The Glass Box for Friday
THIS is where to talk about the content of tonight's PM. If there's other stuff on your mind - this is not the place.
For serious topics try The Furrowed Brow. For fun and frolics there's The Beach.
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
I was amazed by the interview conducted by Carolyn Quinn during her interview of the life saving expert: having just listened to the ACC from GMP state clearly that when the PCSOs arrived the child, sadly, was underwater, not visible and there was no indication of where he was.
Carolyn asked something like ‘what should be done when someone is drowning’. A more pertinent question would have been, what these two officers could have done under the circumstance. I am sure the expert would have said not much or nothing. Instead we had a discussion which seemed to suggest that had these officers been trained they could have saved the young boys life, when this was obviously not the case.
These two officer will, I’m sure, be distraught by the death of a young child and Carolyn’s thoughtless line of question will not have helped that position and neither did it clear up any points with respect to the incident. Shame
Paul Davies
Flintshire.
With respect to the tragic drowning of a young boy, PCSO's and training... Where were the parents? The primary responsibility for children's safety and behaviour is held by the parents, not strangers, even if in uniform.
More significant than whether undertrained PCSO's were sent out, is the question of why the children were unsupervised by their parents in a dangerous place, and why the parents relied on the kindness of random strangers to ensure the safety of their children. This is more important to British culture than considering the training and blame of PCSO's.
I have children. I'd hold myself and my wife to blame, and no others, were this to happen to any of my children. So why do journalists immediately leap to cover what protection and failure of protection is offered by the State, instead of looking at personal responsibility? Is it that they feel insensitive if they criticise grieving parents? Is it that attacking large and complex organisations is easier?
I'd like a little more inquiry and a little less hysterical, herd following, mob-lynchers in my reporters, please. And if criticising grieving parents is not a place you are prepared to go, then consider whether this story should have been run at all, or whether it merited deeper investigation into the insights this story gives to models of behaviour - that it is endorsed by the media as acceptable to fail to monitor your children and to blame others for your own failings. That's an interesting story and strongly determines the kind of society we live in.
So a boy drowns in Wigan and the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is happy broadcast 'blame the parents' type texts.
How curious?
Right I am off to take the splinter from my eye, need a hand with that plank?
I am writing from Canada regarding your report on the feelings towards armed forces troops when they return home. I live near Kingston, Ontario, which has a military base, so I often see people in their military fatigues when shopping. While many Canadians (and Americans) are uneasy about the involvements in the Middle East, it does not seem to me that any soldier is blamed. Unlike Vietnam, people over here seem able to differentiate between their aversion to both Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, pursued by our government, and the troops who are doing their job. It is simply crass to blame troops for a government policy one disagrees with!
Canada has not been involved in a combat mission since the Korean War, so we are ambivalent now. Nevertheless, I do not sense that our soldiers are in any way blamed for this.
So 'free newspapers have gone up in terms of sales'? Fantastic. What are the profit margins?
The pertinent question is, were either of the community officers strong swimmers? If not, their getting into water would have hugely complicated an already very bad situation.
I couldn't swim till I was 21, when a patient Royal Navy PTI called Pete Erskine did what no-one had ever done; he simply demonstrated how easy it is to float. This breakthrough had me swimming in minutes.
Many people can't swim, including possibly the little girl involved. All kids should be taught effectively how to swim with confidence at an early age, not just mess about in the water. We must reserve judgment on the two COs here, as we have no idea what their competence in deep water is. Sadly, some very condenatory comments have already been aired from various armchair heroes, based on the sketchiest information.
I am a part-time postman and wonder which Royal Mail business unit the blogger whose message was read out stating that we "job and finish" after 4 to 5 hours works at - BECAUSE I WANT TO TRANSFER THERE!
My contracted hours vary but today (Friday) were 6 hours. I actually worked 8 and a half, did not have a break to speak of, used my car at my own expense (otherwise I would be delivering into the evening), for £7 per hour gross. I too heard the Ward - Crozier items on PM on Thursday and would say this: someone is telling lies - and I know who I believe and it isn't Adam.
The rift is so severe that the Government (as our only shareholder) should step in and sort this out.
