iPM
PM's got a bit of history interacting with listeners - PM letters has been on the programme for years and we enjoy it.
It's always been one way traffic though. We broadcast something - the listeners respond.
This Blog we started last year gives the listeners more access to us, but predominantly it's still them reacting to something we've done.
So we're starting an experiment. A brand new more interactive PM - on the radio once a week - but on the web all the time. The content of the Saturday programme shaped during the week by listeners through the internet.
It might not work but if it doesn't we can at least blame the listeners. It's their programme.
The programme is called iPM. I suppose it's for interactive.
Maybe the I stands for internet - throughout the week, listeners will use the iPM website to share with us.
The I could stand for individual, I guess. A single listener's idea could make it onto the air.
It could also stand for idiotic.. immersion...or igloo.
It's an experiment. We want listeners to use the internet to shape a weekly news and current affairs programme. iPM, on Saturdays at 5.30 after PM.
On reflection it probably is idiotic.
(By the way for regular froggers...we are not re-opening the Blog just yet. As you may have noticed our tests suggest it's still b** but we are working on it....)
2125 TUESDAY UPDATE: We hope to be back with a full service tomorrow. With some good news.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
So, is the iPM website up and running? Can we break that blog too?
Eddie - If I had to seek advice then Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander would not even be on my list 鈥 yet Gordon Brown seems to have acquired Blair鈥檚 inability to spot 鈥榮mart alecs鈥.
There is a Glassbox here to leave comments on tonights programme
memo to self: Do Not Feed The Troll
So iPM = WikiRadio... Maybe you can borrow Johnathan Woss to announce it.
:)
Maybe the I stands for internet? I stand for plenty, but you should therefore use a capital I in IPM, because, as we all know, it is a capital I that starts the word Internet.
(Not that the 91热爆 knows, judging by the sentence at the foot of this page.)
So all that grandstanding, waving at cameras, winking at Eddie, nick name placement and coy eye lid fluttering worked then.
You're all to be on the iPM - the inflated Personality Malversions home service.
Keep sending the postcards and brownie box shots. You must keep your positions reserved for the 91热爆2 cross over show.
Aha... so it's a high-tech' version of "91热爆 Truths"!
iUnderstand...
Why stop at the point listeners send in their ideas? Why not let them make the prog?
Ahh anarchy. Too many people. That won't work.
But how do you know, you've not given it a go.
Eddie, as the Blog is ''still b**'', then what is the point of encouraging listeners to visit it????
Newcomers wont necessarily see jonnie's link at number 3, and even if they do, they may not understand its implications.
Right - I'll count to 502 - 1,2,3,4....
when you say b**
Did you mean b**?
Or b**?
Testing, testing, 1, 2, 1, 2.
Does *this* blog work yet?
Maybe iPM could be a good excuse to roadtest a *different* blog software application?
i.e. one that could cope with 50,000 posts per year.
If that sounds a lot, I seem to recall a blog that managed to achieve that target (before deciding that the race to 100k was too much like hard work!) - oh, and it translates as 4,167 posts per month, or 958 posts a week, or 137 posts a day, or 5.7 posts an hour (now that last figure doesn't look too bad, does it?)
-oOo-
Post attempt log:
1: 502, 2: 502, 3: success?!
Mittfh perhaps you have answered the problem. Though would blogspotdotcom cope with 50000 posts? Apparently the 502 is a spamming problem. We have all made so many comments we have hit the spam cut off point!. It is strange though that it all worked up to the anniversary. I suspect this will get the 502 warning.
I believe the earlier (and still some) bbc 'forums' used open-source software, in which Douglas Adams had a hand...dna or somesuch.
This present stuff is commercial rubbish from a US firm, and operated (on the bbc's behalf) by an outside firm.... a recipe for success, surely.
xx
ed
1 502
I believe the earlier (and still some) bbc 'forums' used open-source software, in which Douglas Adams had a hand...dna or somesuch.
This present stuff is commercial rubbish from a US firm, and operated (on the bbc's behalf) by an outside firm.... a recipe for success, surely.
xx
ed
1 502
and another 23:09
and another 23:34
and another 23:49
When you said b**
Did you mean b** ?
