In what way was he amateurish? As I said in a previous post, his job is to facilitate discussion which even using the example to the call in question, he seemed to be doing adequately.
I disagree. He failed to argue the point effectively. Whether the callers facts were right or wrong he walked all over Mr Lamb. This is not the desired result for any talk show host.
Did I hear correctly this morning? Did Steve Allen say that Muslim women who wear a veil do so because they are seeking attention? He really should lay off political commentary because he is so ill-informed and ignorant of the facts.
I disagree. He failed to argue the point effectively. Whether the callers facts were right or wrong he walked all over Mr Lamb. This is not the desired result for any talk show host.
The general opinion on here is that the caller was able to articulate his opinion clearly. It's not a competition or fight between the presenter and the caller and Mr Lamb wasn't there to be an expert on issues but to get the best out of his callers and explore the views they are trying to get across. It seems to me as though he did that very well.
Did I hear correctly this morning? Did Steve Allen say that Muslim women who wear a veil do so because they are seeking attention? He really should lay off political commentary because he is so ill-informed and ignorant of the facts.
The flight to Mars leaves at 4am, that's the planet he's on.
You heard right after he was angry about his hanging baskets being blown down by the wind.....different planet, different day....same show though:rolleyes:
The general opinion on here is that the caller was able to articulate his opinion clearly. It's not a competition or fight between the presenter and the caller and Mr Lamb wasn't there to be an expert on issues but to get the best out of his callers and explore the views they are trying to get across. It seems to me as though he did that very well.
He's supposed to be able to argue a point, play devils advocate and not completely go to pieces when his jack the lad "init a crying shame" act fails.
I don't care about "the general opinion on here". I don't need anyone backing up my viewpoint.
I heard him....very nearly pebbledashed the kitchen table with cornflakes :eek:
Did I hear right...Jonnie batting for those overpaid non-job occupiers at the Beeb
Does Jonnie seriously consider that £270Kpa is not enough for those troughing fat cats to live on
My point was that jobs in the media can't be that hard cos so many have two three other jobs...NF pouted otherwise...Really?..He gets 450 grand a year and somehow manages other gigs?...Really exhausting...:o
Nick Ferrari finally got to the bottom of the burka argument this morning. A strident burka wearer was insisting that the Koran stated that they must cover, but was left looking a bit daft when NF said he'd discussed the matter with numerous senior muslim clerics who all greed that it does not. The caller continued to argue but finally had to admit that it says something about the head covering needing to cover the breasts. In other words these women choose to interpret that as covering the face as well. Wouldn't it make a nice change if these people just admitted that they wear it because they want to hide their face (or that men want to hide women's faces) for their own reasons, and stopped hiding behind all the religious freedom clap-trap.
As an Orthodox Atheist i smile with amusement over all the fairy tales of religion.:cool:..But this happened to me..picked upa year ago two Arab females wearing the veil...As they got in they took the veil off,both of them!! Er..almost told em to put in back on!.:eek:..And why only in black?..Surely other colours would be nice:p
Did I hear correctly this morning? Did Steve Allen say that Muslim women who wear a veil do so because they are seeking attention? He really should lay off political commentary because he is so ill-informed and ignorant of the facts.
I think some do out of the husbands wishes,some because they prefer not being seen?some because their lifestyle would seem to be very strict and somewhat odd.. and many millions think it's old fashioned ,pointless and not required in the modern world..:D
Nice to hear JHB kick the benefit scroungers who caused the recession and have a certain amount of sympathy for bankers,mp's...She brought in her fave word 'moral'...and 'how much tax she has paid..along with her time on the dole!! Eh?...thirty years ago no doubt for about a month tops?...She has the ability to always in ten minutes talk absolute:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
I think some do out of the husbands wishes,some because they prefer not being seen?some because their lifestyle would seem to be very strict and somewhat odd.. and many millions think it's old fashioned ,pointless and not required in the modern world..:D
He's supposed to be able to argue a point, play devils advocate and not completely go to pieces when his jack the lad "init a crying shame" act fails.
I don't care about "the general opinion on here". I don't need anyone backing up my viewpoint.
We clearly are not going to agree on this but I completely disagree with your assessment of the call on Larry Lamb's show yesterday. I heard Mr Lamb argue his point on the bedroom tax very clearly and play devil's advocate with the caller. As for "completely go[ing] to pieces" no such thing happened. I get the message though, you don't like him, however your caricature of him doesn't match what I heard.
We clearly are not going to agree on this but I completely disagree with your assessment of the call on Larry Lamb's show yesterday. I heard Mr Lamb argue his point on the bedroom tax very clearly and play devil's advocate with the caller. As for "completely go[ing] to pieces" no such thing happened. I get the message though, you don't like him, however your caricature of him doesn't match what I heard.
Thats ok I'm not interested in gaining your agreement with my assessment.
May I remind you of my suggestion at the beginning of this thread page !
