The Glass Box for Friday..
speak freely about the content of tonight's 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
Echo-ey in here, ain't it?
When does the action begin?
Only seven minutes in, and already it's tighter and fresher than last night's prog.
Perhaps because we are so far talking about real News...?
Go for it, lads and lasses.
Fifi
Labour party ministers. They are part of the government right? The last time I looked, we had to elect our government and I'm not sure I remember voting for Digby Jones. Does he have a constituency?
Are all these new people who are being invited to contribute to Gordon Brown's "Govt. Of All the Talents" (the GOATs) being coerced to join the labour party?
Who is our new development minister Shriti Vadera? Just in case the ±«Óãtv in its currently besotted state regarding Brown's Government forgets to tell us.
This lady came to our attention regarding project Ariel, Byers plan to renationalise Rail Track. She was seconded to the Treasury from UBS Warburg’s and came to notoriety in her emails on Rail Track such as her email saying...
'Can we engineer a solution through insolvency and therefore avoid compensation'
and Shriti Vadera's emails saying...'the American investor we have to worry about' (the small investors here they were trying to stitch up were obviously of no concern ).
and her email saying that they wanted to make the scheme so complex it would 'lose the tabloids'
It should be noted UBS Warburg’s made £45 million from the floatation of Rail track, held 3 million of their shares, but surprise surprise managed to off load them just before insolvency had been forced on Rail Track unlike the 250,000 other share holders.
Warburg’s also then appeared as the advisor to Network rail, the successor to Rail Track, for an undisclosed fee. It also handled the £9 billion bond issue the following year.
Another Warburg employee seconded to the Treasury Robert Jennings was given a CBE for services to the transport industry.
Why is this important? Well it gives us an idea of the regime Brown ran at the Treasury, but it also makes a lie of Brown's spin on change, for by giving this amoral lady a ministerial position its more of the same old Government.
Well, the last comment didn't make it, so I'll try again. I for one am not entirely sure that I support GOATs. (Well done Mike). I suppose if a politician was honest, he would have to admit that a degree in politics doesn't necessary qualify you to run a bath never mind the country. But I still think that in a democracy we should vote for our govt. not have it thrust upon us by the PM (previous or present) by kicking all his cronies 'upstairs'.
The goats had better muffle their hooves....
xx
ed
Regarding the Paris Hilton story;
one could draw the conclusion, from the CNN statistics, that the US public has no interest in politics and is instead consumed by celebrity. However, since opinion polls consistently show that Americans are deeply concerned by a variety of domestic and foreign political issues, another conclusion can be drawn -one that applies with almost as much strength to the UK.
The US public are not turned off by politics but by the media portrayal of politics -which is little more than a celebrity soap in itself. They are also turned off by a synthetic 'contest' between two factions of a single ruling party, where debate over substantive matters is pushed out in favour of trivia involving image and that other media favourite, 'values'.
Tricky finding a PM-worthy Paris Hilton angle - nice one
Now THAT's what I call a PM.
Back to standard, and full of NEWS! (apart from Paris Hilton anyway)
Consider yourselves redeemed, team!
Fifi ;o)
Loved the programme - interesting chat about the floods with Hilary, though *HOW* can these people pay the insurance premiums. They are extremely high - the government need to subsise the people in high risk areas.
As for the MSNBC journalist not reading that Paris Hilton story - good for her - if you want to see it on youtube here is the link:-
Utter twaddle from the lawyer for the speeding-fine person.
If his client was so principled, surely he would felt it his duty to assist the police in identifying the criminal in this case?
Other than that annoyance, a good programme tonight.
Iain M (5),
Thanks for that. Perhaps in the 'real' glassbox the possibility of a bit of investigational journalism on these matters might be entertained?
xx
ed
First,
Thankyou to Carolyn, Eddie and Peter for responding to our views on the Glass Box yesterday, and adding their own comments.
Reading the glass box sometimes makes me think of that character on 'Down the line' who calls in to ask "What is point, news? what is point?"
nikki
Verbal pyrotechnics from Eddie again. Not sure however that they weren't wasted on a "layman" who has speedily acquired the art of seemingly answering the questions put to him but in fact talking about something else - what exactly I was unable to fathom. The right not to incriminate oneself perhaps?
caught the back end of the story on medical degrees and doctor training, where can i get more info ?
only caught the back end of the story on PM regarding Doctor training and degree entry grades etc, where can i get more information please
Mossy (15)
Try the UCAS website www.ucas.ac.uk
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Feefs I'm relieved that we've had the Spice Girls and Paris Hilton on PM this week (I have been ill all week, mind).