Or b** ?
The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites.
Eddie,
I've been away for a few days. How did Scotland get on in the Rugby World Cup?
Tom Harrop (17) - Just slightly better than Ireland.
(17 & 18) And Wales
Nice to see that 'mac' can still post his invective here and elsewhere on the Blog. It would dull things down if the 91热爆 moderators ever read the 'Terms of Use ' at the bottom of this page and applied them.
Test (1016)
McCracken (20): I tend to tune out mac's comments, as well as those of Brian Christley (2). As I said in (4), Do not feed the trolls!
Much of this was covered in Jem Stone's posting (and the comments thereto) of 8 months back: /blogs/pm/2007/02/dear_pm_blog_readers.shtml
Jem mentioned a replacement comments system (@ comment 13) - whatever happened to that?
It's mentioned on that thread that the Grauniad also use Movable Type. The Grauniad close comments on articles after a certain number of days: perhaps the same might be useful here? I notice the Editors' Blog is still attracting comments on the 9/11 conspiracy items nearly a year on. This correspondence is now closed. was often used in newspapers where a debate had gone on so long nothing useful was being added.
Test (1044)
you got to larf in the face of adversity.......this is the reply from mit 91热爆 when I mailed them about the PM blogg problems:-
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your email regarding 'PM'.
I understand that you are experiencing difficulty posing a comment on the 'PM' blog.
Please see the following steps explaining how to post a comment:
Under each entry is the word "comment". Click on it, and you'll see a page with all the existing comments. At the bottom, there's a space where you can add your own entry. Just choose a name and then add your email address - we need that for verification - and then type your comment. When you're done click "submit your comment".
If you have followed the above advice and are unable to post comments, could you please get back to us giving as much information as you can.
Thank you once again for contacting the 91热爆.
Regards
Christine
91热爆 Information
oh...Christine.....so that's where I was going wrong!
.......sob...its all too much..
McCracken (20) Thank you for your comment - I tried to post something similar twice yesterday, but I was 502'd both times. And what do you know - mac's invective appears twice.
DI Wyman @ 25
I'll put this as delicately as I can
It would appear that either the email you quote or, you, are... well, for want of a better phrase, are not what either purports to be (shock!)
If I'm wrong then who is Mr Jones..?
Don鈥檛 tell me that Milton Jones is working as an undercover informer to DI Wyman. DI, he stills thinks you鈥檙e there to fix his gutters.
Oh - good grief! - not only has poor Christine been left so far out of the loop of what's going on with the bloggage, but also....
I understand that you are experiencing difficulty posing a comment on the 'PM' blog.
....tsk, tsk, "posing"??
I seem to remember that's the kind of typo that drew me into this Blog in the first place :o)
Val P @ 29
Bearing in mind Piper's comments @ 27, I can't help feeling "Christine" wasn't too far off the mark using the word "posing"
Piper, Dr. H. Val P, Charlie,
This seems to confirm something which I had begun to suspect:
I think some contributors are using pseudonyms.
Charlie - quite.
I can't believe I might be about to get a Full House, and there's hardly anyone about to spot it. Oh, right, I see, that's why is it?
15.32
Sorry, typographical era.
Hello Val.
Time: 16:07
Testing: Attempt 1
You mean DI isn't DI? Crumbs. This is all too much. Just as I was getting to grips with 502, 'blog time' etc. still, I can have a bit of a frog and cheer up.
Val, ;o)
16:27 - how long is the delay before this goes up?
I change my identity all time!
Donkey, x.
Marc (36) its difficult to know, time seems to have no meaning here!
1645
NBPMarc (36) Your posts defy time in the same way that mine do - they're posted before you've even written them! ;o)
Wodja B. Leevitt @ 31
I feel you could be right
I don't actually WANT to B. Leevitt it mind you - if only because that would mean some of the Bloggers were utilising a sort of, what can one say, deception(?) in their relationship with others
In the unlikely event that were so, would that put them, I wonder, in a similar category to say the Blue Peter team and even the 91热爆 1 Controller who so recently "fell on his sword"?
