly if it was "Friday Night with Someone You've Never Heard Of Because We Can't Afford Jonathan Ross", the same could potentially be argued for some prime time programmes on Radios 1 and 2 (which do have a fair degree of commercial competition).Of course, the "celebrity factor" probably influences Radio 3 less (as they only effectively have one competitor, and that's aimed at a slightly different audience profile) and Radio 4 even less (can you name a commercial competitor?) - although the main "grilled interviewee" slots (e.g. Today, PM) really need experienced journalists who are experts at looking behind the message their subject is trying to communicate (usually filled with weasel words and ambiguities) and pin them down to a specific point. Thu 04 Jun 2009 16:05:27 GMT+1 U14016520 From 10 tonight (?) after the polls close, lots of fresh faces will want to comment here because PM is one of the BBC's political flagships.So how about the new posters rule changing.I suggest posting them straight away and then post moderating them.Of course, if there is anything breaking rules fellow posters will surely complain toot d' sweet.So the risk of something getting under the radar, albeit temporarily, is surely about as high as the risk of someone posting benignly 5 or six times and then slipping something hideous in. Thu 04 Jun 2009 16:03:59 GMT+1 U14016520 I'll suggest it without even mentioning the election, otherwise its purpose could be lost. Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:55:00 GMT+1 U14016520 A suggestion.Since it is polling day, shouldn't special rules apply?The ones about commenting on the election are special, after all.But I'm suggesting another special rule. Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:52:51 GMT+1 U14016520 This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:51:00 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti sutara @ 45, I don't mind about the House Rules anything like as much as I mind about the nuisance, to be honest. The enforcement of the House Rules is very arbitrary at times, and sometimes as much of a nuisance as a spammer. Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:42:51 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti DMcN @ 75, the difference is that you choose to go there, these wretched spammers come to where I am and get in the way. madasastickchick @ 15, I have know since, oh, about 1970 that the "first words on the moon" had probably been doctored because he had tried to memorise what he was meant to say ("one small step for a man, one giant step for mankind") and fluffed his line.Did anyone really think that was going to be spontaneous? D'uh. Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:35:29 GMT+1 mittfh Meanwhile, I've just heard that Derbyshire and Lincolnshire will be tweeting their results tonight...I wonder if any other councils will be brave enough to take the Web 2.0 plunge? Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:25:31 GMT+1 Sutara #69. mittfh Well that's one way to look at it.Another would be to ask who are the BBC to tell the National Audit Office what they can, or can't, know in terms of that agency assessing how the BBC delivers value for money in terms of funding from the public purse?I think, due to it's parallels with MPs trying to hide their dodgy expenses that it's a highly contemporary issue.It's a bit like a CEO telling shareholders they have no right to know what he's been spending money on.How, as the National Audit Office, could they possibly sign up to not telling anyone? What if MPs demanded to know how they had come to their decisions or viewpoints?Are BBC Managers really that naive? Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:10:00 GMT+1 Sid SSC & LBG - hear, hear! Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:05:23 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 15:03:08 GMT+1 Fearless Fred Mittfh (73) I believe you may be right. During elections the Beeb (as well as the commercial broadcasters) have certain rules regarding what is reported/broadcast, in case it may unduly affect the election. That's why I'm steering clear of political comment here today.... Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:39:18 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert Stainless Steel Cat - Bang on the money !! I think the Simon Singh case is very very important, and should be highlighted, just as 'Dr' Gillian McKeith and Raj Persaud were brought to a wider audience. Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:21:26 GMT+1 David_McNickle fJd 40, My name ain't Der. Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:20:55 GMT+1 David_McNickle C_G 38, We drink coffee at bar/cafe/betting places (PMU), in France all the time and haven't placed a bet or been corrupted yet. Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:19:58 GMT+1 David_McNickle Sutara 46, I might have defamed God when I said, "...God knows...' and maybe they thought I said something about God's nose. Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:14:05 GMT+1 mittfh Ho hum...someone's getting trigger happy with the Complain link...Perhaps it's someone at BBC HQ enforcing purdah, as it's polling day.Interestingly, my post didn't mention or allude to any specific groupings, but perhaps because it mentioned politicians in general, someone decided to pull it for proof reading... Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:06:54 GMT+1 arealjohnsmith Re 70 (now referred).How about "Britain's Got Vacancies"?Form a queue behind me for the Simon Cowell role! Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:59:54 GMT+1 T8-eh-T8 Wouldn't it be good if we could watch the parliament channel and as someone was speaking, press the red button to send an electrical charge up their trouser leg?As soon as they started on with some old flannel - bzzzzzzSpin - bzzzzznot addressing the issue - bzzzzzz Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:57:52 GMT+1 mittfh Meanwhile, in other news, it appears as though the misfits entering a certain location in London this evening are in for a shock... only we could have a Westminster Big Brother - lock all the Honourable Members (ha ha) in The Commons for a few weeks, and see what happens...Black Rod could dole out the porridge each morning (how long could they resist doing an Oliver Twist and asking for more?)After all, the place is already rigged with cameras...Even better, screen it on prime time TV, have telephone voting to evict the most irritating members (hang on, perhaps we could name it "I'm an MP - Get Me Out Of Here!"), and whoever wins the contest becomes the next PM...Added onto which, all the money generated from the phone lines could be used to reduce the National Debt...I hereby place this idea into the public domain, so if Endemol are interested they don't have to get me embroiled in detailed legal and contractural negotiations. Just remember where you saw the idea first :) Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:49:43 GMT+1 mittfh With regards to the BBC radio presenters salary issue; as far as I understand it, the BBC was willing to release the details to the NAO, but only if they signed a non-disclosure agreement. The NAO refused to sign the agreement because they believed it would hamper their reporting of the case.Besides which, this controversy is old - the original investigation was back in February - the only reason we're hearing about it now is that the Commons' Public Accounts Committee have finally decided to add their 2p worth. Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:39:12 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:20:29 GMT+1 Thunderbird This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:18:33 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:17:50 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:15:36 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:13:02 GMT+1 Thunderbird Is this the farming-today blog...... only for sheep? Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:08:10 GMT+1 Thunderbird NO WAY Thu 04 Jun 2009 13:06:31 GMT+1 arealjohnsmith My second attempted post (first still being moderated).Can PM obtain an explanation as to why we accept apologies from public bodies (when something fundamental has gone wrong) and the immortal phrase "we are learning lessons" is used?I always thought that one of humanity's saving qualities was our ability to learn from past mistakes but it seems that this is not the case with our public servants who have, after all, been "taking care of business" since their "business" was invented.Is there anyone out there who is prepared to take some personal responsibility for the function that they carry out?I remain, ever hopeful! Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:56:30 GMT+1 Thunderbird This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:56:17 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:50:27 GMT+1 Big Sister And the winner is ....... Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:35:49 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:34:29 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns Is local activism in political organisations on the increase, right now?Is membership of parties going up? Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:30:44 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:29:08 GMT+1 T8-eh-T8 I bet my best conker and two blue marbles that this: on HIGNFY tomorrow night. Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:28:55 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat As usual, I'm too late to be suggestive, erm, to make suggestions for tonight's programme, but is there any chance you'll be covering Simon Singh's decision to take his libel case to appeal?For those who don't know, the British Chiropractic Association have been suing science journalist Singh after he implied that some of the claims that chiropracty can cure non-back-related disease might be "bogus".There's an issue here not only about criticising non-evidence-based claims, but also about whether the English libel system is "fit for purpose".I won't tempt the Mods by posting a URL to more information but it's easy enough to find using your favourite interweb search engine. Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:27:14 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:27:07 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns We are the Maters' now Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:25:35 GMT+1 arealjohnsmith This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:23:04 GMT+1 DI_Wyman Crickey - more spam! Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:22:39 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns Can Charles save the monarch and his own kingship?Can Fred the Shred save his pension and knighthood?Can Gordon save the banks and capitalism?Should they? Just because they can? Should they even try?Aren't there better ways to arrange things than monarchy, huge inequalities and capitalism? Questions no PM seems to consider often. Is now the time? Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:21:04 GMT+1 T8-eh-T8 This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:09:51 GMT+1 Sutara 27. At 11:06am on 04 Jun 2009, David_McNickle wrote:"... to discover that a post of mine had been removed. I have no idea what rule it broke."That IS something of a problem with the BBC Moderation systems.Especially if, in the Mods' view, you may have defamed someone or something - it can be difficult sometimes to guess just what or who they think you have defamed and they don't make that specific in the email they send to you. Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:05:46 GMT+1 Sutara #38. Chris_GhotiSimpler than that - it's contrary to the House Rules that participants agreed to comply with.If people do that sort of thing on BBC blogs then they should expect to be sanctioned or, in extreme cases, be banned. Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:02:57 GMT+1 Sutara This issue of the BBC not disclosing to the NAO the amounts of remuneration paid to its 'stars' is surely just as potentially damaging for Auntie as the reluctance of MPs to permit their expenses to be scrutinised.What possible justification can BBC managers have, given that they are paying these stars money from the public purse as a public broadcaster for not cooperating with the National Audit Office's scrutiny of their ability to deliver value for money?It's like a Social Services Department refusing to co-operate with an investigation into how they handled a child protection case.And it can only harm the BBC's reputation unless resovled quickly. Thu 04 Jun 2009 12:00:14 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:55:52 GMT+1 SentIntheClowns This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:36:14 GMT+1 Fearless Fred Chris (38) Which very long posts that you think will be boring and irrelevant would that be? :-p Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:12:41 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn Der! (27) Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:12:31 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn I meant david (25) Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:11:26 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti DMcN @ 36, I think the point here may be that the individuals who complained are unlikely to want to go to a betting-site themselves (and if they do will be able to find one for themselves without someone proselytising for it) but object, and I think reasonably, to advertisements for a betting-site being placed on what is supposed to be an non-advertising blog, and in a place where someone might come across it by accident and be tempted to use it.I woud object equally to advertisement for drugs (such as viagra) or alcohol on this blog; It's the wrong place for this sort of nuisance.Sure, I can scroll past these posts just as I do past very long posts that I have reason to think will be boring and irrelevant, but I shouldn't have to. Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:09:11 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn David (25)Same thing with my (24). All I did was tell people that I was going to vote now, wish me well. I didn't mention any party. I got modded!?WHY!? Thu 04 Jun 2009 11:08:08 GMT+1 David_McNickle A little old lady stopped at a roadside cafe used by truckers and asked for a demitasse of coffee. The waiter brought her a large trucker-size mug. When she said that she asked for a demitasse, the waiter told her to drink wh\at she wanted and leave the rest. Moral, read the posts you want and ignore the rest. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:49:42 GMT+1 mittfh Needless to say, if you spot something that looks like spam, as well as complaining about the particular post you've seen, it's worthwhile viewing the user's profile and complaining about the rest of the spam they've posted elsewhere in the BBC Blog network... Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:49:11 GMT+1 mittfh I complained about 14 posts by giab yesterday - I've had confirmation of removal for at least 8. His profile currently shows only 5 'live' messages, of which one didn't contain the link, and the remaining four have had it removed.I suppose we should talk about this on the moderation thread, but it would be nice if the moderators could be given leeway to look at users' profiles and automatically remove spam (i.e. same message posted to 12+ BBC blogs within a few minutes of each other). Given all his 'live' posts earlier this week contained the link, I have to wonder how he got through the new user pre-mod period (unless this process is largely / entirely automated)... Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:46:17 GMT+1 David_McNickle Tbird 30, Sid's been electioneering for the L-Ds for some time, and I've been coming close to it.TIH 31, You can rest easy. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:36:52 GMT+1 Fearless Fred In a couple of cases, they've actually taken the whole post. There's been a few cases of spam appearing on the blog system over the last few months. I hope we don't see a flood of them appearing.... Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:35:08 GMT+1 U12196018 Fearless (26) - The link to the betting site has now gone on all the blogs that I can see. The rest of the post remains for the majority of them. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:31:42 GMT+1 Thunderbird David (27) I have a post removed last week for electioneering. All I was doing was expressing an opinion Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:29:48 GMT+1 Fearless Fred D McN (28) When someone is sending Spam posts to a number of BBC blogs, containing a link to a gambling site, I'd hardly call referring that to the moderators a "green ink" moment. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:29:01 GMT+1 David_McNickle I see the 'Green Ink Brigade' are at it quite early today. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:21:13 GMT+1 David_McNickle BS 10, I just got back from working at a polling station to discover that a post of mine had been removed. I have no idea what rule it broke. Thu 04 Jun 2009 10:06:44 GMT+1 Fearless Fred I've submitted a complaint against each of the posts across the various BBC blogs that they've appeared (including Springwatch!). So far one has come back saying that it doesn't breach house rules.... Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:50:11 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat FJD (24):Say hello to Cherie while you're there... Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:48:07 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn I'm just off to vote now. Won't make up my mind till in the booth. Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:46:17 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn Big Sis,I'm with you 100%.Even if I ignore it, my kids might not as many vulnerable people might not. Apart from it being illegal! Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:45:14 GMT+1 Mr Chris Rock The recent crash of the Air France flight from Brazil has, rightly, dominated the news.Why isn't the same focus given to deaths and injuries on British roads? Numbers run into thousands each year, but this is ignored by the media and public to an astounding extent. It's anarchy out there on the roads (speeding, illegal parking, crossing red lights, tailgating...), yet it's all brushed under the carpet. Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:44:46 GMT+1 CarolineOfBrunswick Is Jersey bracing itself for invasion (by Mark Thomas)? Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:24:40 GMT+1 Big Sister Sorry, as an addendum to my last post. I am a moderator on a forum myself and know it is extremely easy to set up a ban on an IP address that keeps trying to spam in this way. Godisaboy was removed from BBC websites a few days ago as a result of a similar spamming episode. If moderation is to mean anything, I would have thought the BBC mods would have wanted to clamp down on this. Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:06:09 GMT+1 Big Sister Jonnie: Like the moderators, eh? I suspect I'm not alone in thinking their approach to this is very odd given how quick they are to act against regular posters. ;o) Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:03:44 GMT+1 Richard_SM Betting Website Links:"Of those 6 sites, the link has been removed on 3 of them."Oh well that's OK then! Thu 04 Jun 2009 09:00:35 GMT+1 jonnie Best just to ignore it BigSister Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:59:01 GMT+1 U12196018 Big Sis (14) - The link to the betting website was posted to six different BBC websites, within a six minute period this morning, by the same poster. There may be other sites that I haven't seen. Of those 6 sites, the link has been removed on 3 of them. It may not be the same moderators for each site and/or they may have not made the connection between them. Removing the link seems reasonable enough. Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:58:09 GMT+1 madasastickchick Eddie, one small step for man, get these researchers on the programme to answer questions of pointless time wasting.Was there ever any doubt these were the immortal words Armstrong uttered when first alighting? Why such inane research now. And relax Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:33:16 GMT+1 Big Sister I am sorry to go back to this point but this seems to be the only place where I can raise the issue.Post 5 above linked (before the url was removed) to a betting website. If you click on the poster's name, you will see that s/he has been posting links to this website across BBC blogs again today, having tried this tactic on other days.When I complained to the moderators about this, my complaint was rejected.When did the BBC blog network consider it correct to allow the advertising of betting websites to be appropriate on their blogs? Quite apart from anything else, and despite the several contraventions of the House Rules which are involved, these forums are open to children and I would have thought the BBC would not wish to be seen to promoting access to betting (which is gambling!) sites to minors.Can somebody PLEASE get a grip on this? Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:31:31 GMT+1 Big Sister DiY (8): Interestingly, this still qualifies the MP for Salford for the cheaper menu. ;o) Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:22:26 GMT+1 Big Sister On today's programme I would like the following:No talk of Hazel Blears, or other defectors (unless there are any newcomers to their ranks today)No talk of emails circulating around WestminsterI'd like to hear about voters exercising their democratic duty, but using the ballot box wisely and with due consideration of the consequences of their actions.I'd also like to hear about positive steps to sort out the MPs expenses mess, which is not a party political issue, but which affects us all inasmuch as it influences how we feel about politics and elections.I'd also like to follow the progress of Mr. Obama in the Middle East, since he is in a position to influence issues there and help promote peaceful coexistence in the region.In short, I'd like to teach the world to sing .... Oh, you know what I mean - I'd like some positive news! Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:19:29 GMT+1 Richard_SM Ref 4. steelpulse Somebody in the House of Commons raised the issue of a maximum wage yesterday. Many people are now realising that salaries running into millions of pounds cannot be justified in any way. If everyone's capabilities were measured on a percentage scale, nobody would be rated 100%. The difference between 'average' people and those given huge salaries would be relatively small. Why is someone paid 30 times more than another, when the difference in capability might only be 10%. And if anyone is still in any doubt, one only has to look at the bankers who have been paid 'fortunes,' and have not demonstrated any outstanding capabilities.There's a different debate on those who risk their own capital, but salaried positions which carry no financial risk should be realistic. Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:17:10 GMT+1 Big Sister Can the moderators please explain why they are allowing through posts from somebody whose sole aim appears to be to advertise a sports betting site? This despite several complaints to them? Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:09:11 GMT+1 skintnick Capitalistism is predicated upon growth, that fact would be accepted by any economist.That growth demands resources which are running out - unlimited growth is impossible in a world with finite resources.So, if we accept that over-exploitation of resources (fossil fuels, forests, oceans etc.) is what has taken the ecosystem we purport to be stewards of to the brink of collapse, and therefore reduce our use (at least) to sustainable limits, economic growth must be prevented and the capitalist system breaks down.This is the essential dilemma of our time and goes unacknowledged by ANY of the political parties (I wonder if the Greens are the exception).That provides me with a much more critical reason for political despair than "fingers-in-the-till" . Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:07:37 GMT+1 DI_Wyman When is a child not a child? When they are 4' 11" tall! Surely discrimination because of their height? Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:04:31 GMT+1 Anne P. Richard (6) but the PM poll revealed I think that we know our neighbours a great deal better than we know our politicians - at least until the recent revelations. Thu 04 Jun 2009 08:01:40 GMT+1 Richard_SM Ref 2. RJMolesworth When there are such important issues facing the country, it was extraordinary that PM Prog recently decided to find out how well people know their neighbours!They could have put their poll results to different politicians speaking on PM Programme time and time again. Are PM inept? Thu 04 Jun 2009 07:56:56 GMT+1 godisaboy This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 07:52:47 GMT+1 steelpulse Well well, Eddie. I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't just heard it but - allegedly - an MoP with more front than - what seasides still have fronts in Great Britain - Blackpool perhaps?Edward Leigh just asked John Humphrys what he (John) earned on live radio! Data Protection Act quoted? Quelle courage, Monseiur Leigh. Top BBC presenters wages eh?So PM - on live radio, and under the just invented "Wish to Be Nosey Act" - can Eddie and Carolyn reveal their individual annual salaries - whilst sitting next to one another in a studio - and then - well - just keep the microphones on. lolA Member of Parliament on his - alleged - high horse about other peoples money. My goodness. Thu 04 Jun 2009 07:50:30 GMT+1 madasastickchick This post has been Removed Thu 04 Jun 2009 07:43:42 GMT+1 RJMolesworth The Guardian revealed the results of a readers poll which showed that, of its readers,84% want a written constitution82% an elected House of Lords79% want voting reformand that 50% thought that the reform that would make the most positive improvement to parliament is proportional representation.Perhaps PM could phone some of the other papers and ask them to run similar polls. Would Telegraph voters feel the same way? Thu 04 Jun 2009 07:33:29 GMT+1 Joe_Palooka There have been no comments made here yet. Thu 04 Jun 2009 05:19:42 GMT+1