I know it's not even been a week but I'm already bored of the Prime Minister Brown. I did enjoy yesterday's piece by Sequin and today's Digby Jones piece though but hope he doesn't become a puppet for the PM.
The point is noted about these new appointments not having constituents or support from the electorate. We had the same with Lord Adonis though. I never had any confidence that he had the faintest idea about his brief.
It's possibly the ennui brought about by gastric flu or spin doctors but as long as we've got someone with a sensible head on their shoulders who is prepared to say "With all due respect you are talking ****" to a bad decision by the cabinet I'm not sure that I mind. The alternative is to have an ambitious politician taking this up with little experience and possibly even less commitment.
Am I in the right blog? here's a couple of comments on the latest bomb threat last night - spacifically the various questions being asked on how we can best increase our security, minimize our security risk? The short(er) answer: withdraw troops from IRAQ, disown Bush's policy of endless occupation, similarly reverse current support of Israel's plan to break up Palestine into 'Bantustans'. As for Afghanistan, what is the point of British fighting Taliban rule in the name of freedom & democracy in the south if the US is OK-ing the huge poppy harvests currently making the traditional tribal chiefs (not too different from the Taliban in lifestyle beliefs) pretty rich? Oddsblog
Very perceptive post by David Traynier (8). He could almost have been talking about the political scene in Britland.
oddsblog
How is it possible for this latest bomb threat to be linked to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, so on and so forth when there are approximately, 40ish similar conflicts raging around the world at the moment by similar minded people?
..wow...heads up.....gold stars all round...real good prog this evening......one of the best so far.....well done all..special pats on the back for prod. team for holding it all together!...nice one init.....vot?
btw....whos is that Eddie bloke...he is not ex R1 is 'e?...
Ross (21),
Might it have something to do with the fact that we're directly implicated in the situations in
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, so on and so forth", and not elsewhere?
Would you care to list a few of the "40ish" conflicts involving "similar minded people"? And our involvement?
And maybe it's time we resurrected the idea of buying the opium crop, but that's too simple and cheap and would deprive the CIA and suchfolk of a rich revenue stream...
xx
ed
Jonnie (11),
Of course a lot of the problem is building in flood plains, and land "improvements" which drains the land quicker, straight into the rivers. Along the Thames there are places showing the high water mark, on a wall, of it's floods - dating back centuries. We can expect more, maybe even in London - that will shake opinion.
Love the GOATs acronym!
Cannot see how Lord Stevens can both advise the Tories and be some kind of minister in this Government. His last report (on Football bungs) wasn't exactly conclusive.
Ed I (23), I wonder how much Big Pharma's fingerprints are over the decisions that prevent buying up the opium crop.
Liked the programme this evening, especially Eddie's sign off.
Well said twice, Mr. Ed I.
Apologies for the Beach earlier, but that was one toast I wasn't going to join in. No way (ex CWU)! I will be making my defence of defence this weekend in the correct place, but today is no#1 son's birthday, and the blue healing clouds are swirling.
Anyway, Feef's done a pretty good job on the brow earlier in the week. I'll add my own.
Party on!!!
For a few brief hours I thought I might be just able to rejoin the Labour Party, now that Blair has gone and Gordon is in charge. Very impressed with all the talk about the restoration of Cabinet Government and recalling Brown's conference speech about "best when we are Labour" I begin to feel a little optimistic about my chances of having a party that I can associate with again.But then I hear the Digby Jones interview on PM and the illusion is shattered. The man is a Tory yet he is prepared to accept the Labour whip in the Lords. Why? Clearly he has been reassured that there will be no legislation about which a Tory might complain. He will also be able to influence policy and ensure it represents the interests of the City and Big Business - such is what Brown means by encouraging a government of all the talents.
Ed, We have had preachers of hate for many years in this country. Many of them were kicked out of their own countries, or indeed, their adopted countries because of their words and actions.
Because people on the receiving end of such teachings are not passive recipients, but active participants it may take many years to achieve it's goals.
People who lack tolerance do so wherever they settle.
Mac. Here, here
Roger the Editor here...
Thanks for all your posts. I am pleased most of you seemed to like the programme. It was an interesting news day.