Of course, I'm not referring to you here Wodja
After all, if you were an adopted pseudonym (perish the thought) I assume your first name would have been "Woodja"
And, as for me, I'm not hiding from anyone
No need to. I don't exist
well, I am Fearless Fred, except for when I'm someone else...
16:38
SB38
Is it almost fixed then?
1640
Oops, sorry - should have said this was sent at 16:42
Just dipping my toe in the blog water.
Marc (36), minus seven minutes apparently!!
Will Jeremy Paxman be contributing ??
I'll be happy to let you have my two pennyworth if it keeps Mark Thompson and the rest of the useful idiots off your back so you can get on with some proper broadcasting while 'ticking a few boxes'..
Marc (36) we're into inverse time at the moment!
What exactly is achieved by MPs jeering at each other?
Here is Tuesdays Glassbox -
or click on may name
I've written to the Director General of the 91热爆 and the Minister for Culture complaining that the PM Blog is not accepting my highly amusing and ironic posts about the error messages from the ...... PM Blog.
But I fear it will do little good. You know how narrow minded authority can be, often having a very odd sense of priorities.
Thankfully now there is a real chance that all my ironies, every witty riposte to every 91热爆 Error Message that I've ever thought of, will be broadcast on Saturdays between 5.30 and 6.00
Along probably with my wine tip for the day, a little verbal foreplay and my Special from today's menu.
Ending with a Comment... from me: 'I just thought I ought to let you all know that I thought the programme was...well, I haven't decided yet, but I just thought I'd let you know that I haven't made up my mind yet. But I will as soon as I do. Let you know, that is. Obviously. Because I will make up my mind as soon as I make up my mind won't I - so I couldn't have meant that could I?'
As you know keeping up this sort of level of self infatuation is not easy.
Why only yesterday I found myself idly wondering whether the Black Water gun men would be hung in public in Baghdad or whether the pictures would only be available on the web.
And how we revolutionaries are all going to be able to keep in contact with each other during the collapse of international monopoly capitalism so confidently predicted by Jack Straw.
But thank goodness I quickly forgot those 'There's got to be a world out there somewhere' philosophical heresies and got back to blogging you all some tired anecdotes which feature me and a few badly re-told jokes - which you'll be able to hear I expect on Saturdays.
I really would like to thank my family for the support they have given me during these difficult blog days. I shall probably dedicate my autoblography to them. Cynics say they encourage me to keep blogging despite the hardships so that they don't have to put up with my boring self obsessions. And I say. 'Why, if they are boring, would the 91热爆 include them on the PM Blog and even broadcast them on Saturdays.?' Which I am sure they will just as soon as the blog is up to receiving them properly.
I was a little shocked to hear a suggestion yesterday that it would be a better idea to broadcast half an hour of Fifi singing with her band on Saturdays. That, people were saying, would be genuinely entertaining and that would be a Bridge too Far for froggs.
How unhip can some people get? Haven't they read Kafka, Diary of a Nobody etc and realised that the boring trivia of my life is fascinating when with great wit and humour I describe it in infinite detail, pretending with superb post modern irony to be a boring bore admitting how boring he is.
As for the iPhoto, well, you can guess that I think you should all know what I thought I'd do about that. (With six or so ideas each for 3 million listeners that's 18 million ideas they'll be sifting through for the 10 minute item on Saturdays).
First, I thought, me, then in order, my family, my farm, my wine cellar, my butterfly collection, my county, my country.
Someone cruelly said I should post a picture of the starving in northern Kenya and that I should read John Donne. But I think there is too much suffering in the world today so we all owe it to ourselves to be as happy as we can. And who wants to think about the hungry when we're discussing group sex and good food and drink on the Beach.
In reply I thought perhaps a picture of the world itself because it is my oyster. But then I thought of that dreadful sort of California-selfish solecism which turns the whole world into a place I am responsible for. And that would never do.
Furthermore, if politicians wonder why voter turnout is low, they really should consider how they come across when they shout each other down in the Commons, putting the boot into one another, and sounding like a bunch of hyaenas or something.
(Hi, Ena, can you spell the word that I couldn鈥檛?)
Aperitif/FF/Witchi/Gillian
The fact that my comment appeared on the Blog 7 minutes before I sent it has left me really rather bemused - and as my colleagues in the office can confirm, I spend a lot of my time fairly confused as it is anyway.
I suppose I ought to be content that a comment has appeared at all...
Well, jere's fingers crossed for no bloggages, 502s or postal strikes when we ipost our iphotos. Reckon email's safer. (should that be iemail?)
Well, here's fingers crossed for no bloggages, 502s or postal strikes when we ipost our iphotos. Reckon email's safer. (should that be iemail?)
Marc: The clock on your computer may need to be adjusted. Click on it and a window should open which will allow you to do this.
At one time all my emails were going out with a time post about 30 mins out (though I'm not sure how the clock had managed to get out of sync)
Test (19:25)
I have posted around five tests -
so far no errors.
Piper (27)
shock, horror. Mr Jones and DI Wyman could they be the same?
......but is not DI Wyman the partner of Mr Jones....?
...tah dah
I wish to stop any rumours that I know of / or have known of any such person as DiY.
neither have I, to the best of my knowledge, suggested in any that the recently announced PBR, by Darling Ali be, in any way or form someone elses idea...
...that should do it Gordeee....best keep it under raps though...
Big Sis, it's not Marc's clock that's wrong - it's the server's to which both his and my posts are being sent. My computer clock tallied with the Pips at 1:00 pm, but my posts have also been arriving on the Blog before they were sent!
Great strapline Nikki Noodle!
20:13
They spell it "da Vinci" and pronounce it "da Vinchy". Foreigners always spell better than they pronounce.
-- Mark Twain
Tue Oct 9 20:26:18 BST 2007
Eddie, have you asked Ali G what 鈥業鈥 means?
And, from George, right on the mark!
You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, but only because your brakes are defective.
xx
ed
Regarding the timestamps, as with everything else, there is no consistency. My computer clock is right with the pips as well, Sis, but the frog seems to be all over the place April 1
You may worry about your hair-do today, but tomorrow much peanut butter will be sold.
Tue Oct 9 21:09:30 BST 2007
1,2,3, testing - is it safe to test without the aid of a safety suspender? I bet DiY could tell me.
Nice one Ed - that Mark Twain's a boy int e?
21:19
Doc (50), Voter turnout is low because, despite the general griping about politics that is popularised, ney, led, by the media, many people aren't interested enough to find out about the issues of the day for themselves and so simply go about saying things like "they're all the same, no matter what party they're from". This is patently not true, and obvious to anyone who takes even the slightest interest. Why aren't people interested? I would venture to suggest the obvious -- albeit unfashionable to articulate such -- that most of us in the UK are fairly comfortable, and that those who aren't believe that their voices will not be heard. The latter being in no small part due to the cynicism proliferated by, again, the news media. If one were to watch 91热爆 Parliament for a lengthy stretch one would find very little "jeering"; most of it condensed into PMQs, of which the TV and radio show only "Highlights", chosen of course by those in charge of the TV and radio programmes being made. One should always be sceptical about the agenda of the messenger, not just the content of the message. The news media in the UK are mostly owned by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Low turnout tends to favour the conservative (the small "C" is deliberate) and so the media have no reason to seek to affect change. And Parliament is an elected body; the newspapers are not.
Marc (51), Given all that, I still think you're a super chap! A confused time-traveller -- fantastic! :-)
For Izzy,
The Public is merely a multiplied "me."
-- Mark Twain
Tue Oct 9 21:39:56 BST 2007
Appy (64) I would add that for the majority of voters in a general election, if you decide to change your vote it will have very little effect (if any) on the outcome of the election. A General Election will depend on, maybe, 60 to 70 marginal seats, the rest being foregone conclusions. When a government can be elected on the basis of 37% of thoe who voted, and yet still have a sizeable working majority in the Commons, surely the feelings of disenfranchisement of large swathes of the voting populus can also have been caused by a flawed electoral system. An electoral system that does not reflect the views of the electorate in general has to be questioned. I would suggest that it is time that our legislative system be more accountable. I would suggest a second chamber that is based on the proportion of the popular vote that each party receives in a general election woul at least help to rectify a political system that has major flaws.
Good to see the blog working again :)
I don't disagree with your assessment of the system Fearless (66) but I do think that it's like democracy -- the worst apart from all of the others. You broaden the argument, which is always good: I don't wish to narrow the argument but neither do I feel the need to cover it all -- I find that there are many people ready to blame politicians for the way polictics is and I just can't stop myself from being the lone "sometimes we do need to shoot the messenger" voice. Doesn't mean I don't see the other side but, goodness knows, it doesn't need my support.
Agree about the blog too :-)
Ooooh, I can't believe we're back!
* does customary little dance *
Goodness, how I'm missed you lot.
* group hug *
Fifi xx
Dr H @ 47, I thought about it long and hard and I *think* that the answer to the question 'what is achieved by MPs jeering at each other?' is 'it keeps them busy and happy and off the street corners'.
When they aren't jeering they might get on with doing the job they're paid for, but when the street-corner urge comes over them, why, I'd rather they jeer. Wouldn't you?
Appy (66) I do understand your viewpoint and agree somewhat. But I think there needs to be a lot more local involvement. The general public are only asked to vote once every 4 to five years for an MP. If they live in an area that is a safe seat, the act of voting is diminished in their mind, as it becomes a case of "It doesn't matter if I vote or not", irrespective of the party they vote for. This removes the populus from the political process, and re-inforces the feeling that politics is all about the Yah-Boo stuff at PMQs, as that's all they see (as you rightly point out). It's also hard when people can't see a clear delineation between the Executive and the Legislative functions of Government. Without shaking up the system, I fear things will not improve....
:( A sobering thought for a Wednesday morning...
Quite agree with you there Fearless (69) and hahahaha Mr Fish (68).
Oh Lord - have you seen the last sentence at the bottom of this link!
Will this cause a problem I wonder ?
sorry
here is the link :-
In light of the comments at 63, from Aperitif (thank you), on MPs and their media coverage - I suggest that the PM team desist from sharing with us only those jeering moments that I talked about. That stuff is a turn off. For more thoughtful comments on the issue, see posts 63-plus.
Doctor
Ffred and Appy, certain comments you have made have struck home with me. For many
years I have lived in safe seats, for both council and general elections, and I have always voted against the majority. The only time I felt I may have had a chance to make my vote count was at the last council election, when a Conservative councillor kept his seat by one vote. If my husband and I had voted ''tactically'' we could have made sure that a Liberal councillor was elected - again, not my ideal choice, but at least it would have brought a new voice to the Council chamber.
I also happen to think that more analysis is called for when Political parties announce proposals for cuts or further spending in Public Service budgets. We all need to know in detail how our ''personalised'' health care (for example) would change, in order to make us understand the real differences between the political Parties. There is no doubt that in practical terms the sharp differences between the Parties are getting softer and softer, so they do need to be spelled out. We are not all going to read the Manifestos, or listen to all the speeches in order to be able to vote for one ideological theory as opposed to another.
THE "I" OF THE BEHOLDER.
A human baby is born and named. (Let鈥檚 call him Fred.) That is to say, his body and mentality are jointly labelled. After being addressed many times as Fred, the baby and its name become linked in his mind. I say 鈥渓inked鈥 rather than accepted because it is apparent, in those who declare a dislike, or who choose to be known by a name other than that given, that free-will operates here. As Fred lies on his back waggling his limbs, he develops a sense of 鈥渕ine鈥. Ultimately Fred reaches a sophistication in perception which allows his image in a mirror to be seen as 鈥渟elf鈥. Fred now has the full set: a mind, a body and a name, which will normally remain associated throughout life both for him and by those who may know him.
Fred also has a sense of 鈥淚鈥.
Oddly, if Fred loses his mind to disease or accident, he will still be known as Fred. When we say: 鈥淔red has lost his mind鈥 it is a euphemism for: 鈥渢he body of Fred is now without the mind of Fred鈥.
Where now is Fred鈥檚 sense of 鈥淚鈥?
When the body dies, we treat it with respect and write: 鈥淗ere Lies Fred鈥, but the truth is that Fred resides in our memories and his kids; our connection to his body is a trick of our mind and our culture.
So what actually is born? What, exactly, was Fred when we named him?
Fred, it seems, was born a vehicle for his consciousness. Whatever impinges on that consciousness will make Fred what he is to be. If we contrive to rear him in some sort of isolating pen, with no human input, he will not have a human mind or personality; he will not 鈥渂e鈥 human in his own mind and though we might name him, he may not identify with that name.
Would he still have a sense of 鈥淚鈥?
Gillian (74) We are not all going to read the Manifestos, or listen to all the speeches in order to be able to vote for one ideological theory as opposed to another
I think we have a duty to at least read the manifesto of each candidate/party standing in our area don't we? Otherwise, when we vote, how do we know what we are voting for?
Aperitif (76) A good many folk don't even read the single sheet that gets pushed through the door at election time, but they still go and vote.
I think we all have a duty to vote, but almost half of us don't bother - and that task is far less burdensome than reading all the manifestos!
Regarding political parties, my long-held opinion is that they are, by and large, an impediment to truly representative democracy, because the minute they form, their over-riding prime objective is the acquisition of power, and when that is achieved, its retention.
If we must have established parties, then we must have some sort of mechanism (PR, etc) by which no single, and preferably, no combination of two, parties can obtain sufficient power to establish a 'majority' government on the basis of a minority of the vote.
The present NuLabour 'government' rests on 37% of the popular vote, and can pass whatever laws it likes, bail out feckless bankers, call (or not call) elections or take us to wars, etc, on that basis. Is that democracy?
!
xx
ed
Money doesn't talk, it swears.
-- Bob Dylan
Wed Oct 10 16:08:14 BST 2007
Gillian (77), You are quite right of course. I find it extremely regrettable. I realise I am idealistic in my desire that people vote and know what they are voting for, but I don't intend to change.
:-)
How do we solve the problem that there are (say) three candidates in a given election, each a member of one of the three main political parties, and each obliged to conform with the policies of the party of which he is a member?
I may agree with one party on one point, another on another, and the third on a third, and disagree violently with each party in the same way. To which should I give priority: ID card plans, asylum seeker treatment, or the proposed alterations to the education system? Who is going to represent my views on all of them, if the parties are in disagreement?
Which representitive of which party should I vote for, when I both approve and disapprove of all three, and detest *bits* of the policies of each?
Mostly the best one can manage is to work out which one dislikes most, and vote for whichever is left. On this basis my mother went through a long life without ever once having someone she had voted for sitting in the House of Commons!
One for you, Chris:
"No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in that kind of paper."
-- Mike Royko on the Chicago Sun-Times after it was taken over by Rupert Murdoch
xx
ed
Wed Oct 10 18:57:35 BST 2007
Aperitif (81) Reach for the branch and you may never leave the ground. Reach for the sky, and you may get to the top of the tree!
I hope you never change! ;o)
Fishers (82), An interesting hypothetical question that I can't imagine actually happening: I find that policies are generally telling of the overall ideology of the party and everyone has an internalised ideology even if they're not really aware of it. Just ask someone what they think about human nature and it comes shining through.
Cheers Gillian (84) :-)
May i contribute a penny'sworth? And yes that was rhetorical, because you know i'm going to anyway!
Appy (65) as usual is spot on the money. But there is another factor imo, which in short, is that the budgets are not local enough. I think if each 1000 people (say) had the control over their own tax/spend, then nearly all would turn out and vote.
As it is, we fund a behemoth several hundred miles away, which provides (nearly) all our needs. As near to ideal socialism as we can get. Sadly, it just lacks the social justice part of the ideal.
What can change this?
IMO, local action by local people; and yes, independent candidates if necessary. But local (non-party) action will convert streets, communities, schools and hospitals. Much of the best is voluntary; it need only snowball a little further, and then it could be self-funding; and, being so, would be the local budget i started off about.
there, that;s my contribution.
nikki