[spanners]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

By the way, if the Cardinal felt "hijacked" by Stephen Nolan, he'll no doubt be making an official complaint to the BBC.

Or perhaps the only outraged people were a handful of DS posters who dislike the idea of a journalist asking robust, topical questions.

So if he doesn't make a complaint to the BBC what does that mean? He wasn't "hijacked"? Nolan was right all along? Judging by some of the comments from other commentators on Nolan last night I wouldn 't be surprised if someone other than Napier makes a complaint. Would that satisfy you?

I've listened to Nolan for years on BBC NI and 5Live he is topical but asking robust questions is not his style - so don't pretend it is. Nolan couldn't follow a map never mind a story he needs to be spoonfed.

[spanners]

Originally Posted by Obadia

As a I said she is a devout catholic. Deal with it.

Know her personally do you? Or are you using some other method of extra sensory perception to evaluate her religiousity?

If you are unaware of the Anglican church, more fool you.

I'm certainly aware of the Anglican Church I just questioned you use of the word "Our".
In your world does "Our" include Jews, Muslims, Methodists, Baptists, Prebyterians, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons etc. etc. You are aware of these churches aren't you and the fact that millions of your fellow country men belong to them? if not more fool you.

[Mapperley Ridge]

Originally Posted by spanners

So if he doesn't make a complaint to the BBC what does that mean? He wasn't "hijacked"? Nolan was right all along? Judging by some of the comments from other commentators on Nolan last night I wouldn 't be surprised if someone other than Napier makes a complaint. Would that satisfy you?

I've listened to Nolan for years on BBC NI and 5Live he is topical but asking robust questions is not his style - so don't pretend it is. Nolan couldn't follow a map never mind a story he needs to be spoonfed.

Who would that be then? Perhaps a Daily Mail journalist posing as a listener? Stranger things have happened.

Would that satisfy me? Nope. But I can think of a few on here who it would.

[lordloz]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

Agreed. I'm not suggesting it was the finest example of interviewing ever broadcast. But should every BBC presenter play to a set of safe rules? As I've said, if the Cardinal felt ambushed he should complain, and we'll see the results in due course.

Is it all about Nolan's ego? Well, parltly, yes - it probably is. Again, the critics are out because the BBC dares to employ a personality presenter. Would the same people be criticising an LBC presenter? Are Ferrari, O Brien et al not about their own egos too?

And occasionally, guests with extreme views deserve to be treated with an extreme grilling.

this refers to your earlier post on this also....
firstly i wouldn't call Nolan a "personality" presenter either...not outside his own mind is he a "personality" presenter.....

BUT...
it wasn't just posters here who are objecting because they don't like Nolan......the poster stated that

"At the end of the second interview the Cardinal said he would never do a radio interview again and that he had been badly treated and misrepresented. Several callers followed the cardinal and expressed the same feeling.

as to posters here.......
well the critics are regularly out about Ferrari and James o Brien and these presenters are very often pilloried for their manner,style and shows too........

just go and visit "LBC general chit chat" on any given day you'll frequently find much fiercer and vocal criticism than anything written here of LBC presenters and their ego's - especially also James Max, Julia H-B ,Steve Allen etc. etc.

but on this thread you don't seem to want us to have the same freedom to do so

the whole point of the thread is to discuss what and who you don't like on 5live - reasons are many and personal for each person.......
and i wouldn't call Nolan a "personality" presenter either...not outside his own mind is he a "personality" presenter.....

[Mapperley Ridge]

Oz, I get all of that and of course you are enitlled to your opinion. As am I, and the fact is that Nolan was hired because of his prior performance on Radio Ulster. Go anywhere in Northern Ireland and people know him - and my money is on more than 70% saying that he's a personality presenter.

Far from trying to stifle debate here, I'm presenting an alternative view. Which some seem to agree with.

[spanners]

Here's an interesting link I picked up on Twitter:

http://marknelza.blogspot.it/2013/03...-cardinal.html

It gives the time line of the interview and how the tone of the interview changed. Seeing it written down makes Nolan look even more shallow.

The Cardinal it seems has also made a formal complaint.

[wns_195]

I've read a few posts about the interviews with the South African cardinal, who has dominated Stephen Nolan's 5 Live show all weekend.

I don't think journalists should have to stick to only asking questions the guests ar prepared for. If guests are good honest folk, they'll be able to answer any questions about their personal opinions regardless of whether they receive advanced notice of the questions.

There is a major child abuse problem in the Roman Catholic Church, so people who occupy offices in that organisation should expect that they may be asked about child abuse when interviewed.

[radiotuner]

It does seem to be a growing trend, mainly on Five Live Breakfast, that we hear the phrase "Minister, while we have you with us can we just get your view on this breaking story." It could be that someone has told the interviewee this might happen...it is stretching the BBC guidelines, but on a busy programme it seems fair to ask, the interviewee could always say no.

But what happened with Nolan is that he asked..and got a reply and then the cardinal clarified his reply and did so again and again and still Nolan went on at him clearly trying to get him to say something the cardinal did not advocate or believe.

In the second interview, Nolan went at him for around forty five minutes and the end product was that the interviewee made it clear that he felt he was being misrepresented to the extent that he would not do a radio interview again.

I have no truck with the catholic church, but I do have a great deal of belief in the BBC. I believe, and I think they believe too, that nobody should ever clearly state on the air that they are being misrepresented. In the second interview the cardinal was clearly agreeing with Nolan and still he went on in search of a sensational headline that wasn't there. The following night he was out milking it for all he could get again.

Nolan is a very good broadcaster, at times a brilliant interviewer, but on this occasion (and there have been others) he went too far. It would be really interesting to hear what other BBC journalists or presenters made of his performance.

Was it a persistent interviewer searching for the truth or just an exercise in badgering and bullying in search of a viewpoint that didn't exist?

[FrankBT]

Originally Posted by radiotuner

But what happened with Nolan is that he asked..and got a reply and then the cardinal clarified his reply and did so again and again and still Nolan went on at him clearly trying to get him to say something the cardinal did not advocate or believe.

So why didm't the Cardinal exert his authoriity and tell Nolan "I've answered your question several times, I am not going to keep repeating myself. If you haven't anything else to discuss we can terminate the interview."? That would have stopped it then and there.

[wasa5livefan]

Originally Posted by radiotuner

Was it a persistent interviewer searching for the truth or just an exercise in badgering and bullying in search of a viewpoint that didn't exist?

In search of a Phoney award.

[lordloz]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

Oz, I get all of that and of course you are enitlled to your opinion. As am I, and the fact is that Nolan was hired because of his prior performance on Radio Ulster. Go anywhere in Northern Ireland and people know him - and my money is on more than 70% saying that he's a personality presenter.

Far from trying to stifle debate here, I'm presenting an alternative view. Which some seem to agree with.

Well you still didn't answer my point which I'm used to now but anyway - it was the callers as well as the posters as I pointed out to you that both objected to the interview -

AND the fact that on LBC thread egos are frequently pilloried....you don't seem to want that here with BBC presenters

To the other part....
Maybe my humour doesn't type well.....I mean Nolan has no personality in the first place AND he just thinks he's a radio personality.......
Mind being a personality on radio Ulster is a few steps away from being one on radio Norfolk........

That's a joke too by the way........

[spanners]

Originally Posted by wns_195

There is a major child abuse problem in the Roman Catholic Church, so people who occupy offices in that organisation should expect that they may be asked about child abuse when interviewed.

I think a fairer point to make would be that there is a major child abuse problem across society. I agree with your point about asking questions of people in authority in organisations and when there is a problem with child abuse in their organisation then they should be asked about it when interviewed. I wholeheartedly agree.

But in truth that doesn't happen does it? These links (which took me no longer than three minutes to find) all relate to stories published this month - March 2013 and we are only 18 days in so far and concerns THE major sex abuse crisis of our times not amongst clergy but teachers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21816735

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/..._sex_offences/

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/...inst-teenager/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/enterta...on-sex-1769883

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-21800784

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/great_fin...nded_1_1974860

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-32921926/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2817006.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...upil-knew.html

Now don't you consider it to be fair that whenever the Education Secretary Michael Gove is interviewed - perhaps by Nolan - that he is asked about why we have so many pedophiles in our schools? Now tell me why that question never arises. I believe in fairness so every time Gove, the DG of the BBC or a member of the BBC trust is interviewed I fully expect them to be asked about child abuse in their respective organisations.
I think I will be waiting a long time. However the next time a Bishop or Cardinal is interviewed you know that one of the first questions they will be asked will be about child abuse.

[Mapperley Ridge]

Spanners - you could do the same sort of analysis with almost any section of society. Schools, youth clubs and, wait for it, the BBC. It's well documented that the Catholic Church swept abuse aside for decades. Now we have a new Pope and a Cardinal who equates paedophilia to a psychological state more than he does a criminal offence. As others have said, if Napier didn't like the way he was being treated, he could have ended the interview, or even walked out.

I've also done a quick search and can find no record of him making a complaint. I stand to be corrected on this - could you point me to where he's said that?

[Mapperley Ridge]

Originally Posted by lordloz

Well you still didn't answer my point which I'm used to now but anyway - it was the callers as well as the posters as I pointed out to you that both objected to the interview -

AND the fact that on LBC thread egos are frequently pilloried....you don't seem to want that here with BBC presenters

Oz, I'm not accountable to you so if I choose not to answer every single point you make you shouldn't be surprised or offended.

On this interview and in this thread alone, there would appear to be a range of pro and anti Nolan views.

As I've said, perhaps not the finest interview I've heard, but a robust treatment of a subject warranting that approach.

[spanners]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

Spanners - you could do the same sort of analysis with almost any section of society. Schools, youth clubs and, wait for it, the BBC. It's well documented that the Catholic Church swept abuse aside for decades. Now we have a new Pope and a Cardinal who equates paedophilia to a psychological state more than he does a criminal offence. As others have said, if Napier didn't like the way he was being treated, he could have ended the interview, or even walked out.

I've also done a quick search and can find no record of him making a complaint. I stand to be corrected on this - could you point me to where he's said that?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't fabricate stories to suit your own agenda. That's exactly what Nolan has been accused of.
"Now we have a new Pope and a Cardinal who equates paedophilia to a psychological state more than he does a criminal offence. "
When has pope Francis ever commented on this matter - look mate I can accept differences of opinions but not blatant lies - ever!
For that matter neither did the Cardinal say that paedophilia isn't a criminal offence - this is what Napier has said on the subject:
"I now stand accused of saying that paedophilia is a mental condition or disorder and not a crime. At least twice I stated that I was not qualified to say what paedophilia is. I was afforded no time to explain that the priority of pastoral concern must always be for the victim. But that has been overlooked in the heat of the argument.
The point was and still is: Child Sexual Abuse is a heinous crime among other things because of the damage it does to the child. In that concern I include the abused who has become an abuser."

So please check your facts before accusing anyone of thinking any differently.

As I stated earlier 'it seems' that he has made a formal complaint as he phoned the BBC to complain he says:
"I asked to speak to a superior to complain formally about the deception of being asked to speak about the election when the agenda was Child Abuse."

Read his statement here: http://marknelza.blogspot.it/2013/03...al-napier.html

I fail to see your point about the RCC, is it because most of the crimes are historical? If it is surely the BBC have as great a responsibility post Saville to come clean, so have the teaching profession and the Scouts and the youth clubs and the swimming clubs and .......... (that's enough for now)

[FrankBT]

Originally Posted by spanners

I think a fairer point to make would be that there is a major child abuse problem across society. I agree with your point about asking questions of people in authority in organisations and when there is a problem with child abuse in their organisation then they should be asked about it when interviewed. I wholeheartedly agree.

But in truth that doesn't happen does it? These links (which took me no longer than three minutes to find) all relate to stories published this month - March 2013 and we are only 18 days in so far and concerns THE major sex abuse crisis of our times not amongst clergy but teachers:

You're trying to obfuscate the issue. We're not talking about schools. We all know there are some pedo problems there but it's fairly sporadic, and in child care homes too if you want to throw that one in where I imagine the situation is more concentrated. We're talking about the Catholic church since many people throughout history have looked up to priests as role models as well as making confessions. Sexual abuse within the Catholic church is well documented Wiki has a whole detailed history about it since you are so keen on links..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

[spanners]

Originally Posted by FrankBT

You're trying to obfuscate the issue. We're not talking about schools.

No the post I was replying to stated that there is a major problem in the Catholic Church which gives a skewed idea of where the problem lies in society. it is certainly neither a denial nor obfuscation. The thread after all concerns a 5Live interview about whether paedophiles should be treated as disordered as well as being criminalised. Sex abusers exist in the whole of society as it is a society wide problem. Obviously you have a problem with that.

We all know there are some pedo problems there but it's fairly sporadic, and in child care homes too if you want to throw that one in where I imagine the situation is more concentrated.

I wouldn't describe the almost daily reports of teachers abusing pupils as "fairly sporadic" as if it tends to spike at certain times of the year, that is simply not the case.
BTW if you do know that "there are some pedo problems there" I hope you are sharing your knowledge with the Police and don't include me in "we all know" as I certainly don't know!

We're talking about the Catholic church since many people throughout history have looked up to priests as role models as well as making confessions. Sexual abuse within the Catholic church is well documented Wiki has a whole detailed history about it since you are so keen on links..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Indeed it is well documented and abuse by anyone in authority is a grave matter whether they be teachers or clergy, scoutmasters, child minders etc. (quite where confessions come into this I don't know) thanks for the wiki link but I've read it before so was well aware of its contents. Anyway here's a few more links for you to be getting on with that may balance the issues for you as you clearly think that the RCC has monopolised the field:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-abuse-priests

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...y_common_.html

http://ncronline.org/news/accountabi...rgency-located

[radio4extracrap]

Not sure of the chap's name whom is covering for Livesly at the moment however a vast improvement. Speaks very well and programme did not seem to be dumbed down.

[abertom]

Greg James with Chris Smith are in with Danny Baker this Saturday

[abertom]

Originally Posted by abertom

Greg James with Chris Smith are in for Danny Baker this Saturday

correction typo

[lordloz]

Originally Posted by radio4extracrap

Not sure of the chap's name whom is covering for Livesly at the moment however a vast improvement. Speaks very well and programme did not seem to be dumbed down.

I'll try again still don't know who livesey replacement is yet his pic is on site but no listing-
He's alright doesn't seem to be dumbing down - missed the rugby show will need to relisten. Sounded promising.

Tomorrow will be wall to wall budget I expect

[mmlabbd]

Originally Posted by radio4extracrap

Not sure of the chap's name whom is covering for Livesly at the moment however a vast improvement. Speaks very well and programme did not seem to be dumbed down.

Max Rushden is filling in for Tony this week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Rushden

[lordloz]

Originally Posted by mmlabbd

Max Rushden is filling in for Tony this week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Rushden

Ahh thanks for that he seems ok

[Lushness]

Duncan, dude you're not going to get an answer!

Miriam from Croydon you rock, what a hilarious call!

[Rodney McKay]

Oh god even when the awful Vicki Pollard is off her slot is still filled with crap about kids and knicker dropping. Off to Talksport.