With stories like the bomb, it can be quite a head-scratcher how to take things on when it has been around all day and not much new has happened. So we just try to tell the story, at which Eddie is an expert... and I think Dame Pauline Neville Jones was interesting.
The best bit was Digby Jones, though. Truly interesting times politically and Eddie's interview with him highlighted both the potential benefits and potential pitfalls of courting all the talents. Really good radio, as was the Paris Hilton story.
Although it didn't happen this time, I have to say, I am always a bit puzzled by the Pavlov's Dogs who take us to task the second they hear the words Paris Hilton/Big Brother/Football on air - usually before they have actually heard the item. Sometimes - and this happens a lot with the BH progranme - when they've only heard the trail.
Celebrity/entertainment/sport's results are not - except in very rare cases - stories we do for themselves, but we have to acknowledge they are there... and that very often they raise important isues about our world - and some fantastically interesting human stories.
Have good weekends y'all.
Rog
Roger the Editor - As one of Pavlov's dogs, I'll agree that the story on Paris Hilton last night was entertaining. I liked it for the fact that somebody and I won't comment on her reasons, was objecting to having to treat the subject as a serious leading news item!
As for Big Brother, if somebody is murdered in the house or the place blows up or they all die of a mystery illness, then please report it. Any other reports and I'll just use the off button as normal. That’s not true actually, I usually just shout at the radio!
(Hmmm. First post of the day and apparently I'm too quick and malicious)
Ross (27),
I'm not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say.
If you're saying that terrorist activities here have nothing to do with our activities in the Middle-East, I think you're sorely mistaken.
I'd like an answer to my earlier request for some examples of the "40ish" conflicts elsewhere which might be driving terrorism here. I can't think of any Tamil-inspired incidents, for example.
"People who lack tolerance do so wherever they settle."
I wouldn't apply that to the Jewish people, but it's certainly true of the and , to my view, it shows a frightening lack of the 'wisdom' you attribute to Israel.
How would you behave if someone came and drove you out of your home?
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Ed I,
Perhaps you should be more GRAPHIC?
Have a good weekend.
JP
Roger Sawyer, I heard Wahabism mentioned on the Today programme in connection with extremism. It would be interesting to hear more about Wahabism on the radio. This Islamic revivalist movement sprang up in the Arabian penninsula in the 18th Century. It has been noted how Al'Quaeda hijaked elements in their use of Islamic tradition and dogman for the justification of violence.
Bearing in mind the Wahabi's founder Muhammed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab espoused anti western and anti jewish sentiment in the 18 century it may help to put things in perspective in terms of 'preachers of hate' refered to above.
JPA,
Thanks for pointing me to !
A worthwhile read.
Namaste
ed
Tony (33),
A very appropriate contribution. Do you have any sources to which we might refer to learn more?
from Wiki is a start, and from a quick google, I note Daniel Pipes has a view (why does that not surprise me?)
Preachers of hate come in many colours, and we all need more education on these matters.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Tony (33),
It should be noted that the "Pak madrasas" were built up using American (and Saudi) funding in order to radicalise the Afghani mujahadeen into islamic fundamentalists to better fight the "Godless Russians".
Now the weapon we so carefully crafted is turned against us. The irony is too rich to believe.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Further information on Whahbism:
Zia aligned himself with the local Mullahs and invited Saudi aid to build Saudi style madarssas and other religious infrastructure. The famous Binori Madarssa in Karachi, Pakistan has been built with Saudi aid. It can boast of having Osama bin Laden, Daniel Pearl’s murders as its graduates.
The entire piece is well worth a reading for anyone who wants to widen their perspective.
xx
ed
Excuses, excuses, excuses. The enemy of these terrorists is democracy, that's what they are trying to destroy.
Ross (37),
Thanks for such a constructive contribution.
xx
ed
Ross @ 37, if they *really* hated *democracy* they'd need to attack Sweden, not us or America.
Possibly they hate capitalism, or imperialism, or people who are not their own particular brand of Islam, but I think they just hate, in a sort of chaotic incoherent manner, very adolescent (before you say anything about that, some people never grow up). Waging war on democracy is as much a meaningless abstraction as waging war on terror.
I wish it was as simple as that Chris. Terror groups must be a good place for 'sicko-s' to be absorbed, but it doesn't explain a global movement. 'We' are at war, but these wars cannot be contained in one area. I'm not making excuses for the bombers. All war is 'adolescent'. Killing just leads to more killing. And both sides believe they do it for the right cause. But how can these wars be contained?
