The Glass Box for Thursday
where you can comment on tonight's programme.
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
That woman shouting idiotically at new cabinet members arriving in Downing Street was the worst bit of radio I've heard in a long time.
Whilst I'm here, could I just say that Eddie Mair is a wonderful chairman of Any Questions and knocks spots off the Dimblattenborough who usually does it.
Stop being horrible to Sequin !!
Reporters standing in Downing Street in order to shout at cabinet ministers is not news and does not add to the sum of human understanding nor to the excitement of current affairs.
Having just listened to the 'responses' made by the other party representatives about the cabinet changes - any chance of a programme without ANY politicians responding to anything at all?
You could replace them with a tape saying "whatever has been done by the other parties is predictable and bad, we are marvellous and have never changed our minds about anything", and we would learn just as much as we do from their minutes of blabbering on.
Gosh, George Osborne is sounding incredibly pompous. Think you have him on the run.
Why is he so touchy ? Or should that be tetchy?
Just what I've been saying for years: Sporty Spice is the only one worth listening to.
Thank you...
My first reaction to Sequin's piece was the same as Anne's (1), but then I thought, it's radio - how do you convey the sense of eager minesterial hopefuls wending their way up Downing St through the massed ranks of feral beasts? It did the trick didn't it? Anyone who listens to her (and lets face it, it's hard to switch Radio 4 on and NOT listen to her), knows that our Sequin is top notch.
Sequin, really.
Tabloid Radio at its grubbiest. What editor let that in?
Tut tut!
:o(
Fifi
Re: Stuart Arden. I have to question the logic of keeping Huw Edwards out there all day in News 24.
While I appreciate that Buckingham Palace and other royal residences (apart from Sandringham, I believe) belong to the nation and not to the monarch or members of her family, I think that the relatively paltry one million pounds allegedly required to shore up these tottering edifices should be provided out of the sovereign's amply stocked private purse. Even if that means her having to wear the same (dreadul) hat two days in succession.
Dear Eddie Mare,
I think you have blown your Knighthood, but that was brilliant.
Oh my! How I laughed - Eddie auditioning for Newsnight.
But, speaking for myself, Mr. Osbourne deserved to be paxo-ed. I'm sure I've heard that he's very clever, but I can't believe that it's true. He is always making injudicious and silly snipes and therefore comes across like an adolescent schoolboy from the age of Billy Bunter. Just like tonight.
They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mair, do they?
(Other stuffings are available.)
I thought this evening's programme was the worse bit of current affairs broadcasting I've heard for many years. I tuned in hoping for some intelligent analysis about the make-up of the new Cabinet, which incidentally includes the first woman home secretary in British history - an MP who very few people know anything about. Who is she? What makes her tick? What explains her meteroic rise?
Instead we had some silly woman shouting inane questions across Downing Street and a long, tedious piece about French bread (OK for a slow news day, but not for today).
The interview with Shaun Woodward was a disgrace. He was allowed - unchallenged - to spout a load of propaganda, including the ludicrous claim that Labour party membership had increased. The woman interviewer was clearly out of her depth.
Whatever happened to serious coverage of politics on what should be Radio 4's flagship current affairs programme?
This was lightweight and totally uninformative and everybody connected with this useless programme should hang their heads in shame.
I totally agree with comments 1 and 3. My husband and I made similar comments regarding the coverage of the new cabinet. I do not think that we had this type of hysterical reporting in the past. The labour party must have benefitted hugely from the free publicity provided by the bbc. This was the case with the deputy leadership hustings. Apparently according to one of the labour mp's you interviewed , they had gained thousands of new members during the election. This was most likely due to the coverage of this by the bbc and pm specifically. Incidentally, I wonder whether we are living in the same country as the pm team. we have had three soldiers killed today, people are homeless because of the floods and youth murders are causing concern, but hey, aren't we all much more interested in French bread. I don't think so!! Another item that would be best covered elsewhere.
Sequin! I'm shocked. Hardly your finest hour was it?
Bedd Gelert I thought it was Eddie Mair who was sounding tetchy and though George Osborne may have things to answer for, I don't believe Eddie Mair's hair splitting was it. I came away wondering if the new 91热爆 policy is to be protective of the Labour Government and we will have to wait another 10 years before they will do their job of putting searching questions to it.
