The Glass Box for Monday
The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.
Just click on the "comment" link.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond.
If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
There is a long delay between "recent entries" and the comments appearing on the blog.... is it my server/computer or the way the blog works?
Donna,
"is it my server/computer or the way the blog works?"
It's the way the blog DOESN'T work.
;-)
ed
Serve and volley?
Er, oh hello, I’m back. I have been a bit distracted for a couple of weeks, but did at least hear about a new PM. But the programme sounds a bit the same to me today.
For the glass box:
Surely you have to concede that charges are not denied or accepted, it’s guilt that is denied or accepted....
SB3
Not bad! no one mentioned the ÂŁmoney for the diaries until 17.40.
xx
Hi Doc, welcome back!
The US 'Surge' in Iraq is far better understood if one considers that the motivation behind this tactic was not, as a priority, to prevent violence against Iraqis by other Iraqis, but to step up the war against the anti-occupation forces which are now seriously threatening wider US policy in the region.
Why is it taken as read that the billions being spent on the US 'Surge' and the consequent increased toll of US and UK dead is not in the direct interests of US power, but first and foremost for altruistic reasons? This cannot possibly be the case.
Whether the 'Surge' is or is not reducing iraqi civilian casualities is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether the policy is or is not failing except in the widest political sense that it may adversely affect public opinion and thus force an abandonment of the policy before the anti-occupation militias have been destroyed.
The real measure of its success is the one virtually never alluded to, that is how UK and US forces are doing in suppressing these Iraqi anti-occupation militias. This is the information that is never reported, but is, nevertheless, the current overwhelming military priority for US and UK Forces.
regarding pylons, Bryson could do worse than start at Shrewbury, where the site of a major battle field from the time of Henryu IV is ruined by a line of pylons placed right across it.
Is I.D.S. making a case against the free market?
How much more free advertising are ±«Óătv radio news programmes going to give that perfectly dreadful man Alastair Campbell and his wretched book? It is impossible to believe that there are not more important stories to cover. Quite shameful.
Alistair Campbell's book shouldn't have been given so much time on the PM show today, I feel.
It does seem to be part of the small whirlwind of promotion the book is receiving, and I didn't really get much from the piece on Campbell's book apart from "I may want to buy this when it eventually reaches a charity shop."
In its defence, it was quite a light-hearted news piece and that's needed in the mix, certainly.
I am incandescent that you waste time talking to Bryson and the irrelevant CPRE.
I was driving home listening to the item about increasing food prices and I start to worry if I will be able to afford to buy the food I like or even need when I retire. I hear that we are now in international competition for food and I am worried I will soon be living in a poor country.
So what comes shortly after? Bill Bryson worrying about how pretty the countryside looks; are pylons the right colour. The man is a fool; send him back from whence he came. I gather the CPRE doesn't want poly-tunnels, they are untidy. I say cover every bit of the UK in poly-tunnels if it means I can eat.
I second all those who reckon the ±«Óătv needn't give so much time to that twerp and his book.
xx
ed
From the vantage point of editing in the studio, there were certainly no rip-roaring reviews for Alastair Campbell's book from the three contributors. Hope this goes some way to allay Graham's concerns. And on the issue if IDS questioning the virtues of the free-market, we'll try to get that confirmed tomorrow...
Ed @ 11
...I see no need to insult "twerps"
They at least, in some peoples eyes, have a marginal use...
Donna @ 1, Ed @ 2
I have to say, the Blog, ESPECIALLY today - "The Furrowed Brow" has been abysmal...
Recent entries appear after 10 minutes or so, but the actual Blog entries (in my case) often do not appear for long periods of time and then, after the "recent entries" headlines have disappeared. AND, I do mean LONG, after.
Also, I've found Blog enties are deleted after appearing - for no apparent reason i.e. are not contentious, rude, or infringing anyone's rights or, copyrights...
Charlie (14),
Sorry, but is it an insult to call a bore a bore or a bird a bird, or is it just a question of nomenclature? What marginal use did you have in mind?
Rex (11),
"I was driving home"
There's a !
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Thanks for that Charlie. There IS a lot of traffic!
I've got I.D.S. and his backward notions in my sights, and once I've gathered the evidence, watch this space.....
Thank you 'blog owner.
xx
Why does Eddie Mair have to keep telling us who he is - is he afraid we may have forgotten since the last time he mentioned it (about ten minutes ago)? I think telling us five or six times is verging on the unnecessary in a programme which is on every day of the week, week after week, year in, year out. I only listen to keep up with the news, EDDIE, not to listen to you begging to be forgiven as often as you remind us who you are.