The Knitted House in Bideford
So, a knitted house is a fire hazzard? I thought it bad enough when knittind needles were banned from 'trips' on the London Eye (yes, they are).
Thank heavens we are still allowed to knit on the train. Knitting saved my life once - on the Waterloo to Reading line.
While knitting on the train , some young men who seemed a little worse for wear, sat dwon opposite me and one put his hobnailed boots on my lap. His mate immediately chastised him. 'Worra you doin'? Put yer feet down. My Nan knits. Show some respect, will ya?' Said youth lowered his feet in submission ans I cast off.
Either General Sir Richard Dannatt has a very short memory or he has a very selective one. In calling for parades on the return of British servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan, he contrasts the reaction of the British public with that of their counterparts in the USA.
On their return from Vietnam, many US servicemen were vilified by the communities to which they came home, and others found it impossible to obtain employment at the end of their period of conscription.
Today there was news of the melting of the arctic ice ' ,In the last week there was news of theunusually heavy monsoon rain in north Africa. Over the summer there have been floods intheU.K.andIndiaand Bangladeshand,China.
When will the consequenses of climate change be recognised? According to the Stern report .We have the means and the money to deal with it ,what we haven't got is the time, and time is what we're wasting away.
Interesting coverage of the drowned child, and interesting but very different views here. That in itself seems like a good reason for PM to cover the story!
What I gathered was that a child was in the water, got into trouble, was followed into the water by another child (presumably untrained), at least one parent (the mother, who had to go to the iinquest: was she trained?) and two anglers on the scene (were they trained?) The child who had been in trouble was rescued, the would-be rescuing child drowned, and blame is being put on the (untrained) Community Police Officers who arrived after the missing child had vanished beneath the surface and could not be seen. The accusation is that they did not go into the water to try to find or rescue the child who was drowning (or possibly by that time had drowned: that was unclear).
Questions: why does the pool being the size of a football pitch have anything at all to do with it? The child's last known location was presumably clear, and was within a small area. That size-business sounds like the police trying to make excuses, and really isn't all that helpful.
Did the anglers and/or the parent[s] continue to try to find the child after the arrival of the CPOs? If they did, there was presumably some point in trying.
How deep is this pool?
How many other people were present? Did anyone else try to rescue anyone?
Are there rules now that say we must not try to save life if we are not specifically trained the prevention of in that particular form of death?
My impression was that the complaint is not that the CPOs did not save the child, but that they didn't apparently try. Possibly if either of them had been able to swim and had gone in, while the other radioed for help, the complaint wouldn't be made.
I have to say that this is just like a tale at the beginning of an old copy of *Scouting For Bays* that I read as a child, in which a woman drowned in a pond because nobody went in to save her (the moral was that this could never have happened if a Boy Scout had been there). It's the not trying that horrifies us, as far as I can tell. Whether the non-triers are in uniform or not seems to be secondary, to me at least.
Meanwhile, can we have three cheers for the anonymous anglers, who *did* rescue one of the children? They certainly did the right thing, and nobody has said so that I have heard.
I hope everybody has noticed that it was EU law that prevented the Bank of England from stepping in covertly to prevent the run on Northern Rock and the concomitant damage to trust in the British banking system.
Kate Fay (10),
Welcome.
We don't have the money, or the means. Let alone the time.
Most importantly, we (humankind) don't have the will. One only has to see the one coal-fired-power-station-a-day opening in China (or whatever the actual figure is), dwarfing our attempts to decrease our (UK) fossil fuel usage.
Why should not China (or India, or Indonesia....) have mains electricity, central heating (or air conditioning) , refrigerators, personal transport etc. we mostly take for granted? The answer is that us in the "west" will not go back to even 1930's standards of power usage, let alone what is currently the average per-person usage worldwide - let alone the sustainable level!
What shocked me about that report was that a million square (I assume) miles had melted, leaving 1.n million square (area units) left...sorry, was rather involved during this report on PM. The implication, at least 1/3rd had melted away this summer.
EU law prevents covert manipulation of the money markets? I'll vote for that!
Sid
Jeremy Chatfield (2)
Your comments look so reasonable ... yet I disagree with almost all of them.