If Eddie Mair really wanted to question a politician of having contradictory aims it is Gordon Brown who he should ask how he squares his claim he would run a Government for Britain, yet has also signed the Claim of Right which states..."We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount." But I don't think it wise to hold our breath waiting for the 91热爆 to do that.
Well, here we go again. Tonight's PM was like a repeat of the beginning of the Blair era with the 91热爆 falling over itself to be the unofficial spokesman for the Labour government.
After everyone had gushed over Gordon Brown's cabinet appointments Eddie Mair's interview with George Osborne was so biased against the Conservatives as to be laughable. He hardly ever let Mr Osborne finish what he was saying and was confrontational and belligerent. Nobody in their right mind would expect a Tory win in the Sedgefield by election, so his aggressive comment on the lines of "So you're not going to win then" was both stupid and unnecessary.
Mr Mair has obviously taken no notice of the recent 91热爆 report which noted the Liberal left wing bias of its staff.
I was struck by the story that chunks of masonary falling from Buckingham palace missed Princess Anne's car. By an astonishing coincidence they also missed mine.
Eddie Mair - what got into you when you interviewed George Osborne today? He was asked to comment on Tory strategy now Gordon is in power, but within moments the poor man brought out the bully in you as you harangued him about what appeared to be an entirely unfairly presented 'change' of Tory policy with regard to private equity firms, without giving him a chance to answer. Then you jeered at him about Tory chances of winning the upcoming bi-elections in what everyone knows are two extremely safe Labour seats. And this was hot on the tails of one of the most obsequious interviews with Sean Woodward (not the most popular of MPs) by Caroline Quinn who allowed him to present what was in effect a press release for the Labour party. You don't think a touch of political bias was creeping in do you?
Can anybody tell me why on earth anybody thinks that Henman not doing very well at Wimbledon and getting knocked out for the fourteenth year is news any more? Bring back Eddie the Eagle, that's what I say!
I have tried twice to post an entry about Eddie Mair's interview with George Osborne this evening.
He was belligerent and rude and hardly ever let Mr Osborne finish a sentence. Nobody in their right mind would expect a Conservative to win the Sedgefield by election so his belligerent comments on the lines of "So you're not going to win then" were completely unnecessary.
My comment has not been published and I was wondering why. You have manged to publish the pro sequin. Is mine too near the mark?
William Carmichael (13) : The whole point of the Glass Box is to be free and frank with your criticism.
Veiling it in diplomacy like that will get you nowhere!
Fifi
;o)
irene edwards @ 22, don't panic! Your earlier post had arrived at number 14. This site is having troubles all its own, and a mere 24 minutes (between 6.21 and 6.45, the times on your two posts) isn't a long wait at all for a post to appear.
One way and another, this evening's posts demonstrate that the 91热爆 is biased. in favour of Labour. No, against Labour. No, against the Conservatives. No, hang on, against the Liberal Democrats.
Personally I have known for years that they are biased against the Whigs.
It occurs to me to wonder, in fact, whether it might be not that the 91热爆 is biased for or against any politician, merely that everyone in the 91热爆 is as bored by politicians and their pontificating as all the rest of us are, and find it very hard not to appear biased against *all* of them. It may be that reporting on occasional loaves of bread is essential for them to keep their sanity.
I have to say that along with others I was very disappointed with the program tonight. It started with the stupid calling over the street which was totally pointless, presumably it was just to let us all know that you had someone in Downing Street but since it added nothing to our knowledge of anything it was a waste of time and resources.
The piece about the bread was equally pointless; even if baguettes aren't french why would you think it news? Ditto the Harry Pottter film preview; it will be opening in the UK shortly and no doubt you will cover that - which is OK at least it will be happenng here. And I expect there will be strange people dressing up as charcaters from the film here too if that was what the report was about.
And well said Ian Edwards, just what I thought. In fact more interesting in our cases surely, since our cars were MUCH FURTHER AWAY when missed. As the Queen is one of the richest people in the world I can't help feeling that she should mend her own houses, I don't expect her to replace my guttering so why should she expect me to repair her masonry. And don't give me that claptrap about how these places belong to the nation; if they belong to the nation when do I get to live in Windsor castle for a week or hold my son's birhday party at Buck HOuse.
As for the George Osbourne interview: -seriously: Eddie you are better than that and we deserve better than that from you. I was disappointed in you this evening and that's something I've never had to say before.