Thank you Martin but I don't think anyone is "backbiting" or being unfriendly are they? Or does disagreeing with someone and refusing to change ones mind constitute unfriendliness? Certainly not from my perspective anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.
A couple of calls after the "incident" on LL a woman rang in to talk the school opening starting times making the point that in her schooldays organisations like the girl guides and scouts played a major role in occupying children outside of shcool hours. She suggested that this should be considered instead of altering school attendance times. LL seemed totally befuddled by this, although it was a topic running alongside the bedroom tax. He stuttered a bit then cut the caller off with the words "good point". I don't think he had a clue what she was talking about. Maybe he was still rattled by Mr Clever earlier, he certainly ounces distracted. It was a perfectly valid subject for discussion but he was unable to assimilate her comments and switch subjects. Amateur.
If people disagree fine. if people like him great, enjoy your Sunday mornings. I would rather have Mildred Pierce back than listen to this twonk any longer and THAT is saying something I can tell you.
Thank you Martin but I don't think anyone is "backbiting" or being unfriendly are they? Or does disagreeing with someone and refusing to change ones mind constitute unfriendliness? Certainly not from my perspective anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.
I just feel you could both agree to disagree and leave it at that rather than each of you arguing the point over and over again.
Anyway I am not a mod so it is really none of my business, but just like to keep the thread friendly.
Mr Clever? lol. Oh, you mean Mr Duplicitous - it's definitely wrong but definitely right as well.
I think the point being made was that it was similar to those made about the Dangerous Dogs Act and the anti-hunting legislation brought in by the previous government. Many people agreed that the thinking behind the laws being made was well-intentioned and/or the right thing to do, but the detail was not gone into thoroughly enough and the flaws were discovered when they came into operation.
I think the point being made was that it was similar to those made about the Dangerous Dogs Act and the anti-hunting legislation brought in by the previous government. Many people agreed that the thinking behind the laws being made was well-intentioned and/or the right thing to do, but the detail was not gone into thoroughly enough and the flaws were discovered when they came into operation.
Has this government admitted its mistakes on the bedroom fine and committed to amending it yet? The DWP Titanic will trundle on with its own Captain Smith at the helm with unable seaman Shapps/Green now in support. It's all very well attempting to deflect responsibility by criticising unrelated policies of a previous government, but how far back would you like to go, and didn't the present shower guarantee that they would be better than that? I liked JOB's recent discussion on whether the policy under discussion is an example of incompetence or spitefulness. In my opinion, as it stands, it is both.
Has this government admitted its mistakes on the bedroom fine and committed to amending it yet? The DWP Titanic will trundle on with its own Captain Smith at the helm with unable seaman Shapps/Green now in support. It's all very well attempting to deflect responsibility by criticising unrelated policies of a previous government, but how far back would you like to go, and didn't the present shower guarantee that they would be better than that? I liked JOB's recent discussion on whether the policy under discussion is an example of incompetence or spitefulness. In my opinion, as it stands, it is both.
I was just trying to explain to those who didn't seem to get the point of the caller on Larry Lamb's show what I thought he was alluding to, and that it's not the first time people have complained that legislation isn't always thought through enough to stop it having problems and flaws being spotted when it goes into operation. I'm sorry if it defeats your argument to point out that all governments do similar things from time to time, but there you go, if you ignore even the last few years or so as if it isn't relevant we'll probably get more of the same as in theory they should all learn from each other's mistakes.
I was just trying to explain to those who didn't seem to get the point of the caller on Larry Lamb's show what I thought he was alluding to, and that it's not the first time people have complained that legislation isn't always thought through enough to stop it having problems and flaws being spotted when it goes into operation. I'm sorry if it defeats your argument to point out that all governments do similar things from time to time, but there you go, if you ignore even the last few years or so as if it isn't relevant we'll probably get more of the same as in theory they should all learn from each other's mistakes.
So what is the present government doing about a mistaken basic tenet of its bedroom penalty policy which it would appear even many of its own supporters feel is wrong? Do you consider that the government believes it to be fundamentally flawed? because to listen to Smith etc., everything is hunky dory and proceeding as planned
So what is the present government doing about a mistaken basic tenet of its bedroom penalty policy which it would appear even many of its own supporters feel is wrong? Do you consider that the government believes it to be fundamentally flawed? because to listen to Smith etc., everything is hunky dory and proceeding as planned
I think the basic tenet is fine. If people want the luxury of the extra space then pay for it. The lack of housing stock to move people into is the problem, so the tax shouldn't be applied to people who agree to downsize but can't be accommodated. What's difficult about that?
I think the basic tenet is fine. If people want the luxury of the extra space then pay for it. The lack of housing stock to move people into is the problem, so the tax shouldn't be applied to people who agree to downsize but can't be accommodated. What's difficult about that?
It's not difficult to understand, BB, but it might be complicated, time-consuming and therefore costly (if not downright impossible) to implement in the present circumstances.
As 'thewilson' has said - a policy not thought through. Just for a change.
