91Èȱ¬

Dear Newsnight

Would it be possible to make this the basis of some questions

re Criminal investigations, would it be possible to stop those with knowledge of such things, discussing the ways, techniques the police can catch criminals ie.................

there seems to be a lot of detail being broadcast or published which concerns me, and whether we might have second defence by taking strong action against any media outlet that reveals these details, that seems to assist criminals to evade detection.

secondly would it be possible to have a debate on a national DNA database which would help catch many criminals including 40% at least of burglars allowing the police to concentrate their resources on other crimes

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

I agree with the police superintendent that the 91Èȱ¬ have managed to unearth exactly nothing, with this investigation on speeding offence aviodance by police.

What I find difficult to comprehend is that the 91Èȱ¬ see what they are presenting as meaningful. It seems to me that you are trying to spin a story that is simply not there.

If you have nothing to say, then it is better to say nothing at all.

Shocking ! Shocking that you let idiots talk without adequate questioning......Sadly even Jeremy's turned into a andrex puppie....

For the second time the head of ACPO gives excuses but not proper reasons as to why he is unable to trace the drivers of speeding police vehicles. With deaths involving police vehicles on a sharp upward curve this is totally unacceptable. I drove 360,000 miles in four years but when I hit 12 points I got banned. My high mileage did not serve to mitigate in my favour and therefore it should not be used as an excuse by the Chief Constable.

Dear Newsnight

Re the 91Èȱ¬ reporting of the arrest of a man in connection with the murders of the Ipswich prostitutes.

I do not think that the 91Èȱ¬ have any right to name the man arrested today. The only reason they have done so is in the interests of the 91Èȱ¬, and not the public. From what I have seen on the 91Èȱ¬ news, the police were very careful not to name the man they arrested. What gives the 91Èȱ¬ the right to think that they should name him? To argue that it is "in the public interest" to do so is disingenuous. The interest of the public lies in the police arresting the right man, and the right man being convicted; not in the public knowing his name. The 91Èȱ¬ have done nothing to assist the police in this aim. They already seem to have decided that the man arrested today is guilty. They have even managed to insinuate that if the police do not charge him with the murder of the women, then this is because the man has admitted to being in contact with the women thereby making it extremely difficult for the police to rely on any forensic evidence. So, if the police discharge him, by implication this will not necessarily mean that he is innocent. What is this? Trial by the 91Èȱ¬.

I thought that Jeremy Paxman was very arrogant towards Norman Kember and friend. Mr Paxman and his like could learn much from good Christian people speaking of forgiveness...........if only he wanted to. No wonder the whole world (or so it feels) is at war. We all need to learn to forgive each other. Please don't ridicule good people.

Dear Newsnight

I agree with Rhoda’s post, 5

The interest of the public lies in the police arresting the right man, and the right man being convicted; not in the public knowing his name.

The lawyer on the left of the screen said that it was in the public interest to know this persons name. Is it? The public interest is not in having trials undermined so that if a person is guilty they can get off on a technicality.

I think the media is poisoning its own well. If you produced a product that made people sick or felt depressed when they used it you might expect people to stop buying it. Perhaps the way the news is being reported with an unhealthy interest in the nastiest side of life is reducing people's readiness to buy for example newspapers.

re the Oh Newsnight slot, perhaps as technology improves and peoples knowledge of the world, the percentage of time devoted to blogs or slots like Oh Newsnight and the many more ways that people will interact with the news media in the future, will steadily increase.

There is a limit to how much more programmes like Newsnight can improve, particularly as its budget is cut back to fund zillions of other 91Èȱ¬ activities -remember the view in the 60s that we would never wish to follow the US example with loads of channels and nothing worth watching.....

Anyhow the skills and access to resources of the mainstream population will continue to increase relative to those of 'professional' broadcasters to such an extent that they may give them a real run for their money in their future, so that the distinction between the two may become very blurred in the future, and perhaps the ‘viewers’ may even surpass the ‘professionals’ sometimes.

So that viewers will increasingly use media platforms like the 91Èȱ¬ to air their own material, and perhaps viewers -the ones not appearing may be able to give a rating to the relative quality of the two segments of the show. Viewers will be able to offer increasingly high quality material from all different perspectives and locations, and at no cost to the broadcaster.

So in fact something like Oh Newsnight might be the thin end of the wedge of something that will significantly change the media.
People may even begin to start publishing their own newssheets for their localities or producing bloggervision for their local neighbourhoods or communities.

Bloggervision / professionalvision may see the end of professional broadcasting and other media outlets unless they offer something that ordinary people cannot.

QUALITY QUALITY QUALITY -and this is where the 91Èȱ¬ is making a huge mistake by sacrificing this for quantity. It should a creative powerhouse and helping drive a high quality UK film and music industry.

So that if the current trend continues and quality is sacrificed for quantity who would be most eligible for the TV licence fee, that is if it still exists. Bloggers or Professional broadcasters?

Perhaps. Just a thought

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

PS Does anyone on the show read this?

What amazes me is that every single blog contains wholly opposing opinions, so the presenters / producers have to deal with criticism whichever way they go - it would send me into a paranoid frenzy. And I wouldn't be too quick to judge Mr P's ideological credentials either, just because he has made his name by provoking public figures into defending their assertions, doesn't mean we know what he gets up to off stage does it?

Re. crime reporting (slightly tangential) I increasingly wonder why we are ever told how a victim died or what they suffered - is it in the public interest? how would we feel if it was our kin?

SPEEDING POLICEMEN Chief Constable Mr Hughes, South Yorkshire Police, appeared not to know how many of his officers had been prosecuted. Tickets have been torn up after no-one would own up to being the driver. The inability to keep track of who's driving the police cars ... drivers can't be traced ... "information not readily to hand" ... yet the Chief Constable endeavoured to reassure Jeremy [Paxman] that he believes in transparency.

Important to understand that the Rule of Law applies to everyone - an important principle that must be upheld. We ignore it at our peril.

There is a special channel available for broadcasting reality TV nonsense which is uninformative, annoying and not newsworthy. Newsnight should send the My Newsnight clips straight to Channel 4.

The speeding copper story is relevant, and that the fact that the chief constable did an excellent job of answering Jeremy's questions should not imply the questioning and report was unnecessary. As JP put it, the public have a right to expect police to be equally accountable and compliant with laws. Unlike politicians, the chief constable actually answered the questions put, admitting some past lapses and assuring the public that they held themselves to high standards.

Finally, Kimber was foolish in going to Iraq and just as foolish since. The beheaders of Ken Bigley would, if allowed freedom, do the same again. There would be an outcry if serial killers and violent murderers were sentenced to community service in the UK. Christian forgiveness is one thing, using his newfound notoriety to call for what are effectively ASBOs and community service orders for the most savage of Iraq ignores the threats they pose to other Iraqis.

I'm with Edward - it is time that we actually realised that we have actually over and inappropriately used the words actually and appropriate and in a pernicious power-based way to dismiss other people's arguments without reasoned argument and it would actually be appropriate to 'recognise' (another seemingly innocuous but in fact value-laden term i.e. implying a low level of perception in the other) that PC-speak is as dogmatic as the policies it spawned and should be consigned to the trash can - but Edward - are you sure that is only ONE beard??

Please include the article about speeding in your pod-cast for the interest of motorists.

It again shows just how much hypocrisy there is in the police about speeding, in which it is one rule for them and another for everyone else.