I'm sure Eddie will have his way with Alistair Darling soon.
(!)
Afraid I have to agree that pursuit of politicians on the run does not really work on radio, and by all means get George Osborne on the run, but do give him time to answer. We know that politicians are masters of the non-answer, but you do need to let them have a little more rope, Eddie and you usually do. What happened?
As for the lighter items, fine. Clearly today you were not going to get much more than lists of names in the new cabinet. Time enough to interview them in the coming days.
***malicious, not me***
Late, I know, being on the road...
Yes, I was sorry about Sequin's Downing St reportage. Mind you, Martha and her cohorts were not doing so much better at 13:00.
Missed the Tory shadow interview, so cannot comment.
Not sure about S William's involvement. On WatO she had a good reason, but seems to be a one-off
Oh, concerning WatO, I understand "pour encourage les autres", to mean to *discourage* others, not encourage them, with reference to Shaun Woodward's new posting to N Ireland (or perhaps that was right the first time round....)
I missed most of the political stuff tonight. But I heard the story about the magic machine that corrects a singer's intonation. What I want to know is, would it work on Jeremy Hardy? And can you get him in for a demonstration? I rather hope it doesn't, since his singing is possibly the finest entertainment available on Radio 4 (or Radio 3, for that matter).
My previous post having been "censored" for reasons of anatomical indelicacy, no doubt, let me put things another way.
Eddie appeared to me not to be taking George Osborne seriously and to be teasing him with provocative and slightly prepschoolish questions. That was undignified and a waste of everybody's time.
Moral: can do better as we all know. (To be continued - tomorrow?)
Well, considering PM's audience figures of three million, and also the response to the special educational item not so long ago, I think Eddies got away with it. Anyway, it's a full-moon. No really, I'm being serious. Just look at Question Time.
Bring on Alistair Darling.....
Missed PM, - not by choice, just circumstance.
Telly was on in the kitchen and I'll confess I was curious about how Huw Edwards was filling the time - far from being a better medium than radio - it happened to fulfill it's purpose for me this evening.
However, have just listened to 'Cleaning out the camp'
Well done Jo and Eddie, for a very interesting (for me) 30 minutes of radio.
I guess, having always worked in the media, - I've been sheilded from realising the extent of homophobia that existed and still exists? within the armed forces. The simple fact of people being denied to serve their country due to their sexual orientation is farcical.
What a shame continuity didn't do a little back anno and link to
Well done - you are very good at doing these short documentary's, next time you are planning one ask the froggers, as Si Worrall would have been great on this topic.
Annasee: What I'd love to hear in ISIHAC with both Jeremy (bless!) and Rob Brydon doing One Song to the Tune of Another.
I have to say I think the former is very brave, the latter clearly well sung (that word began with s, guys, so no naughty step for me!), but they're both good sports, so it could be very entertaining.
I also thought that spot was interesting. At least these things are being talked about more openly now.
Not that long ago we went to a 'songs from the shows' event in Chichester where all the performers were singing to piped music. That had not been hinted at in the pre-show advertising. It transpired that the performers were drama school students (again not flagged up in advertising) so, although the standard of singing was acceptable, we felt duped having paid full normal theatre prices to watch, under false pretences, big show stuff on small scale budget.
Missed the prog last night (again through circumstance rather than choice) and by the sounds of things I didn't miss much...Tardis effect didn't help then?
Jonnie;
Not so sure I'd have any worthwhile to contribute, being nearly ten years out of the Forces, but thanks for the thought. I instinctively don't like microphones, interviews, charity collectors, telephones and anything which requires me to express an opinion either.
Believe me, my contributing to this Blog is breaking the habits of a lifetime.
I'd also like to reinforce the view that shouting at politicians across a road with no discernable response whatso ever was a waste of Sequin's not inconsiderable talents and unworthy both of her and 91热爆 journalism.
Si.
From Sequin:
Thank you all for your comments on the coverage from Downing Street yesterday. Irene Edwards - your posting did get through and I take on board what you say.
I take on board and accept a great deal of what many of you say... what we broadcast from Westminster was perhaps not as polished as usual.
It's a good opportunity to explain how we produce our reports on days like that which can be extremely hectic and problematic.
