Interview or Interrogation. Is TV overstepping its remit.

[amateur51]

Ah, we've suddenly reverted to type and are once again 'slagging-off' the police ...

Make up your minds, guys!

As I said, this continuing Mitchell farce is now clearly all about petty politics, nothing more or less ...

Ah the binary world of scottycelt - it's either RIGHT or WRONG

[MrGongGong]

Ah the binary world of scottycelt - it's either RIGHT or WRONG

That's what the old man in the frock says

[eighthobstruction]

That's what the old man in the frock says

Who AB Rowan Williams....or do you mean the other one....(you can't possibly be meaning Danny La Rue)....??

[scottycelt]

Ah the binary world of scottycelt - it's either RIGHT or WRONG

Ah, just the ternary man ... so, if neither, you have suddenly changed tack again and are now distinctly unsure about the case of Mr Mitchell?

What an unexpected turn from rock-solid certainty into sweet, reasonable and quite startling moral indecision, amsey!

[amateur51]

Ah, just the ternary man ... so, if neither, you have suddenly changed tack again and are now distinctly unsure about the case of Mr Mitchell?

What an unexpected turn from rock-solid certainty into sweet, reasonable and quite startling moral indecision, amsey!

And whoof! Over the top of his head it goes again

[scottycelt]

And whoof! Over the top of his head it goes again

Whoof and very much over the top indeed amsey ... though the actual owner of 'his head' might well itself be the subject of some no little dispute.

[Stillhomewardbound]

"And news just in ... No.10 have announced that a compulsory redundancy order has been served on the Boogie Man. A government spokesman announced that in the light of recent allegations one James Savile had more than fixed it for the PM to kick yet another unwanted, expensive consultant out into the streets of Whitehall. One undisclosed source at the Cabinet Office said that Savilegate had rendered the post 'totally superfluous' and that the Prime Minister could more than amply fill his shoes in the event of Mr.Savile ever becoming beloved again." The Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, was unavailable for comment.

[John Shelton]

Ah, we've suddenly reverted to type and are once again 'slagging-off' the police ...

Make up your minds, guys!

As I said, this continuing Mitchell farce is now clearly all about petty politics, nothing more or less ...

I was only observing that in general terms if you say rude things to a 'police officer' / police officer you don't get to cycle away and later make your apologies. Depending on context and how much the officer is offended it can get quite nasty. Otherwise I'm not fussed who whips whom in the House of Commons. It's the one rule for Them another rule for Us aspect that struck me. Obviously as a representative of the great Centrist tendency your relationship with the fuzz is always likely to be a benign one, so you can take an altogether detached and respectable view of the matter.

[scottycelt]

I was only observing that in general terms if you say rude things to a 'police officer' / police officer you don't get to cycle away and later make your apologies. Depending on context and how much the officer is offended it can get quite nasty. Otherwise I'm not fussed who whips whom in the House of Commons. It's the one rule for Them another rule for Us aspect that struck me. Obviously as a representative of the great Centrist tendency your relationship with the fuzz is always likely to be a benign one, so you can take an altogether detached and respectable view of the matter.

I'm most flattered that you consider my view on the matter detached and respectable. That is not an acolade that is normally heaped on me here, so much appreciated!

I would never dream of suggesting you, of all people, kept changing your mind and loyalties, heavens no ... you are the epitome of consistency in that regard.

Enough of this Mutual Admiration Society! As regards me and the 'fuzz' you are well wide of the mark. I tend to give police officers a very wide berth. I can remember in my younger days being rude to two of them on separate occasions. One gave me a cold, blank stare then calmly told me to move on, the other threatened me with a court appearance the following morning! I certainly wasn't dragged away and beaten up in a cell or anything like that, but maybe I was simply one of the lucky ones?

Your usual 'them and us' point does have some validity here it is true but I would imagine comparative leniency shown to those at the top is rather more to do with status than class or privileged upbringing.

I suspect Comrade Police-Officer in Communist Cuba might be rather more gentle with Comrade Fidel than Comrade Factory-Worker over a similar matter ... well, that is my strong suspicion, anyway.

As regards the undoubted 'twerp' Mitchell, the Police Federation now demand he loses his job. Would they be demanding that of you and I? Being a top government minister has its disadvantages as well as advantages in such circumstances as far as I can see.

And that's precisely where the politics comes in!

[Ferretfancy]

Surely the important point, at least for Cameron's reputation, is not the fact that his chief whip lost his temper and verbally abused the police, but that the general public might feel that his attitude reflected the outlook of a large number of tories towards those they see as their inferiors. Mitchell's job is to keep the faithful in line with the government's policies while preserving the facade of decency and respect, no longer the nasty party we are told, and then this happens. They really don't change underneath, and many of the voters know it.

[John Shelton]

Surely the important point, at least for Cameron's reputation, is not the fact that his chief whip lost his temper and verbally abused the police, but that the general public might feel that his attitude reflected the outlook of a large number of tories towards those they see as their inferiors. Mitchell's job is to keep the faithful in line with the government's policies while preserving the facade of decency and respect, no longer the nasty party we are told, and then this happens. They really don't change underneath, and many of the voters know it.

Exactly .

Returning to Hornspieler's question: my sense is in many cases it has become something of a closed game, where the appearance of antagonism shields a real complicity: or, the interviewer and the politician are part of a separate world with its own rules and a fair degree of mutual interest (they sustain one another).

I completely agree with the poster who made the point about lack of research and questions asked from a position of anything more than superficial rote. There's way too much personality and far too little researched knowledge / understanding (so that, yes, if someone answers out of sequence the answered but unasked question gets asked anyway).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Returning to Hornspieler's question: my sense is in many cases it has become something of a closed game, where the appearance of antagonism shields a real complicity: or, the interviewer and the politician are part of a separate world with its own rules and a fair degree of mutual interest (they sustain one another).

- and this is dangerous for democracy in that it encourages the perception that "politics" is just a game, a combat sport for people on the telly, rather than a vital part of everybody's everyday lives.

[gradus]

Aggressive interviewing seems to be the norm these days and it can be very entertaining but is seldom very informative. Mr Paxman may know that 'this lying b*****d is lying to me' (original JP quote is something like that) and be determined to tackle him/her in single combat but are we really any wiser at the end? Although it was entertaining to see Mr Howard skewered.
I like Mr Mair's style, he may occasionally be facetious but his bone dry humour appeals to me.

[Nick Armstrong]

Aggressive interviewing seems to be the norm these days and it can be very entertaining but is seldom very informative. Mr Paxman may know that 'this lying b*****d is lying to me' (original JP quote is something like that) and be determined to tackle him/her in single combat but are we really any wiser at the end? Although it was entertaining to see Mr Howard skewered.

And it was entertaining to see Paxo stuffed by an even greater bully last night: see from 6'25" onwards here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBI35DMHjy4

PS re the BBC, the front men are bullies but the top men are wimps, it seems... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...th-at-the-bbc/

What the hell's going on?!

[ahinton]

My problem with interviewers is that most of them are very badly prepared, know next to nothing about the subject concerned and mainly rely on a checklist of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions

To which the best answer, I have always thought, is "what makes you think that I'm married?", for all that it is supposedly rude to answer a question with another question...