Jews, Israel, Infidels, America, the West, Capitalism, Imperialism, America's support of Israel (a democracy) and of course homosexuals. Indeed, all the perceived things that prevent us from being under the 'flag' of Allah. Oh, and slags because in the case of the 'fertisliser bombrs' that was one reason mentioned for attacking nightclubs.
So we are being attacked because somewhere along the line all the things mentioned above offend people who are prepared to murder in cold blood.
I recall that many years before the war in Iraq some Muslim's warned there would be 'consequences' because of our foreign policy, inparticular that we do not scream for the destruction of Israel. Many people in the West do not feel that foreign policy should be dictated on the basis of hate.
9/11 happened before Iraq and I should point out that the majority of the population in Iraq voted for democracy. Most intelligent people are aware that the murders being carried out in Iraq are Muslim on Muslim, mostly Iranian backed. So therefore, they are responsible for those murders.
For many years we have given assylum and refuge to known terrorists and preachers of hate and people who are taught to hate us from childhood. We are now truly understanding the meaning of tolerance. That is, we may have been brought up with it, but, others have not.
We are being told by some politicians that the people carrying out these terrorist acts, are individuals acting alone. The evidence does not back this up.
As in other parts of the world we are under attack because we do not bend to the will of murderers, Turkey is an example of a population refusing to be dragged back into the seventeenth century by facsists, why should we?
What happens next:
1. Ed Inglehart provides maps and rants on Israel to prove his point that Israel is the cause of all ills in the world.
2. Chris Ghoti comes out in support of Ed Inglehart.
3 Then it's the turn of Simon Worral et al, and so on and so forth. There is a pattern. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this should be done without intimidation.
Ross (41),
Thanks for a more substantial response.
"Israel (a democracy)"
which maintains its majority by excluding the bulk of the original population of the area it governs.
"the majority of the population in Iraq voted for democracy"
What else was on the ballot?
"As in other parts of the world we are under attack"
Where (as requested several times)? And Turkey is still in deep denial of the massacre of Armenians.
"Ed Inglehart provides maps and rants on Israel to prove his point that Israel is the cause of all ills in the world."
Iglehart, thanks, and I also provided links to the rise of Wahabism. I do maintain that the European imposition* of a colony into the Middle-East does lie at the heart of much resentment towards "the West", and our application of double standards towards Israel aggravates the problem.
"this should be done without intimidation."
Who has been intimidated and by whom? Does the truth frighten you? If you find untruths, please identify them and challenge them.
Salaam/Shalom, etc.
ed
* Imposed against the will of ALL the region and in direct abrogation of the right of self-determination of peoples, a founding principle of the UN. How democratic is that? Israel claims her 'right to exist' through the UN, and then immediately defies the authority of the UN with every move she makes.
Partition resolution (181) voting:
JPA @ 40, I know it isn't simple: more than three people are involved, it is not going to be simple. (Isn't that axiomatic?) Some prunewits support one cause, some another, and their simple-mindedness has various causes for existing. I do think that anyone who espouses a "war" on an abstraction is doomed to failure: terror, tolerance, addiction, reasonableness, and all the Seven Deadly Sins of course, are states of mind, and cannot be taken out of existence by force or lulled into disappearance by kindliness. It may be possible to terrorise people into becoming for the time being intolerant, even bigoted, but if the pressure is removed, the state of mind springs back into being, perhaps not in a given individual but in a new generation. ("He who complies against his will is of his own opinion still," too, as Samuel Butler remarked back in 16-something.)
I don't have any easy answers, but I am quite sure that anyone who assumes a single root cause for anything is likely to have been asking the wrong questions.
Ross @ 41, I don't as it happens "come out in support of Ed Inglehart" (or even of Ed Iglehart, as he signs himself). Contrary to the "received wisdom" espoused by some people who post here and are determined that anyone who appears not to toe their own party line is part of an organised "clique", I have my own views, which don't always match his, or those of the ±«Óãtv or anybody else dammit. Having cousins in Israel tends to make one disinclined to believe that Israel is an unmitigated evil... just as it is difficult for a Jew to be really anti-Jewish or even anti-Semitic, though one may as a Jew be anti-Zionist.
Si patently thinks many of Ed's views questionable at best, downright daffy at worst, and says so loud and clear.