Firstly, as Peej and others have recognised, it's a tricky radio story. A list of names - new cabinet members - can't just be read out. So we try to use sound - like the Downing Street press crowds and the ministers arriving - to add a bit of colour. Admittedly there were a few shouts, too many of which found their way into my finished package. But essentially the idea was to use the Downing Street atmosphere, and interviews with Robin Oakley, David Owen and Steve Richards to highlight interesting appointments.
Secondly, ALL cabinet ministers yesterday were being unusually coy. Even after the cabinet - which started at 2pm - no-one had agreed to be interviewed on the programme or at least to give us a minute of two in quality to put into our package. The time was ticking on and putting together a package with sound and interviews takes far longer than you might imagine. It's like constructing a sound jigsaw with many tiny incorrectly shaped pieces and no finished picture to work from. Against the clock.
As a result I had to quickly complete a rough cut of my package and try to continue the hunt for an interview. By this time it was 4.30 pm and we were on air at 5. We saw Shaun Woodward being interviewed on College Green so I ran down there from our Millbank studio and managed to get an interview with him on tape at 4.50. In the meantime one of my colleagues was "tidying up" the package.
That left a few minutes to catch my breath - and my thoughts -before going live at 5.05.
This isn't an excuse if you didn't like what went out on air last night, more an explanation of the very complicated, time-consuming and deadline-driven process for putting a report of this nature on air.
Not my finest hour, Mr Snow, but sometimes the fates are just against you. But I always try my best.
From Sequin:
Thank you all for your comments on the coverage from Downing Street yesterday. Irene Edwards - your posting did get through and I take on board what you say.
I take on board and accept a great deal of what many of you say... what we broadcast from Westminster was perhaps not as polished as usual.
It's a good opportunity to explain how we produce our reports on days like that which can be extremely hectic and problematic.
Firstly, as Peej and others have recognised, it's a tricky radio story. A list of names - new cabinet members - can't just be read out. So we try to use sound - like the Downing Street press crowds and the ministers arriving - to add a bit of colour. Admittedly there were a few shouts, too many of which found their way into my finished package. But essentially the idea was to use the Downing Street atmosphere, and interviews with Robin Oakley, David Owen and Steve Richards to highlight interesting appointments.
Secondly, ALL cabinet ministers yesterday were being unusually coy. Even after the cabinet - which started at 2pm - no-one had agreed to be interviewed on the programme or at least to give us a minute of two in quality to put into our package. The time was ticking on and putting together a package with sound and interviews takes far longer than you might imagine. It's like constructing a sound jigsaw with many tiny incorrectly shaped pieces and no finished picture to work from. Against the clock.
As a result I had to quickly complete a rough cut of my package and try to continue the hunt for an interview. By this time it was 4.30 pm and we were on air at 5. We saw Shaun Woodward being interviewed on College Green so I ran down there from our Millbank studio and managed to get an interview with him on tape at 4.50. In the meantime one of my colleagues was "tidying up" the package.
That left a few minutes to catch my breath - and my thoughts -before going live at 5.05.
This isn't an excuse if you didn't like what went out on air last night, more an explanation of the very complicated, time-consuming and deadline-driven process for putting a report of this nature on air.
Not my finest hour, Mr Snow, but sometimes the fates are just against you. But I always try my best.
Sequin -
Thanks for that. Although I didn't catch the piece your post was most illuminating.
As it happens, I spoke at length to the editors about the interview with George Osborne in the "real" glass box last night. My view is that my tone should have been better - without a doubt. I was happy though with how I executed the purpose of the interview - challenging the Tory strategy on dealing with Mr Brown, and with the quality and number of interruptions. The strategy for the interview was, of course, discussed at length with the programme editor.
Some people don't want a politician ever to be interrupted (there is such a call today to the listener log) and while I realise most of the comments here were not suggesting that, I was, as I say, happy with the number of interruptions. Some politicians - and I'm not accusing Mr Osborne here - will avoid questions then profess outrage that the interviewer - on behalf of the listener - tries to hold them to account.
The tone though was wrong. I'm sorry about that. It could have been either too much or not enough coffee...
Hello,
I have to admit I too was not really happy with what we did yesterday on the reshuffle story. We were in the real Glassbox for quite a while. We will do better. As CQ makes clear the editorial proposition that comes out of the radio is often the result of a fraught logistical process. When we fall short it is absolutely not because we have any agenda. We try to tell the story in the most effective way possible. Some days we do it better than others.