When 8- and 10-years-olds are out, their parents should be with them at all times? I don't agree. (Whether they ought to have taught their children to swim, or to take care near water is another question.)
Accidents happen. Sometimes when the parents are there, sometimes when they're not.
You say "journalists immediately leap to cover what protection and failure of protection is offered by the State." But people aren't saying that at all. It's only by chance that these PCSOs turned up first. The question is not 'Why didn't the state have someone competent looking out for these children at all times?', rather: 'These CPSOs turned up - but why on earth didn't they do something?' It turns out they are advised not to enter life-threatening situations.
There are obvious questions to be asked about PCSOs' training if they're not supposed to deal with anything dangerous.
Sid
Just for the record - I'd have jumped in.
I was pleased to hear -- and read here -- some balance on the article about the drowned boy. The mother's wish to blame the PCSOs, whilst unpleasant, was understandable -- it is human nature to look for someone to blame when tragedy strikes loved ones -- but, having listened to the report, I feel that it really is unfair to suggest that the officers should have put their own lives at risk when it seemed unlikely that the boy was still alive. I, too, wondered what responsibility the parents had taken for their children's safety. Mostly I feel that, unless one was actually there, one can't know what would have been the right thing to do, or, indeed, what one would have done.
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said "the real problem is that the armed forces are at war and the country isn't"
I agree with him a 100% except the war in Iraq has been a dogs breakfast and the tommies don't even know what they fighting for. Are we winning or loosing? Probably the latter.
I thought we went into Basra to look for WMDs. None were found so they went looking for Democracy. None will be found any time soon.
Sorry Richard if you want to be at war please carry on. I don't know for how long but can you cannot carry the Country along with you. Can't help you there mate
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said that
"he believed the media and the Ministry of Defence were partly to blame for not explaining what members of the armed forces were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I am gobsmacked. Did I miss something here.
Oh yes blame the media. I like this!!!!! lets blame the Guardian for not explaining that going to Basra was a bit risky but non the less will be a shining beacon of democracy
So when we invaded Iraq the soldiers flew to Iraq without being briefed. Nice one!!! I thought Saddam was going attack us in 45 mins flat with some horrible chemical which would killed me instantly in my garden.
Thank god I am still alive. I think there was typo it was more like 45 years but some bastard changed it to 45 Mins. Was it Blair?
Oh now I get it. The soldiers had to get there pronto and in the mad rush there was no to explain what members of the armed forces were going doing to do Iraq
Sir Richard you moron them boys were sent to look for WMD's
It not too late. I am sure Gen Sir Richard Dannatt is a smart cookie. he can come up with some explanation.
Sir Gen Dannatt has called for a radical rethink on the equipment used in the British Army.
He also said that "too often we have been seduced by high technology".
Oh dear me Hi-tec don't work in Afghanistan so we go low-tec
Yes give them boys AK47s. Cheap and cheerful. Fires every time even under water, extreme heat and cold, dust etc.. Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov was a genius
"An AK47 a day keeps the Taliban away".
Shoot the bastards with the same guns they use. They wouldn't know what hit them
Dannat called for more money to be spent on "getting the very lowest level right".
AK47 is as low as one can get in war armaments. There a lot of dodgy Russian arms dealers in London. Dannatt should place an order for some AK47s with bayonets. SA80 (Small Arms for the 1980s) are crap, What a stupid name!!
Sir Gen Dannatt is a comedian
For Broadcast: Comment on Any Answers:
The BoE Governor wanted 'covert' operations to solve the Northern Rock problem.
But how could it be covert?
The banks wouldn't lend because they have too much bad paper coming to maturity. So where could Northern Rock be getting the money that appears in their balances?
(If it didn't appear, since the banks weren't lending everyone would assume that Northern Rock had no money and was bluffing = Even bigger run on the bank)
That is what the banks think of each other incidently, regarding each other with fear and loathing (Buiter) and capable of bluff, even downright dishonesty.
So all would assume Northern Rock had no money - unless the BoE was lending it to them - QED
There is something called 'Gubenatorial Moral Hazard' you know,and we may be suffering from it at the moment.
The Governor want more SECRECY to his operations?