If I don't find what you write to be always and without exception entirely coherent, or if I argue against some point you have made and provide a different point of view, that is not a personal attack on you: it's a disagreement with a view you have expressed. (I would hope that as a human being you are more than merely a view you have expressed!) You may choose to ignore what I say, or to think about it, but I can neither force you to do the second nor punish you for doing the first. If you feel intimidated by an opinion contrary to your own being expressed, the feeling is with you, not of my intent. What can I actually do to you, apart from disagree with what you say sometimes? If that intimidates you, I'm sad for your state of mind but I can't easily do much about it unless I were to allow your unhappiness to remove my right to hold an opinion other than yours -- which would be precisely the stifling of debate that you don't want.
Of course, by accusing me in this way you've caused me to answer the accusation rather than the arguments in your post, which is a pity -- or is that what you wanted really? I do hope not, for that would mean you were a hypocrite, which hadn't been my impression of you. Not all of your points are unanswerable: some I agree with, some I don't, all are worth considering and/or discussing, but they will have to go by the board at this time because of this matter of what I consider greater urgency. As an anarchist, I find it deeply offensive that you seem to have assumed me to be mindlessly toeing *anybody's* "party line". Please don't do that again... Call *me* a twerp if you wish, by all means, but don't call me a fellow-traveller.
Chris (43),
"Si patently thinks many of Ed's views questionable at best, downright daffy at worst, and says so loud and clear."
Actually Si and I agree that Israel beyond the boundaries proposed in Res 181 is out of order. Si reckons (rightly) that I'm a bit obsessed on the matter, and my response is that, although that may be true, we cannot ignore the root cause of so much resentment and conflict and the continuing oppression of the Palestinians. We are not that far apart, so maybe we are a 'clique'.
Or maybe we represent what is becoming the majority informed opinion.
Again, I would welcome reasoned attempts to refute any of my (or others') contentions from any quarter.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
P.S. If there's any intimidation in these matters it's the threat of being thought antisemitic if one criticises Israel. I know my own thoughts and feelings and am not thus intimidated.
Chris,
Are you really a twerp?
1. "A person regarded as insignificant and contemptible."
I think not!
But I also recall that it's a term for a baby whale...though I can't find anything to support that recollection.
Anyway, I don't regard you as a twerp in either sense.
xxx
ed
I'm with you, Chris. I wasn't saying you were simple. I just wish *IT* was. They were genuine questions, and that's why I didn't give any answers.
DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM
Ed @ 44/45, I didn't say whether I was or wasn't a twerp, though, what I said was that if someone felt the need to call me one that was perfectly acceptable to me. Up to him/her/it/them, really. I'm glad you don't feel that need. :-)
I think you and Si have been known to disagree on matters other than Israel/Palestine, haven't you?
My problem continues to be the way that in a debate, so many people cannot see that there may be a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking that the person who expressed that opinion is a Bad Person. It's like that time Cherie Blair said that she thought she could understand why a Palestinian might become a suicide bomber and was instantly accused of supporting them or encouraging them or whatever: she hadn't. She said she could see how it happened, not that she thought it happening was a good idea.
When I forget that someone calling me Evil for pointing out a possible interpretation of some argument or event may be doing so because he or she really doesn't realise that one may see a possible cause without necessarily agreeing with it, I get upset, but mostly i can look at what that person has said, see the fallacies in their chain of logic, and let it go past.
A small silliness for you, from Spider Robinson's short story "'A Voice Is Heard In Ramah...'''. The setting is a planet occupied by intelligent plants, the speaker is its King, Richard the Artichoke Heart, one of whose concubines is several sepals short of a full bloom, and his eventual, exasperated comment after he has tried and tried to educate her is, 'I can lead a horticulture, but I can't make her think.' Since we were talking not long ago about *The Day of the Triffids*, walking plants fit into the frog quite well, I feel.
Roger : rough!!!!
Fifi
Ed;
Do you realise what you said in (44)?
You acknowledged Israel's right to exist without qualifying the point! You didn't hedge it around with your usual stuff about gerrymandering the deal by removing areas to create a Jewish majority. You didn't mention the rights of the majority/indigent population.
You said "Actually Si and I agree that Israel beyond the boundaries proposed in Res 181 is out of order". Thus implicitly acknowledging it's right to exist within that border.
Wooo Hooo! I'm off to get drunk on the Beach!
Si.
Chris,
"I think you and Si have been known to disagree on matters other than Israel/Palestine, haven't you?"