Eddie:
"The tone... was wrong"
Is this something else we're laying at the door of the late Prime Minister?
Go on, get yourself another quadlatte, quick. ;o)
CQ, Eddie, Peter
Thanks for your explanations. The Glass Box, real and virtual, seems to be doing its job.
As I keep saying here, I am certain that the 91热爆 in general, and PM in particular, has no agenda beyond reporting and explaining the news. If you fell short of our expectations yesterday it was not because of any liberal conspiracy. It was, from what you say, just a bad day at the office. We all have them - but not in front of 3 million people.
Rachel (the orginal ...)
A very 'umble opinion.
It was your role to cover the Theater of the last few days. But it was a script being played out before our eyes and ears.
This has been a piece of Machiavellian genius compared to the Thatcher/Major change over. The long goodbye has warmed up a cold blooded deed. And you, and I and the rest of us, including Dave Cameron have been well and truly used.
xx
Sadly I missed all but the last 10 minutes of the programme yesterday - it seems to have been a bit below par from the comments.
I suspect though that the comments on this virtual Glass Box are not as critical as you are with yourselves in the real Glass Box.
Regular listeners realise that quality is measured over the long term and that highpoints far outnumber those occasions when you consider that you have fallen short of the mark.
And Eddie - please keep interrupting!
Well it's nice to know that both Eddie and Sequin accept that it it wasn't their best hour of broadcasting. As said I was with News 24 - and more concerned about the flooding - which was the real number one story I'm afraid - that and three British soldiers being blown up.
.................................................................
I forgot to mention that I'd also had a response from the man at the 91热爆 who schedules the trails. He's given me full permission to copy and paste his e-mail on the blog. Here it is :-
-------------------------------------------------------
Hello Jonnie,
I am responding to your recent email about trails on behalf of the Radio 4 Controller Mark Damazer.
I'm responsible for the trails output on Radio 4 and am disappointed to hear that there have been some less than positive comments recently on the PM blog about trails for other 91热爆 services.
It has been the 91热爆's policy for several years now to use a small percentage of Radio 4's airtime to promote programmes for other 91热爆 Radio and TV stations. This is a reciprocal arrangement that is of equal benefit to Radio 4.
We choose programmes that we believe the majority of Radio 4 listeners will be interested in and pay close attention to the overall sound of the trails so that they are stylistically suitable for broadcast on Radio 4. The frequency of these trails has not increased in the last three years.
I am sorry if your enjoyment of PM has been tempered by a particular trail. This, of course, is not the intention. In fact I do hope that the majority of listeners welcome being informed about programmes from areas of the 91热爆 that are not part of their unusual listening or viewing routine.
I rarely receive complaints about our trails but when I do I take each complaint seriously and bear those comments in mind when producing further promotional material for broadcast on 91热爆 Radio 4.
Best wishes,
Paul.
Paul Blakeley
Executive Producer - 91热爆 Radio 4 Presentation
Sequin;
Hope that you've recovered from your Glasto experience?
Thanks for the response. I don't think many of us understand the tightness of deadlines that you sometimes have to work to in getting these stories on the air. Completing an interview at 10 minutes to airtime and having to edit the thing down for delivery must be a nightmare.
I thought that the more interesting part of your response, however, was the fact you noted, that ALL the ministers were being less than forthcoming. Perhaps we really are seeing the first signs that the spin-driven Labour media machine is being dismantled. Perhaps there will be less leaking, off-the-record commentary and advance briefing for you and your lobby colleagues from now on? You may have to work harder for your money!
It could be that Govt. will do what it is supposed to do, brief Parliament first and let you find out afterwards. It might not make for great scoops and 'getting it out first'. But it IS the way things should be done. That no-one in Cabinet was talking was evident as early as 'Today' yesterday morning when all the journos were having to construct interviews with each other to fill in time, because the politicos had clammed up and no-one had any hard facts to go on.
Eddie;
I'll have to listen again to the Osborne package, it didn't really strike me at the time. But as to challenging people; when someone in the public eye wishes to make assertions or object to anothers point of view then the positive and negative aspects of their position need to be examined. If they are making unsubstantiated points which are questionable, even doubtful, for the sake of posturing then they need to be called to account. If their position stands up to scrutiny then that will come out under examination. People who do not wish to be ridiculed should not do or say ridiculous things.
Si.
Jonnie,
Direct feedback from the man in charge. Well done to you.
