³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

The Glass Box for Wednesday

Comments

1. At 04:59 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Frances O wrote:

   Looking forward to hearing Di Melly, an excellent person (in my limited experience).

2. At 05:14 PM on 07 Nov 2007, wrote:

   We have been too many times round the 'resign! resign!' course not to know how the Blair thing will conclude:

   1. The MET argues that shooting an innocent member of the public doesn't constitute 'putting the public in danger'

   2. Blair the Boss hangs anyone but himself out to dry

   3. The media call for Blair to resign

   4. One lot vote for him to resign

   5. Another lot come out in support of Blair

   6. Both sides patiently argue the same old points, ad nauseam

   7. The media/public's boredom threshold proves rather higher than Blair hopes

   8. Blair resigns... but only so long after the original brick-dropping that no real lessons are learnt. Other than that the name 'Blair' doesn't always make you invincible.

   Fifi

3. At 05:16 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Elizabeth Floyd wrote:

   Sir Ian Blair........ PM today (Wed 7th Nov)

   Are people stark raving mad? For God sake - we need an experienced person at the helm. When this poor young chap was shot, we were at the highlest level of alert. A horrid outcome but a lesson learned PLEASE.

   Scenario..... another terrorist attack. Ooops - new man in the chair.. Has toe learn the ropes... Oops. What a shame we didnt have Sir Ian Blair in the chair. STARK RAVING MAD is the idea that he should resign; be pushed out or step down. It's media hype.

   There is only one other time I felt that the rest of Britian was devoid of rational thinking. This was in 1995 or around that time. There was a poll asking 'should we remove compulsory second language from primary schools' A huge majority said YES. I remember screaming at the radio - 'are you stark raving mad'? This was at a time when the European Union was about to (or had just) opened the doors to it's new neighbours - ALL of whom learn English as a second language and who would in years be taking our jobs. What about reciprocal activity. Our mono-linguists would be at a strong disadvantage. Some 10 years on.. I see this debate raising its head again. Schools are now or about to make language learning a must. Durrrrr.... Think AHEAD a bit my fellow country-men!

4. At 05:18 PM on 07 Nov 2007, James Howard wrote:

   I've just heard Ken Livingstone defending Sir Ian Blair.

   As part of the interview he tried to suggest that Sir Ian is politically naive - that he'd spent 18 years as a Policeman and therefore had no political experience.

   Who exactly does he think he'll fool with that? You don't become Commissioner of the Met without having some very high level political connections and without knowing exactly how to 'play the game.'

5. At 05:19 PM on 07 Nov 2007, JOE BUGSY wrote:

   YOU USED THE WORD "JUDGEMENT" WHEN YOU INTERVIEWED lIVINGSTONE. THIS MAN DOES NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD. SHOOTING THE WRONG MAN WAS THE DEED! LIVINGSTONE, TREATS THIS LIKE AN ORDINARY MISTAKE - THE KIND HE MAKES, NO DOUBT, EVERYDAY OF HIS MEASLY LIFE!

   IF IT WAS HIS RELATIVE WHO WAS SHOT, I WONDER WHAT HE WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT MAN BLAIR THEN???

   WHO VOTED FOR THIS ODIOUS, NASAL MAN TO BE MAYOR OF LONDON IS THE MYSTERY OF THIS NEW CENTURY TO ME.

6. At 05:29 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Brian Jackson wrote:

   When Ken Livingstone attacks the majority Lib and Tory members on the assembly he sounds like a New Labour politician but when he defends the shameless Blair he sounds like an old Tory. Maybe its time for not just Blair to go.

7. At 05:29 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Simon Barnes wrote:

   RE: Sir Ian Blair

   Recently a TV production team edited footage of our head of state in a mildly misleading way. Three people lost their jobs.

   The police force in London shoot dead a completely innocent man. No-one loses their job.

   What does this say about modern Britain??

8. At 05:31 PM on 07 Nov 2007, JOE BUGSY wrote:

   FOLLOWING ON TO YOUR INTERVIEWING LIVINGSTONE YOU THEN FOLLOW WITH AINSW ORTH, THE ARMY MAN - TALK ABOUT AFTER THE LORD MAYOR'S SHOW !!! WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE???

   THE ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ CONTENT OF INTERESTING NEWS GETS CURIOSER AND CURIOSER - LIKE LISTENING TO THE THIRD ROCK FROM THE MOON SHOW. WHAT WILL YOU BE SERVING UP FOR CHRISTMAS? - BROWN,BALLS AND BECKETT TO SING "PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT ME WHEN I'M GONE"?

9. At 05:56 PM on 07 Nov 2007, wrote:

   Elizabeth Floyd (3) - agree with you entirely re foreign languages in primary schools.

   BUT - disagree entirely re Blair. When the next incident turns up, I'd much rather not have Blair in charge again.

   Sid
   

10. At 05:57 PM on 07 Nov 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

    I'VE GONE DEAF !!!

11. At 06:07 PM on 07 Nov 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Did I hear Ian Blair talking about Klingons?

    I think he should go, we don't want to stir up trouble with heavily armed aliens.

12. At 06:41 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Richard Harvey wrote:

    I've been listening to Eddie Mair interviewing Bob Ainsworth on the inquest of a soldier killed in Basra. In his usual sanctimonious manner, he expressed shock that an 'administrative error' had been made. I reflected that the trouble with media people is often that they've never worked in the business world, they've never had any real responsibility, and they haven't a clue how an organisation works and can't understand that errors occur. They seem to forget that humans are involved and they make errors. It's even possible that Eddie Mair has made an 'administrative error' in the course of today.