In public he says he's helping Northern Rock depositors but not the share holders - for them all taking what all the world sees as the same risks
He says he wants to avoid moral hazard in others but lends cheap to the banks encouraging them to lend cheaply to investors who take on too risky ventures.
First he says he's not going to step in then he does.
And this man wants greater secrecy for his operations!
And apparently wants to undertake them without Treasury knowledge but it is government money!!!
He says 'Define 'being in charge'' That is exactly what he seems to want to be - secretive dictator!!
But that is impossible for two reasons. 1. We live in an age of democratic control of our institutions, where openness is a virtue. Indeed the secrecy of bankers about their liabilities and the true value of their assets is the problem here all along.
2. The financing of Northern Rock COULDN'T be done in secret. All would know.
Dr. Ian D. A. MacIntyre
Mac (20),
You've truly outed yourself this time! Well met again, and well said.!
Some further commentary from the land of daft Shrubbery which may be of interest in corroborating both your thoughts and Anil's.
From my venrerable mentor and sage, Mr .
Enjoy his prescient abilities!
Saalllaaaaaaammmiii (Kosher, of course!)
;-)
ed
Why has Dr McIntyre's excellent comment (formerly at No. 20), been removed?
Just curious (and a bit worried)
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Malice wrongly suspected, as expected, ....
What patience? Grrrr!
Appers @ 16, my problem is simply that on previous form I know what I would have done: I would have stripped to sensible levels of clothing and gone in, and dived and looked, and gone on diving and looking, and quite possibly done myself no good at all diving and looking, because I was trained in lifesaving and because I have done it before. It's just what one does. All the good advice about throw things first doesn't do any good if the victim is unconscious, so one just *does* have to go in. (That was why I wanted to know the depth: below a certain level it is very likely not to be any use, but it still has to be tried.) If nobody who is better-qualified volunteers, one has to do what one can. If one doesn't one will know forever that one didn't, and that if one had done what one could one might, just barely possibly, have saved that child's life. I feel very sorry for those CPOs.
For the record, the dilemma is put rather well by Peter O'Donnell in *The Silver Mistress*:
"If you'd made it, you'd be a hero.... Not many people stop to remember that 'daring' means there was a risk, and it could come out either way."
The really sad thing is that whilst one was doing the diving, chances are someone would steal the unguarded clothes. That's something it doesn't have to warn you about in *Scouting For Boys*. :-(
The really great thing is that at the time one doesn't think about it at all, nor weigh up all the chances, nor any of the other sensible things: one just *does* it, and is slightly surprised afterwards when one thinks about it!
Chris (23),
Does one indeed?
xx
ed
All,
And some more commentary on
Good to see your post re-instated, Mac!
Peace
ed
As a lifesaving trainer the first thing we teach is "do not become a casualty yourself". The public perception that any human being would and SHOULD go into the water may be instinctive but is contrary to lifesaving training. Water, particularly an old quarry, represents a real danger and an effective rescue needs to be undertaken with due consideration for the safety of the rescuers. Poor Jordan lost his life as tragically this instinct took over. We read repeatedly of drownings where would-be rescuers die in similar circumstances (often going in after their dog)
The same caution should apply to entering water as to entry into a burning building. Do what you can do SAFELY once you have called the experts.
David @ 26, yes. "Safely" is the proper word. So is "experts". The trouble is that if there isn't anyone more expert it's not quite that clear-cut. At that point it still ought to be safely, but trying, within the bounds of one's own safety, is still better than nothing at all both for the person who is in trouble and for the person who has to live with his or her (in)actions afterwards.
Instinct, on the other hand, is one of those words I shun in such a situation: in this case attempting rescue clearly isn't an instinct, but a learned behaviour, and that is as it should be. The instinct of a non-swimmer *shouldn't* be to jump in, try to help and drown in the process, thus making everything even worse! They should, in cold fact, have learned better.
Ed @ 24 -- yes, practicalities permitting. Obviously if someone else there is a better swimmer, better trained, and fitter, they take precedence, but what else can be done if there isn't such a one on that shore?
Chris,
One agrees with one entirely! One'd probably be in the water pretty quickly one's self, as one's a decent swimmer!