I just thought that tonight’s program lacked Dot. It is amazing what you do not miss until it (she) is no longer there. Are we really going to have to wait another 50 weeks until we hear a report from her? Top quality journalism. That is what PM is all about. Until then: “Come on T . . .” oh forget it!
H.
Gosh, quite a few posters here seem to be quite cross about nothing very much. I thought Sily Season was still a week or so away?...
The most remarkable thing about the programme for me was that we managed to broadcast an extremely rude word and no-one has complained... yet.
It was a mistake. We had meant to edit it out but played the wrong tape. To those listeners who are now outraged, I apologise, it was a genuine production mistake.
Peter Rippon-
I'm outraged at a rude word on PM yesterday.
(What was it?......)
Sorry- I do feel silly today!
Mollyxx
No-one really cares about naughty words on the radio, do they?
Malcolm, in answer to your question at 18 - it's all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.
Re: 21
I wondered if I was hearing things. I wonder whether I was paying attention.
*** **** *** * ** censorship.
Well I'm just bursting to know what this rude word was now! Gonna give us a clue Doc (25)? No one else seems to have heard it, and Peter R and that presenter bloke (what's his name again? He really should remind us sometimes!) evidently aren't going to spill the beans.
WLong time no frog, by the way!! :-)
I vaguely remember hearing some word or other but can't remember what it was. Either I have unconsciously censored it or my (and presumably other people's ) definition of "rudeness" has evolved.
Go... figure.
Will somebody please tell us what that word was? Was it just rude, or very rude or "extremely rude" as Peter Rippon suggests? And who said it?
F or C (28)
Nah.... Alistair Campbell - 2 rude words.
And I thought for just a moment that I heard Martha Kearney say "F*rting has intensified around the Red Mosque..."
Make sure it's on the fg tape!
;-)
ed
Am writing from New Zealand so sorry if the topic has moved on.
Have just listened to, and enjoyed, your piece on the decline in cinema manners, but I believe you missed one of the key factors behind this decline. Namely, a decline in the number of actual cinemas.
Between 1999 and 2001, I was a reporter on a large regional newspaper in the UK. In the city where I was based, there were two cinemas: a thriving "old-fashioned" cinema popular with pensioners, families and film lovers - let's call it the Alhambra - and a big, modern out-of-town multiplex.
The Alhambra had cheap days for pensioners, was staffed with usherettes, was on the bus route and situated in the city centre close to numerous local pubs and restaurants. The multiplex was only accessible by car, which meant anyone wishing to go there either had to drive or pay for taxis.
It also meant that once you were there and wanted to eat and/or drink, you had little option but to use the overpriced facilities available at the multiplex.
Unlike the Alhambra with its usherettes and family atmosphere, the vast multiplex attracted large packs of teens and tweenagers who regularly behaved in the way Barry Norman was complaining about. No-one seemed willing or able to stop them.
When contacted by dismayed Alhambra patrons bemoaning the closure of their 'local' cinema, I investigated on their behalf and quickly discovered that both cinema chains had in fact been bought by the same multinational venture captalist company.
Across the UK, this company appeared to be closing down the still profitable 'Alhambra' chain in a bid to reduce competition for its multiplex chain. In one UK city which had had a number of thriving cinemas, I was told that there was now only one out-of-town multiplex cinema which was able to charge up to ÂŁ16 per ticket for admission.
When, along with local campaigners, we tried to get the Monopolies comission to investigate, we were told that 'there was no case to investigate'.
There is no doubt in my mind that these forced closures led to an overall hike in admission prices and a loss of choice for flim-lovers. I also believe it contributed to the decline in cinema manners, with usherettes - much like bus conductors - being deemed unprofitable, and therefore unnecessary.
These forced closures undoubtedly mean more profits for the owners but less choice and more expense for cinema-lovers. Older patrons and those who liked to walk to the cinema and then visit a nearby restaurant or pub, also lost out, as did the owners of those restaurants and pubs.
Much the same seems to be happening to small, independent pubs at the hands of the multinational brewing giants, and small, independent shops at the hands of the supermarket tycoons. Profits soar and the little people suffer, but no doubt there is still 'no case to investigate'.
Good luck to all those quality independents - in whatever field - still battling on, and all those customers who make a conscious effort to support and frequent them. Mine's a raspberry ripple, please usherette.