Indeed we have, but we have also found common ground more more than once or twice. It makes for a richer conversation that way. I could say the same, I think for Vyle and some others.
I do miss Helen Sparkles, with whom I had much in common, but who seemed completely of an opposite persuasion regarding climate change...
I often find myself dangerously in agreement with you, though, and respect your erudition. We must be due to fall out, but I hope not.
Anyway, drinks are on me.
xx
ed
Si (49),
"You acknowledged Israel's right to exist without qualifying the point!"
Actually not quite. I said we agree it's out of order beyond the partition borders.
Elsewhere (42) I noted that Israel bases her 'right to exist' on the UN (as you have noted):
I'd be happy to see even a 'green line' solution if it meant an end to the business.
Anyway, I've already said drinks are on me.
Slainte
ed
Beach. Si, Ed, good plan.
If the drinks are on Ed, does that mean Si has been at play with a soda-water siphon?
Must find Ali Baba's Camel.
I suppose it would be contrary to the mild etiquette of the Beach for our Clique to hone our plans for world domination whilst we're there?
Ed, due to fall out of what? If it's a hammock that's not too bad...
[oooh, malicious! I wonder whether it means it, or whether it's already accepted this post secretly and will now put it up twice as it sometimes does...]
as usual, deemed malicious, may have appeared already and apologies if so.
Beach. Si, Ed, good plan.
If the drinks are on Ed, does that mean Si has been at play with a soda-water siphon?
Must find Ali Baba's Camel.
I suppose it would be contrary to the mild etiquette of the Beach for our Clique to hone our plans for world domination whilst we're there?
Ed, due to fall out of what? If it's a hammock that's not too bad...
argh. When I *am* twisting tails it goes through without demur; when I am arranging a small gathering to sample some Bouzo, it says I am being malicious. Three times!
Though now I come to think about it, maybe the Trouser Stiffener *is* malicious... ;-)
Some 20 years ago we moved to Aberdeenshre from Dorset.
The solicitor we bought property through advised
"Never buy anything with the word 'bog' in the name. There's good reason for it"
(Bogton, Bognie etc)
We heeded her advice and have only bought property on the side of a hill!
Philip Kirkland @ 56, that's all very well, but...
I used to own a book called "Lost Beauties of the English Language", a sort of dictionary of words nobody has ever heard of any more, dating from the end of the nineteenth century and collected by an English clergyman.
It felt as one thumbed through it as if about every fifth word was another name for wet ground, and about every tenth was a disease of sheep. A lot of the diseases of sheep involved their feet being damaged by their being kept on wet ground...
Bog, and fen, and marsh are obvious, but there might be a whole lot of others we now wouldn't recognise as warning signs. Drat it.
So the Welsh Nats (or nuts) are at it again. If our old foe, the Germans, think English is the best language for business, why is it so foreign for the Taffies?
I am in favour of preserving the minor languages of Europe, but I am a realist too. Just try driving in Wales. You turn a corner, and are met with a notice in gobbledegook. By the time you get down to the English part, you've passed the board. And, short of turning round to see what you've missed, you never learn what the notice was about.
Come on Taffy. Use a bit if Teutonic gumption. If you proceed down your present path, you'll be the joke of Europe.
Ed @ 51, incidentally, having been born cussed, and understanding the nature of debate as I do (you haven't lived until you are told one morning that you are proposing a motion on a subject about which you know very little, at a formal debate that evening ie in about eight hours' time, and realise when you start researching it that you have to put forward a view that is entirely opposite to your much-cherished opinions) I could probably argue either side of the climate change question, if that would make you happy.
I can see that there *are* two sides, put it that way! How about if I just don't tell you which one I personally give more credence, and next time the subject comes up... :-)
Since the whole point of debate is that it ought not to be dependent on the opinions of the people doing the debating, but a presentation of possible aspects of the matter being debated, slanted to bring to the fore and perhaps present in a favourable light whichever side of the debate one has selected (or had selected for one), I am always likely to run up against those who cannot read the words "I have been told" at the beginning of a sentence and know that these may mean "and I don't actually believe for a moment", or that "It is said that" means just that it is said and not that it is true nor that I necessarily think it was worth saying...
Be aware of these points. always: I try to play absolutely fair. If I say "It seems to me" then I mean that, too.
If I may paraphrase something from the writings of Al-Ghazali, roundabout 1090 AD (or 480 AH), I also might say, "We know that the Christians are mistaken, but we ought still to listen to what they say, for even a Christian may get something right by accident."
