Beeb's unethical treatment of MP Galloway

MP George Galloway’s interview on the BBC lunchtime news today left me astonished. An anti-war campaigner and somewhat of an interesting character, MP Galloway has hit the headlines for taking part in a music video in aid of the anti-war movement. However his interview broadcast on the BBC lunchtime news today appeared to be an entirely shameless construction, intent on ridiculing him.

Having been asked in somewhat of a patronising manner why he had taken part in the video, he responded by explaining that he simply wanted to highlight his cause. He was then about his time in the Channel 4 Big Brother house pretending to be a cat (a clip of Galloway fooling around ensues at this point). A question which appeared to deviate entirely from the issue. He retorted exasperatedly that his taking part was exclusively "in aid of raising money for charity." He also twice attempted to make reference to how ‘rare’ it was for him to be broadcast on the BBC (this comment was side-stepped entirely. Twice.) He also commented on how disappointed he was that the interview was not “taken very seriously”. At which point I feel he was shut up as the interview was hurriedly terminated. I think that the treatment Galloway received in this interview today was entirely unethical and unprofessional. I have not seen it broadcast again today for some reason. (Hmm) Galloway is mentioned briefly on the website; however access to the interview is not available.

Whatever happened to the beebs crusade for freedom of speech? I think at the very least interviewees should be permitted an independent voice during an interview, regardless of whether or not the broadcasters happen to agree or not!, (in the exception of using offensive language or racism).

Please leave me any comments or thoughts on this issue; hopefully someone else also viewed the interview this lunchtime.

Politics and the modern family

Parenting and family is something of a hot topic at Westminster recently. I can see a definite battle has begun between the Tories and the Labour party. The views expressed by both could have been spurred by a recent Unicef report, which claims to have found Britain's children the "worst off" in a report examining child well-being in industrialised countries. Or in the case of Alan Johnson, his comments could be seen as a response to David Cameron's ‘wake-up’ warnings to absentee fathers.

I think both parties are certainly competing for the spotlight today, however I view multi-party discussions on these issues as beneficial. After appearing in the headlines several times in the last few days, these comments are now being considered by the society in which these issues are located. Both Johnson and Cameron have highlighted important points, Johnson’s references to "alternate" family structures, and their capabilities of being as equally beneficial to child well-being as two-parent structures, are welcome and helpful words. Cameron’s stern warnings to errant fathers are also constructive; I feel that it was about time society was given a jolt forward by those on the outside, looking in.

Whilst we poke fun at a new breed of fathers, known commonly as 'metro-daddies', whose babies are strapped to their chests, fiercely proud of their status as modern parents, they are still few and far between. The other breed of fathers, the absentees, are sadly all too common.

Politicians and the public's right to scrutinise them.

Peter Hain has condemned Rory Bremners duping of Margaret Beckett, and accused him of "spreading cynicism and embitterment about politicians" after Bremner released the transcript of his Gordon Brown impersonation this weekend.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1437767.ece

The impersonation led to Margaret Beckett talking to Brown (aka Bremner in disguise) about her colleagues. This stunt has made me like the cheeky comedian more than ever. I feel that Bremner has injected a little humour into the world of politics, which lets face it, could do with a few more 'light' moments, what with the very serious discussions concerning Afghanistan, a US plot to attack Iran, and the leadership contest.

Whether you are a fan of Margaret Becket or not, her failure to recognise Bremner's prank highlights a valuable lesson for us all; unless you are prepared to stand by your opinions, keep them to your self. Politicians must accept that they are at the mercy of public scrutiny, and prepared for the possible fall-out caused their actions.

Britain still extremely concerned about foreign policy.

(Image by from "stop the war coalition")
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.htm

Yesterday protesters across Britain launched a protest against the war in Iraq. I feel that the timing of this protest quite fascinating. Last week the "stop the war coalition" began recruiting protestors in town centers across the country. This week the government announced that it would be withdrawing troops from Iraq. It seems to me that this news has had no effect upon those who turned out in London, Manchester and Liverpool, whether the timing of the announcements by the government intended it to, I'm not sure.