13. At 07:30 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Richard Harvey @ 11, Mostly, when Eddie Mair makes an administrative error, nobody is blown up and killed as a result. That might make his distaste for an error that killed someone seem slightly less 'sanctimonious', to my mind.

    This 'errors happen' theme has come to my attention twice today: Ken Livingstone also used the phrase, referring to another occasion on which an innocent, unarmed man in London was shot dead by armed policemen in case he might turn out to be dangerous, without being given any warning or chance to explain himself...

    Elizabeth Floyd @ 3, Ian Blair's self-exculpation in front of the London Assembly included his suggestion that *since he didn't know what was happening at the time* it was not his business to resign over the incident. We can't have this both ways: either he knew it was happening, in which case he blew it and should resign, or else he didn't, in which case his presence was and is irrelevant, he wasn't/isn't needed and he ought to resign in order for someone who is not now so mistrusted can take over the job.

    Once something has gone so pearshaped that the person in charge is being reviled and is not trusted, it doesn't matter whether he or she was any good or not: they have become no good simply because they are no longer trusted to be any good. The fact that politicians will refuse to resign and cling onto power even if caught with their hands in the communal till has nothing to do with whether they might or might not be competent: they should resign because they are now seen to be dishonest at a level that is unacceptable for anyone in any job. Their lousy example isn't one for policemen to follow. If a policeman is not trusted, he is no good at a job that requires him to be trusted, and that is just that.

14. At 07:50 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Llareggub wrote:

    Having listened to Bob Ainsworth it was interesting that whilst he repeatedly stated that measures are being put in place to ensure that the troops get what they need, no specifics were given. Perhaps because the system that is intended to address the Supply Chain issues that gave rise to this unfortunate and avoidable death, has yet to be granted funding, indeed given the squeeze on MoD Funding may not receive any...... How is that for real commitment to the troops.

15. At 07:51 PM on 07 Nov 2007, wrote:

    I did wonder if you missed a trick in the Ken Livingstone interview. He kept saying that the De Menezes shooting was a tragic accident, and compared it to other incidents. But the point here is that tragic accidents don't lead to guilty verdicts in the courts. I'd have liked to hear how he responded to that. The vote in the Assembly was held now because we have a verdict so I think it's a legitimate question.

16. At 08:21 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Cj McAuley wrote:

    Sir Ian's comments show a decided lack of understanding of the way things sound. The fact that he chose to use the word "survive" in relation to his job, when Mr. de Menezies did not survive at all! His use of that word told me two things: he is both arrogant and only focussed on his job, no matter what happens to other people. If that is the case in this "war on terror" environment, then the terrorists have already won.

17. At 08:40 PM on 07 Nov 2007, mac wrote:

    You must have guessed I'm back for the day.

    On Channel 4 and ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 2 the FTSE fell 54 points today.

    Not on PM though, where it was up.

    Roger? Eloise?

    I saw the late afternoon mistaken postings after 4 pm today, when the FTSE had been down all day since 11 this morning. I thought them, indeed, a mistake. Why didn't your editors?

    How did the error arise?

18. At 11:18 PM on 07 Nov 2007, wrote:

    Joe & Jimmy (7&9) .. big grin :-))

    Now - was it necessary to hear all the graphical details about bits of brains in forma - something! I was decanting prunes from a tin at the time and the image conjoured up wasn't a good one.

    Still on the subject of brains I'm not clear about the difference betwwen Alzheimers and Dementia?

    It may have been mentioned but if not I'd really appreciate some clarification.

    As I understand the situation, George Melly suffered from vascular dementia - so presumably parts of the brain were being starved of blood and hence oxygen - whereas Alzheimers is a different disease where the brain -in simplistic tems - starts to atrophy?

    If I'm vaguely on the right lines - are the symptoms - early ones anyway, similar between the two?

    Either way Eddie's interview wit Dian was both sensitive and amusing. Certainly a captivating listen.

19. At 11:21 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Jonathan wrote:

    The item on shirt pockets was was actually quite reassuring. I though formal shirts needed a pocket to qualify and was worried that not having one on my recent shirts meant I was committing some sort of workplace faux pas.

    I do miss them at airports when travelling on busines though. Paranoia about losing my passport or boarding pass would usually ensure they were placed immediately under my nose in said shirt pocket. Sadly it would seem the demise of this otherwise useless piece of fabric is now likely to affect my travelling comfort!

20. At 10:27 AM on 08 Nov 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    I find the absence of a pocket on my "Best shirt" is quite a nuisance, as I normally clip an ID or visitor's badge to it. A loose clip does not mean automatic loss, as when it's fitted to a tie.

    I'd much rather they saved cost (let's face it, that's what it's really about) by only having 2 cuff buttons intead of 6. I am a thin person, and the looser position is quite tight enough for me.

    Enjoyed the interview with George Melly's widow. She was excellent.

21. At 03:36 PM on 08 Nov 2007, J K wrote:

    If you find yourself in trouble, first deny all knowledge, then say sorry anyway. Top marks Sir Ian!

22. At 04:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007, wrote:

    For mac and any others interested in our financial future:
    

    lalalalalala

    ed

    "It was a Roman who said it was sweet to die for one's country. The Greeks never said it was sweet to die for anything. They had no vital lies."
    -- Edith Hamilton, "The Greek Way"