The object of debate it to make all parties to it *think*, not merely for all parties to it to recite the positions they already believe to be correct, after all.
(Well, if the moderators want to regard a statement of intent to debate as malicious, that's their prerogative, I suppose. mutter mutter mutter)
Chris (59),
I would find it very difficult to argue the opposite side of any debate in which I already have become convinced of the overwhelming merits of the side I espouse. Palestine/Israel is such a case, as is climate change.
There are indeed valid arguments from the 'opposite' side in both cases - nothing is totally one-sided - but I have in both cases already examined a great deal of information from both 'sides' and have an opinion rooted in that examination.
Of course, I would hope to always be open to listen to rational argument and welcome genuinely new information or viewpoints, e.g. the idea that sulphur aerosols masked the effects of Greenhouse Gasses between the forties and the sixties. Nobody should be proud of certainty in any matter - it's the basis of extremism.
xx
ed
Ed @ 60,
As I understand it you were not always informed about both sides in the matter of Israel/Palestine; something at some point caused you to go looking for information on this subject, and what you found informed your present views. If all you had ever encountered before you went and did that looking had been dogmatic statement, with the rider "You are wrong!" and followed, if you persisted in your view, with "You are stupid!", you probably wouldn't have felt any urge to investigate the reasons for the rude and churlish to have arrived at *their* position. Am I right?
Thus, it seems to me, what masquerades as 'debate' but is in fact parallel monologues, with each person stating and reiterating a fixed view from which they never deviate, actually has a bad effect, in that all it does is foster fixed views on either side by unrelenting opposition. Polarising matters, so that there are only two possible stances available on any subject, is the enemy of compromise, and compromise is often the only way in which a matter can move towards a solution that is tolerable to all parties, if ideal for none.
I respect your views on Palestine, and I do not dispute the factual evidence you put forward to support them, but I can also see that simple population figures make many positions in the matter untenable *now*. If there are x million Jewish/Israeli inhabitants of the area, and x million Arab/Palestinians, it is clearly unjust for the former to occupy ninety per cent of the land; it would also and equally be clearly unjust for the latter to occupy ninety per cent of the land. Each has a historical claim (whether good or bad is at this point immaterial) to more than ninety per cent of the land. An attempt at resolution based on historical precedents is at this point doomed to failure, since each side has historical precedent for its position. Proper debate has to move forward from entrenched historical positions and start to consider possible points for compromise. Proper debate may even throw up new ideas, ones so absurd at first glance as to be risible but which have in them something that later turns out to have been helpful -- who would have thought that getting the families of the victims of murder into the same room with the murderers would help anything? It seems that in some cases, in South Africa and in Northern Ireland, it has been beneficial to the individuals involved. Had each side merely repeated old arguments, talking *at* each other rather than *to* or *with* each other, those people would not have got anywhere further, and would still hate each other instead of having any understanding of how they arrived at where they now are and (however unwillingly!) now finding it difficult to be entirely filled with hatred.
That would be part of my advocation of the merits of true debate as opposed to statement and restatement of fact, anyhow. I'm not entirely sure that I could debate properly against a position (provided it were reasonable not just of the "your mother wears army boots!" breed, which is undebatable because my mother is dead) unless I understood it well enough to be able to argue for it as well.
Chris (61),
I hear what you're saying, and understand and agree with most of it. Neither 'side' is entitled to 90% of Palestine. I do, however, persist in the view that Israel holds her present position through unjustified and unmitigated arrogant aggression, and that no peace of any sort will be possible while this simple fact is recognised and some sort of apology and recompense given. In these matters Israel is truly a rogue state. It is a betrayal of all the good and just traditions of Judaism, secular and religious, and a major driver of antisemitism
As to an 'off the wall' suggestion, I had always thought the most just solution would be a one-state solution, truly secular and democratic. This, of course, would be the end of the "Jewish" state, an anachronism in the modern world.
I do understand and empathise with the dream of return and especially after the oppression the Jews experienced in diaspora, but it has never justified the expulsion and dispossession of a relatively innocent population who had little or nothing to do with the Holocaust or its precursors.
I do understand what you say about the nature of much 'debate' - we are preaching to the converted and at the opposition, who are preaching to their colleagues and at us.
I just hope some folk who haven't bothered to examine the 'received opinion' will be moved to do so, and perhaps add weight to the movement for a just solution.
in Peace (all languages)
xx
ed