I'd have to disagree with his assertion about frequency not having increased, as I suspect you and many others would. But there you have it.
Good on you for trying anyway.
Si.
Jonnie - thanks for posting the response. As for reciprocal it SEEMS there are more trails for tv on the radio than vice verse and its often the populist music events that are plugged; Cleaning Out the Camp trailed on Beeb1? Thought not.
I've just listened to the programme.
Was the whole programme only broadcast on the 'right channel' - or is that just some fault with the 'listen again' feed?
CQ's wrap from Downing St - it would have been best if the general audio quality had been better. Pumpy noisy audio - far too much background noise. I'm afraid to re-iterate, but telly did a much better job, certainly as regards to getting clean and clear audio!! However I know it was all cobbled together on the hoof but I'd have sooner junked it all and just done a two way with CQ explaining exactly what was happening in a quieter area of downing St - possibly using the odd bit of actuality, if the content and audio quality was up to 'broadcast quality'.
As regards to Eddie and George Osborne - well I actually had no problem - I found myself smiling, at Eddie's quick retorts. I actually disagree with Eddie's comment, Big Sis and others as to the 'tone' of the interview - obviously a 'horses for courses' thing.
As to the priority that PM always claims to put on the 'placement' of stories as to their newsworthiness, well the fact that the floods finally got a look in at 17:45 was a clear failure.
Re Si - yes I was surprised and happy to have a response on the trails. I don't agree with Paul - but at least he explained the situation.
We have been talking about apology elsewhere in the frog, and I have to say
The PM team, Peter, Eddie, Sequin: you are exemplary! Explanation, analysis without too much breast-beating, careful thought about the problem, apology and an obvious intention to see whether it is possible to avoid some acknowledged mistakes on future occasions.
Congratulations.
I avoided the programme because I felt it likely that there would be nothing to say about the new cabinet at this point, and that members of it were not going to have anything much to say that was of any interest, but I do see that you were under an obligation to report it however dull it might turn out to be, and you have my sympathy.
What interests me now is how many people a Prime Minister is allowed to elevate to the Lords in order to have them in the Cabinet, if they are not members of the House of Commons. One? Two? Twenty?
Jonnie: I had no problems with Eddie's interview either - I merely commented on the paxo style of interviewing, which does have its place. I was extremely glad that Eddie did not let GO get away with it - GO has an irritating habit of failing to address issues relating to his own party and of launching school boy attacks on the Opposition.
He (GO) needs to rethink his strategy - in the meantime Eddie has my full support on challenging his pomposity.
Sorry Big Sis - I misread your original comment - and agree with your comments about GO - yes, school boy attacks, great way of summing it up, n'est pas?
Just off round the back alley to have a quick puff on my pipe :-(
Jonnie: My Dad used to smoke a pipe and I still think of him when I smell Balkan Sobranie or Gold Block,
Don't ever think from my posting on the Smoking thread that I'm intolerant of smokers, btw, I just think the health issues can't be ignored.
Enjoy your pipe!
Jonnie;
"round the back alley to have a quick puff on my pipe".
Oooh, aren't you bold!
Si.
jonnie, I know someone who has never smoked in his life but is planning to take up a pipe at midnight on Saturday simply because he is so fed up with being pushed around by this government. Do you have any tips I could pass on to a new pipe-smoker in his forties about how to avoid choking to death?
(Yes, all right, this probably *is* malicious...)
Okay - I forced myself, after just learning to drive, to buy a packet of Rothman cigarettes. All my friends seemed to smoke and I maybe felt a little left out.
When I joined LBC Radio - everyone (not sure about Martha and Brian Hayes) but everyone else smoked. In the studio, in the control rooms etc, let alone lunchtime drinking! (this was 1982) We were right in the middle of Fleet street, the Daily Mirror was virtually next door - hacks would sit at lunchtimes in smokey wine bars and pubs puffing and drinking.
My boss in audio (Don Shanahan) as Irish as they come, smoked a pipe and hated cigarette smoke. Eventually (very boldly) I paid a visit to John Brumfitt and sons (a 17th Century tobbaconist, opposite Chancery lane tube) and asked if they could advise me on a pipe and tobbaco.
