BUSINESS Minister Kwasi Kwarteng telling the Andrew Neil Show on BBC2 "I am just saying what people are saying" recalls a much smarter politician from a different age, the mercurial George Brown. Told by an interviewer that "people were saying" bad things about the Labour government in general and him in particular, he demanded to know "which people, I want names". So vehement was his response any interviewer encountering him in future followed this path at their peril. This time the minister entered the danger zone of his own accord.
It is interesting to contemplate the result if the usually determined Andrew Neil had chosen to go the way of George Brown, and, for as long as it took – Jeremy Paxman versus Michael Howard comes to mind – kept demanding: "Which people, minister? Give us names. Viewers are entitled to know."
Russell Galbraith, former Head of News, Current Affairs & Sport, Scottish Television, Bearsden.
Crude TV
IT would appear that an increasing number of television dramas are preceded with a warning that they contain a permutation of strong language, scenes of a sexual nature, nudity, and scenes which some viewers may find disturbing. All set for an evening of entertaining viewing.
Does it not seem strange that other forms of the media, such as radio and newspapers, do not find it necessary to resort to "strong", or foul, language? Nor is it customary for most of us to encounter this in our day-to-day activities in business, the hospitality industry or in shopping. It begs the question as to why this should apparently be considered the norm in some productions for television.
As for the "scenes of a sexual nature", it seems that these have become almost obligatory content in most dramas and the predictability of some of the scenes and their execution have become not only tedious but risible.
Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel