The Glass Box for Monday..
..comment on the programme here.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Regarding Kishko: your report failed to mention the crucial evidence provided by three girls, who swore under oath that they saw Kishko.
These girls, years later (after a private detective sought them out), confessed that they gave false witness "for a laugh".
These girls whose mendacity is directly responsible for the injustice against Kishko, are free to lie again.
And we are lectured to by that mummies boy Cameron about stats gathered from dubious research regarding 'sex surveys'.
By all means punish rapists, but for goodness sake don't allow feminists and their cohorts to mis-label men just because it suits their misanthropy.
Teach boys what sex implies, but also teach girls not to lie.
I have to say, I think Cameron has a point, especially about the sexualization of society. Now, rape cannot be condoned, and there, as far as I am aware, is never an excuse for it - be it male or female rape. However, where I live and I am sure, up and down the country, the way the young girls dress up really does leave a lot to be desired. These young girls - 8-9 years old, are having their childhood taken away from them. Only the other day, there was a young girl who lives in the cul de sac where I live, parading up and down with a handbag, high heels and a rather skimpy t-shirt. This was NOT innocent dressing up, as the clothes were her size but was giving a little girl a sexual identity. The parents will be the first to complain when their daughter tells them soon that she is pregnant. Again, I say that there is no excuse for rape, paedophilia etc, yet neither should we be encouraging young people to act as sex objects when they do not have the emotional maturity to deal with what that label brings.
Eddie,
I have over the last few weeks been listening to various ministers you have interviewed - I have no axe to grind but common decency, what on earth is the matter with the out of touch people. The ministers are their to represent & speak up for people & comunities who have difficulty speaking for themselves - what better cause to take up.
Does no one in government understand how going out to work everyday gives fulfilment & self worth to people with disabilities instead of paying out benefits. Also it gives a chance to meet each other & develop long term lasting relationships by being together.
For goodness sake stop spending so much on the wars we are in & start looking after our own deserving people.
please read this out.
regards
Chris
Kiddy-time visits in prison. Doesn't it make your heart glow? Ok, someone has to say it: maybe these inmates should think about their darling children for just one moment before they go off on a robbery, burglary, drugs deal, rape or fraud? But what chance is there of that when the one you interviewed thought he was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time". Self-scrutiny doesn't feature in some people's minds, does it? It's all society's fault of course.
Jimmy Giro I absolutely agree. I made a similar comment on the Furrowed Brow earlier today.
Mary
I was interested that you covered the story of King Juan Carlos and President Chavez.
I found very interesting on the matter:
it also has some very interesting background information on the reason for the meeting, and the global political movements involved.
You win no prizes for guessing that oil plays a major role in events.
No donkey's were harmed in the creation of the blog, I am assured:)
King Juan Carlos: Perhaps the trigger for his outburst is that fact that he was the person who, with great skill, managed the transition from a fascist dictatorship to democracy in the 1970s. So to have a left-wing dictator with fascist leanings such as Chavez accuse a democratically-elected Spanish PM of being a fascist would be highly insulting.
Randall Heather
When did the word 'killed', as in 'all these turkeys will be killed', start to be pronounced with a 'u' instead of an 'i'?
I would really like it if PM didn't have the mealy-mouthed euphemism for slaughter, 'culled', written into its news-bulletins.
The children of criminals are not criminals and should not be punished. For all their faults, these inmates are still fathers and still have a huge influence on the lives of their children.
Given the comments about sex education OF BOTH SEXES (for who would deny that whilst we should teach young males respect for females, we should equally educate young females that to let it all hang out just because you can is sluttish and that not all men are bastards because they look), it seems more important than ever that we ensure that young children are not completely separated from their only real male role model in the early years of their development. The literature is overflowing with evidence that a poor regard of the male sex among many woman can sometimes be traced to their experiences with their fathers.
So, my response is two fold:
First, that we have taken away their liberty. That is enough. Liberty is not to be taken for granted. It's absence has a huge effect. I would not also take away their families. That is simply cruel and unusual.
Second, that I would not punish the children by depriving them of a parent who can still have a huge beneficial effect on their lives. This too is cruel and unusual because society is propagating the harm done, compounding the crime committed by the incarcerated parent by undermining the stable development of the children involved.
King Juan Carlos: Perhaps the trigger for his outburst is that fact that he was the person who, with great skill, managed the transition from a fascist dictatorship to democracy in the 1970s. So to have a left-wing dictator with fascist leanings such as Chavez accuse a democratically-elected Spanish PM of being a fascist would be highly insulting.
Randall Heather
Rob Carrich (2),
I agree re sexualisation of society. I was shocked to see a dance routine that my niece (6) was taught at a dance school - part of a nationwide group - recently. My niece is possibly unaware of what the dance moves would mean if done elsewhere.
I am very uneasy that this sexualisation of children is, to a degree, being taught, not just being absorbed from society around them, which is bad enough.
An excellent piece by Andrew Bomford this evening
At last, something that might make a difference to Prison re-offender rates
Is there a chance that PM, or iPM might be able to interview Jonathan Aitken..?
Chris Ghoti (8) - 'Cull' is not a euphemism for 'kill' and it is exactly the right word to describe the process.
Cull as a verb in this circumstance means the identification and selection (of animals) for killing. As a noun it denotes the act of culling or the animal(s) culled.
That the animals are slaughtered or killed is of course a consequence of the culling.
You beat me to it JimmyGiro.
The report on the framing of Stefan Kiszko was misleading and inadequate.
The police officer interviewed was able to explain away Kiszko's confession as confused 'mummy's boy'. This continued the Police's stance that they were not at fault in this gross miscarriage of justice.
Kizsko's 'confession' was concoted by corrupt police officers who were later charged with perverting the course of justice. After Kiszko's death they were able to wriggle off the hook by claiming that the publicity around the case meant they could not get a fair trial.
These men destroyed a man's life and yet they were allowed to walk away without even as much as a reprimand. How can this be justice? Why has the media never highlighted the fact the Stefan Kizsko was framed for a crime that he did not commit and that those who framed him were able to walk away scott free.
As JimmyGiro points out. The three girls who perjured themselves by falsley accusing Kizsko of indecent exposure haven't even had so much as a caution.
...And it's nice to hear the Germans and French getting on so well:
I also find the increasing sexualisation of young people and children disturbing. Sexuality should not be the only currency in which a rounded human being trades. I could write a lengthy thesis on why I believe this has happened, but it's one of those "don't get my started" topics.
MSR01 - spot on.
Sid
Intermittent Horse @ 13, I wish it *were* exactly the right word to describe the process. If selection by anything other than propinquity were involved, that would be fine. To cull is to select the best or worst of a herd, or to reduce its size by killing a proportion of the herd; it doesn't mean kill the whole lot, and this last is clearly what is going to be done.
My complaint is therefore when the words used are for instance '1000 birds in the same shed will now be culled', if culling is not what is going to happen. The 1000 birds are not going to be inspected, and then only those of them selected as infected killed: the whole lot will be killed. The same applies to any herd one of whose members has foot-and-mouth: the cows are all slaughtered, but it's called 'the rest of the herd will now be culled'. In no case has any cow survived this process. Only if 'reduced' is taken as meaning 'reduced to nil' could 'cull' possibly apply.
I have heard 'humanely culled'. I have heard 'the rest of the herd has been culled and disposed of'. In the case of the sacred bull recently, the phrase 'he will now have to be culled' was used. No, he had already *been* culled, that is, selected as infected. 'He will now have to be killed' *must* have been what was meant.
I agree with you about the meaning of the word cull; I just don't think that is how it is being used.
Sorry Chris, you are playing with semantics and playing very badly.
If every turkey, hen or cow in the country was killed then I wouldn't say they were culled. If it is one farm, then the animals ARE culled, even if 100% of the farms animals are slaughtered. You may not like the process, but the language is correct.
Intermittent Horse @ 19, I took the trouble to find, write out and cite for you the definitions of 'cull' from four dictionaries, none of which suggested 'kill the entire herd' as being part of the definition, but it got 502ed and I simply can't be bothered to do it again. The words 'e ain't wurf it' float across my mind. You'd probably do better in your life, and perhaps even persuade people to think about your point of view without starting from the basis that it comes from someone not worth considering, if you were not so blasted rude on a personal level. Using the word 'sorry' in a completely insincere way doesn't really cut the mustard here, and doesn't deflect the insulting words that follow it.
I note that at 6pm on the news, the entire 5000-strong flock of turkeys, geese and ducks in a shed was to be 'culled'; in the 10pm news they were to be 'destroyed'; in the 11pm bulletin they were to be 'culled' again. I think that makes my point about the confusion between 'killed' and 'culled' in the minds of the people who write these words for people to read out on the radio.
Chris - 5,000 strong or 25,000 strong, if they are selected from a multi-million national stock, then they are culled. I say again, you may not agree with the process but the language is correct.
I'm a bit of a loss to understand what particular words I used that you found insulting. Was it the ones that disagreed with you?
The whole rape thing is a minefield.
It often boils down to one person's word (usually female) against another's (usually male).
Given the nature of sex acts they rarely occur in the vicinity of witnesses, consensual or not.
It is possible to prove intercourse has taken place, it is usually possible to prove who the man was. But what can almost never be proved is whether there was consent.
I would like to be able to assert two things. First, that most women would put themselves through the criminal justice system unless they had been raped. Second, that most men would not force themselves upon a woman.
I would like to be able to assert them, but in reality I have no clue whether those statements are true. Is anyone doing research into these areas? Perhaps we could improve the way we investigate and prosecute such cases if we had a better understanding of the people at the centre of them?
Appy (16) I would be very interested to hear your views on why society is becoming so sexualised. It is something that worries me a great deal. I have a 3 year old daughter and even at her age so many of the clothes in shops are copy cat versions of women's outfits - and by the time she gets to about 5 or 6 virtually all are. I want her to be a little girl for as long as possible but it seems society these days won't let me. Something I find very disturbing and frightening.
Chris - erm, what word would you use to describe what was going to happen to the turkeys if they hadn't had the misfortune to come into contact with Avian 'flu?
Now, let's consider this carefully.....
Oh yeah. Stuffed!
xx
ed
Glad to see the positive comments about the report on Wandsworth Prison's homework club. I think it is an interesting and innovative initiative which hopefully will help keep families together in difficult circumstances, and therefore increase the chances of prisoners resettling succesfully after release. Yes, they are in prison to be punished and lose their liberty, but it is a sobering statistic to think that around six in ten prisoners will reoffend within two years of release. Anything to reduce that figure has got to be good for society.
I was struck also by how much the prisoners (and their families) valued the homework club. Several prisoners told me it has had a positive effect on their behaviour in prison, because they know it is a privelege which can be withdrawn if they misbehave.
I think the staff at Wandsworth are to be congratulated, along with the Governor Ian Mullholland, who is not afraid to try out new ideas. I hope more prisons will follow suit.
MSR01 (9)
having 'listened again' this morning. Good comment, nail hit firmly on head and I agree.
Binge drinking in the UK is confirmation that a nation’s genes influence their degree of intelligence.
UptheTrossachs @ 23, if they were not about to be killed for being ill they would be culled, that is, some chosen every day for killing for the market; they will all untimately be killed and eaten, which is inevitable given what they are bred for. I wouldn't use the same word for selecting which ones shall be killed, and for actually killing them, because they are different things.
Intermittent Horse @ 21, you don't mind being told that you have done something 'very badly'? Disagree by all means, but don't be rude about it, least of all if you don't know that you are being, for goodness' sake! That's pure pointy-haired boss behaviour.
The word 'culled' and the word 'destroyed' are being used interchangeably in this case, but they are not the same in meaning. For 'culled', read 'selected for removal from the herd of whatever size, for disposal in whatever way is appropriate'; for 'destroyed' read 'killed'.
Look at it this way: these birds *had been* culled, that is chosen (in this case for slaughter) already, at the time the word was used; they were *going to be* killed at a future (fairly immediate) time. They had been culled, they were going to be killed: one in the past tense, the other in the future. To claim that the culling process had not already taken place, which is what saying that it *would happen in the future* is doing, is not true. That is why I do not think that in this case using the word culled for future action, as opposed to the word killed, is correct. That I also think that the words 'culled' and 'destroyed' were used because they sound less horrid than 'killed' is really beside the point.