The public appear to still be extremely concerned about the role of the British forces in Iraq. Some of them are my closest friends or colleuges. The "stop the war coalition" , I think seems to be growing in supporters by the protest. But what I am wondering is, why has concern has escalated this week? The only conclusion that I can reach is that as our time in Iraq drags on, the information which is accessible to the public about the situation has grown, and with it I think a great deal of discussion, speculation and a sense of unrest. This has reach a boiling point, which coincided with this weeks' interesting announcements to withdraw troops from Iraq,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/blai-f22.shtml

(only to place them in Afghanistan) and the news of Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq. This has cause much global interest, particularly, of course from the US, where it is obvious to me that particular states appear less than...united. From these events this week I do feel able to see how current headlines might have contributed to rousing the anti-war protesters. I think that it is clear for all to see that Britain is still extremely concerned about foreign policy in Iraq. I don't think that in our lifetime at least, we in Britain can make sense of it all . Divided we stand, politically at least.

Where is the love?

One thing that intrigues me about David Cameron this week is his insistence that all todays' youth need to keep them from turning bad is... love. I find this difficult to absorb. Images and stories concerning 'that' hooded menace photographed jeering Cameron this week (see Guardian coverage) make me wonder if Cameron might be feeling a little... daft. Of course the Tory official line is that the photographs serve to strengthen Camerons' points about parental responsibility, and the need for two parent families to care for children in a loving manner. I think Cameron will hold on to this point until the bitter end, I see his stubbornness that all we need is love as quite puzzling, yet inspiring. I think Cameron is a great guy, possibly a guy who could persuade me to (gulp!) vote Tory. But is this the right approach for fighting crime? I'll give Cameron something, it is original!

I see this is another instance of the contrast between both Tony Blair and Cameron when it comes to crime. Labour's hard-line approach to street and gun crime this week stuck me as a little media-driven to say the least. Or perhaps I am being a little hasty? It doesn't seem to me that violence on the streets of London is something unusual, only today I walked passed a group of 'hoodies' in my area of West London. One girl was carrying a samurai sword. But this did not seem to spark much attention on todays' busy Saturday afternoon. Now that was one 'hoodie' I certainly wouldn't hug. Several things worry me about that girl. Firstly, the fact that she was a girl. This bothers me, as I am now beginning to realize that more and more girls are becoming involved in street crime. The second thing which concerned me, was the lack of attention this attracted. Why are people so eager to distance themselves from such things? Do we now live in fear of these gangs who are little more than children?

BBC 4 aired an insightful interview with a girl prosecuted for gun crime today, which delves a little deeper than my comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2007_08_fri.shtml

Just how safe is Britain this week?

Fighting talk aplenty in British politics today. Defence secretary Des Browne has confirmed after much media speculation that the government will indeed be sending more troops to Afghanistan, after deciding to withdraw numbers in Iraq last week. What a merry-go round! With our troops over- stretched and moral at somewhat of a low ebb, this seems like a bad idea to me. The Guardian reports that the decision comes after efforts to recruit assistance from France and Germany were unsuccessful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2020034,00.html

Prince Harry's deployment in Iraq has left me more than a little concerned. The Independent has reported the prince to be "Over the moon" about the deployment, however I feel it is possible that his involvement could put Britain in danger, after all, wouldn't it be a clear demonstration of British support for the 'war on terror'?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2296850.ece

An anti-ballistic missile defense system aptly named after the cult sci-fi films "star wars", has also grabbed the attention of the Tories, who were desperate to find out what the PM and President Bush have been plotting today. The economist reports that Tony Blair had been "discreetly waging a campaign" to have the "son of Star Wars" system on British turf, in the belief that its presence will add protection to Britain. Sadly for the PM it is now being reported by BBC news that the US has it sights set on a spot in Eastern Europe ; Good news for us skeptics, who believe that the situation of a US system in Britain could increase the threat of terrorist attacks . It is also reported that questionable accuracy of such a missile could also pose a danger, with the possibility of falling derbies on allied areas. Nice. Something which Shadow defense secretary Liam Fox was eager to highlight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390621.stm

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744629

So it seems today that the government is using its best fighting talk. But at what costs?