They advised on an Amphora pipe which has a charcoal filter and an air breather inlet hole to mix in fresh air. They also suggested the mildest tobacco, called 'Old Scotch'. I still use the Amphora pipe and smoke the old scotch, and change the filters regulalry. I find the pipe is most useful when contemplating an idea or a technical problem. I often forget it or loose it somewhere and manage to forget all about it - but there specific times when I need it - strangely enough when I pour a fresh G&T it's once again indispensible.
The only thing in defense of the pipe is that it is literally dried tobacco leaves and the filter is pure charcoal, so no nasty chemicals in the paper or filters.
The Hotel is totally Non- smoking and always has been. I *do* hate smokey pubs and if I have a smoke at the local pub I restrict it to the garden. I have tried to give up several times, two years ago for 6 Months. I will try again and would certainly not encourage any non-smoker to even contemplate the idea Chris.
Re Si Worrall :-
just for you - Bona sea-dogs, first broadcast on the 26th February 1967
Allow it time to load (4MB) and enjoy some classic comedy.
Si (46) : I actually took the opposite reaction to the coyness of the new Cabbies.
As a professional PR bod myself, I've been appalled at the trend this Govt has set for 'nobody being available' unless it suits them.
That * none * of the new inmates would talk yesterday bodes ill for the accountability of our so-called elected representatives under Gaudy.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Sequin: your explanation was most interesting, and thank you for taking the time to do that.
Perhaps next time we have such an occasion, with similar time pressures and mic-shy targets, perhaps you should put in a booking for Rory Bremner instead?
Fifi ;o)
I鈥檝e read the responses from the presenters 鈥 many thanks 鈥 but I hope I鈥檓 not being unduly harsh if I say they are pretty useless.
What I wanted from Radio 4鈥檚 flagship news programme on a big news day was bit of intelligent analysis to make sense of the Cabinet changes.
I understand you are up against deadlines, but nevertheless you came up well short. 91热爆 TV and Sky did a far better job up against precisely the same time pressures.
Jacqui Smith - an MP little known outside Westminster 鈥 became our first female 91热爆 Secretary.
I wanted to know more about her and the significance of her appointment. Will she shift policy in a more liberal direction or not? Is she a Roy Jenkins or a John Reid?
Shortly after listening to your completely uninformative programme I discovered within half an hour鈥檚 worth of research on the internet that she is:
鈥 From Worcester 鈥 and is seen as a prime example of 鈥淲orcester Woman鈥
鈥 Joined the Labour Party at 16
鈥 Attended Hertford College, Oxford
鈥 Worked as a teacher at a higher education college
鈥 Was one of 鈥淏lair鈥檚 Babes鈥 elected in 1997
鈥 As chief whip played a crucial role in defusing the war between Blairites and Brownites in 2006
On a day when she took over one of the top government positions I think the above information is of slightly more interest than the ingredients of a baguette or infantile shouting across Downing Street.
This isn鈥檛 a party political point. I鈥檓 not accusing you of having 鈥渁n agenda鈥. I鈥檓 simply accusing you of being irremediably lightweight and not worth listening to on a big news day.
Jonnie;
Wonderful!
Si.
Glad you enjoyed it Si
Re: Willian Carmichael:-
To remind you, Peter Rippon the editor said :-
When we fall short it is absolutely not because we have any agenda. We try to tell the story in the most effective way possible. Some days we do it better than others.
Carolyn said:-
This isn't an excuse if you didn't like what went out on air last night, more an explanation of the very complicated, time-consuming and deadline-driven process for putting a report of this nature on air.
Not my finest hour, Mr Snow, but sometimes the fates are just against you. But I always try my best.
I say:-
Yes things don't always go according to plan. However, more than often they do. Carolyn, along with Peter had a large challenge on their hands on Thursday. It's live radio - things don't always go to plan and I can assure you there are less resources available than 91热爆 Television have. The package Carolyn would have had to put together would have been time consuming, and largely a DIY job.
The point is that when these little hiccups occur, (and in the larger scheme of things they are very small) lessons will have been learned.
Well done, all of you! - it wasn't that bad.
But Peter - next time if there are floods - I would ditch the bread ;-)
jonnie @ 61, I don't think trying to block a ditch with bread would really do much to help in the event of floods. Wouldn't it just get soggy and let the water through?
It will be interesting to note that the police in Glasgow were supported by the public who wanted to give the terrorists a Glasgow kiss. Hope those brave people are given a medal. Well done! Watch oot terrorists stay at hame!