"Selected for slaughter" and "slaughtered" don't mean the same thing. Or at least, they don't to me or to the people who write dictionaries. 'He culled/will cull forty of his herd' may mean that he selected or intends to select forty of his herd to be sent to market for resale to some other person, and the beasts may be alive throughout the process; 'he killed/will kill forty of his herd' cannot mean that the beasts stay alive. A stallion may be culled from the herd of Viennese Dancing School horses because he is not able to learn the dance-steps; he may then live for another twenty years in someone's stable. If he were killed for not being suitable, he ain't gonna give no rides no more. A creature that has been killed is dead; a creature that has been culled may still be alive. One word is final, the other is not. Does that make my point clearer?
But Chris - I thought (at 8) it was the "mealy-mouthed euphemism for slaughter" that you were objecting to? I think that expression is a bit of an overreaction
If 'cull' means in this context 'selected for slaughter' it is correct - as far as I am aware the birds have not yet been killed (or, had not last night). I am assuming that they have been 'selected for slaughter' because, unlike the vast majority of the remaining turkey flock in the UK, they have been exposed to rhe avian 'flu virus.
It would be equally valid to say that they will be killed, but isn't that stating the obvious? (Turkeys are bred,reared and killed) Surely it is more accurate to express the fact that they have in some way been singled out for an extraordinary event by using the word 'cull' ?
My apologies Chris - just read your comment again. I agree, to say 'will be culled' is only accurate if the decision to remove the birds from the general turkey population in some way had not already been made.
The birds have been culled, and will be killed.
Chris,
Stop digging.
xx
ed
hard, adj.:
The quality of your own data; also how it is to believe those of other people.
UptheTrossachs @ 31, that was it. Thank you.
Ed @ 32, but do you have a bowler hat on?
Is anyone able to say how long the government think that they can keep avian flue out of the country? We can be sure that the latest outbreak did not just spontaneously appear. Government policy appears to be based on the idea that it is possible to ensure that there is no contact between farm birds and wild birds over a period of many years. Humans get flu jabs, why is it not possible to give farm birds an inoculation also.
Chris - My apologies if you think I was being rude - I wasn't being intentionally so. But I do believe that you are going to torturous lengths to make an invalid point.
You say: "Selected for slaughter" and "slaughtered" don't mean the same thing. I agree, but that has nothing to do with your original point and doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of "cull" either.
OED - cull (verb) slaughter a selected number of a certain kind of animal. . . .
(noun) a selective slaughter of a certain kind of animal.
You seem to assume that "cull" refers only to the selection and can't imply subsequent slaughter. That is patent nonsense.
I would take Ed I's advice and stop digging.
Nigel N - the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration is particularly helpful on this one:
Inoculation cannot prevent infection of the animals inoculated, but will suppress any symptoms and reduce the amount of virus discharged by the infected animals. In this way, inoculated animals may act as germ carriers, and there is a risk that they will spread the infection to other poultry.
En øl tak
Chris, I don't wish to prolong an argument, but the consise OED has a different definition of the word Cull, to whit:
verb 1 reduce the numbers of (animals) by selective slaughter.
So, by that definition, the act of culling occurs when the reduction of numbers occurs. Hence, the flock will be culled (unless the birds have already been slaughtered already). The fact that the flock will be culled by 100% means that the selection criteria applied affected all the birds in the flock.
I see my attempt at a peace plan has been culled, er , killed.
If that is the concise OED definition Fearless, then, I revert to my first instinct - it is not a 'euphemism' (mealy-mouthed or otherwise) to use the word cull - it is an accurate description of what is happening/will happen/has happened to the turkeys.
Incidentally - isn't the farm in DI Wyman's neck of the woods?
"You say culled
I say killed,
Pot-AY-to
Pot-AH-to
Let's call the whole thing off"
..........Sorry, but I couldn't resist it!
.....I'll go now shall I?!
x
whoops! Apologies for the poor spelling of concise in my last post....
UptheTrossachs:
"Suppressing symptoms" presumably means that the birds have a greater chance to survive if they become infected.
"Risk that they will spread infection", i.e., the rest of the flock may go down with it. But, with current practice, the rest of the flock will die anyway because they will suffer a 100% cull.
This still fails to address my initial point that avian flu cannot be kept out of the country for ever, so it may be worth considering a policy that allows the farmers to live with it.