Nighty night
xx
ed
Soldier dies after Iraq accident so we are told
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ further elaborates
"Sgt Stansfield, of 32 Close Support Squadron, UK Logistic Battalion, was described as "a first class soldier" with a "bright career ahead"."
How can one trust ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ after the Blue Peter fiasco
so exactly what kind "bright career ahead" did the Sgt have in fork lift driving
Anil (29) I find your comment offensive and totally appalling. How dare you demean the life and death of Sgt Stansfield?
Now, now, children!
I took Anil's point. He wasn't demeaning Sgt Stansfield's life or death, but simply pointing out the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's meaningless babble. Tasteless, maybe, but apropos.
Such careless twaddle demeans those who utter it, and, in fact, those to whom they refer. It's like the priest/rabbi/minister, who can hardly remember (or never knew) the deceased, but behaves like a longtime intimate. To be fair, I have also experienced some excellent and well-researched appreciations from the pulpit.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Re EDI (31-34)
so exactly what kind "bright career ahead" did the Sgt have in fork lift driving
Not demeaning to Sgt Stansfield's life??????????? How demeaning can you get without being offensive? If you know Joanna's contact details, maybe you should try to convince her to name her future son "Anil". In a non-offensive manner, of course.
H.
Ed, I was trying to avoid the "he/she/it" thing that the English language lands people in t=when they try to write generalities...
And Ed, I know it wasn't your fault you said what you said five times, but only because a lot of people on other threads seem to be multiplying wildly.
On the actual point: am I right in thinking that what is going on is a revulsion with the "he was sure to have had a terrific career if he hadn't been killed" reporting ("For he was likely, had he been put on, to have prov'd most royal" -- what, *Hamlet*? That vacillating thirty-year-old perpetual student and waster? get along with you!), and the way that it's done without thinking?
Like, any person who dies before puberty is always *Brave* Little Sadie in the media, even if she had actually spent the entire time for the past three years either complaining or screaming? And any student who dies was always a "brilliant" student even if his actual marks were universally third class and he bunked off at least two days a week? That sort of hypocrisy?
Ed I (31-35) - Ed, you may have said it 5 times but I'll only reply once.
I'm totally opposed to the UK involvement in Iraq. But soldiers don't get a choice in the wars that they fight. We, through our collectively elected government, choose those wars and assign the forces to battle. Even if, as an individual, I don't support the cause that the forces are fighting for, I hope that I would never demean their effort or, in this case, memory.
Anil, did just that. And in supporting him, you did the same. By all means criticise media coverage - but find a better way.
Gillian (30) - Well done you! I'm rather ashamed that I read Anil's posting and thought the same as you, but just browsed on and didn't take the trouble to reply. I wish I had.
Thanks Chris. You got my point, (and, I believe, Anil's). He might have been more subtle, but I don't think any offence to the sergeant, his family or colleagues was intended.
I got sick of room 502, but couldn't stop banging on the door. My apologies to anyone who's sensibilities I may have offended.
Salaam/Shanthi/Shalom
Namaste
ed
Will you be covering the story of Alisher Usamov's attempt to suppress free speech over an article written by Craig Murray: concerning matters that have already appeared in books and newspapers? (none of which have been threatened with libel)
In case you don't know, his lawyers have forced the closure of a number of blogs, including Boris Johnsons (which did not contain reference to the story)
Though perhaps the most sinister aspect of the story is the calim that even owning a copy of the article written by former ambassader Craig Murray leaves you liable to prosecution.
And all of which would appear in breech of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the McLibel trial that the British lible laws are oppresive, and in breach of article 6 and article 10 of the HUman rights convention.
I managed to hear the SOS for PM Friday (or was it Thursday?). Did the singers know they were finding their way through the Down Your Way theme?
Anil, I'm sorry, but even after Ed I's explanation, I still believe your comments were at the least crass and insensitive. To make flippant remarks about someone who has just died before "their time" does no credit to anyone.
This post is OT and malicious and things. I have gone back to the threads before the current (Wednesday 26th) outbreak of, well, blogbreke, just to see what happens to a post on a thread back then. posting at my-clock-1940 weds