First, produce your smaller dwellings, then require tenants to downsize - if appropriate.
Comments
I disagree. He failed to argue the point effectively. Whether the callers facts were right or wrong he walked all over Mr Lamb. This is not the desired result for any talk show host.
The general opinion on here is that the caller was able to articulate his opinion clearly. It's not a competition or fight between the presenter and the caller and Mr Lamb wasn't there to be an expert on issues but to get the best out of his callers and explore the views they are trying to get across. It seems to me as though he did that very well.
The flight to Mars leaves at 4am, that's the planet he's on.
You heard right after he was angry about his hanging baskets being blown down by the wind.....different planet, different day....same show though:rolleyes:
He's supposed to be able to argue a point, play devils advocate and not completely go to pieces when his jack the lad "init a crying shame" act fails.
I don't care about "the general opinion on here". I don't need anyone backing up my viewpoint.
:pAs he did to day...I could easily retire to Menorca..with a few tweeks...What happened to SA mate who lived in Cyprus?..
My point was that jobs in the media can't be that hard cos so many have two three other jobs...NF pouted otherwise...Really?..He gets 450 grand a year and somehow manages other gigs?...Really exhausting...:o
As an Orthodox Atheist i smile with amusement over all the fairy tales of religion.:cool:..But this happened to me..picked upa year ago two Arab females wearing the veil...As they got in they took the veil off,both of them!! Er..almost told em to put in back on!.:eek:..And why only in black?..Surely other colours would be nice:p
I think some do out of the husbands wishes,some because they prefer not being seen?some because their lifestyle would seem to be very strict and somewhat odd.. and many millions think it's old fashioned ,pointless and not required in the modern world..:D
But handy if you're having a bad hair day! :eek:
We clearly are not going to agree on this but I completely disagree with your assessment of the call on Larry Lamb's show yesterday. I heard Mr Lamb argue his point on the bedroom tax very clearly and play devil's advocate with the caller. As for "completely go[ing] to pieces" no such thing happened. I get the message though, you don't like him, however your caricature of him doesn't match what I heard.
Thats ok I'm not interested in gaining your agreement with my assessment.
That's good because I have no intention of agreeing with your incorrect statements.
May I remind you of my suggestion at the beginning of this thread page !
Thank you Martin but I don't think anyone is "backbiting" or being unfriendly are they? Or does disagreeing with someone and refusing to change ones mind constitute unfriendliness? Certainly not from my perspective anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.
A couple of calls after the "incident" on LL a woman rang in to talk the school opening starting times making the point that in her schooldays organisations like the girl guides and scouts played a major role in occupying children outside of shcool hours. She suggested that this should be considered instead of altering school attendance times. LL seemed totally befuddled by this, although it was a topic running alongside the bedroom tax. He stuttered a bit then cut the caller off with the words "good point". I don't think he had a clue what she was talking about. Maybe he was still rattled by Mr Clever earlier, he certainly ounces distracted. It was a perfectly valid subject for discussion but he was unable to assimilate her comments and switch subjects. Amateur.
If people disagree fine. if people like him great, enjoy your Sunday mornings. I would rather have Mildred Pierce back than listen to this twonk any longer and THAT is saying something I can tell you.
I just feel you could both agree to disagree and leave it at that rather than each of you arguing the point over and over again.
Anyway I am not a mod so it is really none of my business, but just like to keep the thread friendly.
Mr Clever? lol. Oh, you mean Mr Duplicitous - it's definitely wrong but definitely right as well.
I think the point being made was that it was similar to those made about the Dangerous Dogs Act and the anti-hunting legislation brought in by the previous government. Many people agreed that the thinking behind the laws being made was well-intentioned and/or the right thing to do, but the detail was not gone into thoroughly enough and the flaws were discovered when they came into operation.
I was just trying to explain to those who didn't seem to get the point of the caller on Larry Lamb's show what I thought he was alluding to, and that it's not the first time people have complained that legislation isn't always thought through enough to stop it having problems and flaws being spotted when it goes into operation. I'm sorry if it defeats your argument to point out that all governments do similar things from time to time, but there you go, if you ignore even the last few years or so as if it isn't relevant we'll probably get more of the same as in theory they should all learn from each other's mistakes.
So what is the present government doing about a mistaken basic tenet of its bedroom penalty policy which it would appear even many of its own supporters feel is wrong? Do you consider that the government believes it to be fundamentally flawed? because to listen to Smith etc., everything is hunky dory and proceeding as planned
I think the basic tenet is fine. If people want the luxury of the extra space then pay for it. The lack of housing stock to move people into is the problem, so the tax shouldn't be applied to people who agree to downsize but can't be accommodated. What's difficult about that?
It's not difficult to understand, BB, but it might be complicated, time-consuming and therefore costly (if not downright impossible) to implement in the present circumstances.
As 'thewilson' has said - a policy not thought through. Just for a change.
First, produce your smaller dwellings, then require tenants to downsize - if appropriate.