The Podcast Four - Episode 11 - Teaching. Tea? Ching!

http://podcastfour.blogspot.com/2010/02/podcast-0011-070210-teaching-tea-ching.html

This week the discussion basis was, “Teaching and lecturing.” We had some facts that we wanted to give out, thereby teaching our international audience.

Topics discussed;

Touch wood(E), heartbreaking story, Alvin review, George confirmed not peado, UK jocks and football fucks, chess? Hockey ideas, fatties getting fatter, Katona again, George’s plea, 2 email test, The Fuse is mentioned, ramble, fails, serial killers, how to spot said killers, dot com for hack film, losing faith in the Office US, DVD question, impression time, back to killers, birthday - I can forgive but not forget - or forgive, would you go back? Random boners, gambling wages, bragging 3 cards, respect, top 3 British National Pricks, replacing DNA, JapRapeWormRapeGarden, ramble, Fox fucking News, UK vs. USA in terrorness - UK wins, 7 hours asking, “are you a terrorist?” And finally….nothing, some exam answers, speaking can be hard, quiz show contest finally exposed- you’re welcome, Who Wants to be Noel Edmonds, 1 million fails, end.

Republicans vote against socialism, then take credit for it.

Economic stimulus, government investment and Barack Obama's recovery programme. The cornerstone of criticism coming from the Republicans. Communist, Stalinist (in the words of Bill O'Reilly) and even sometimes Nazi (utter disregard for historical fact or political ideology). Less government, less tax is the answer. Unless, of course, your name is Republican senator Geoff Davies, and your constituency has just received a $1 million grant for a local school system.

"Rep. Geoff Davis voted against the stimulus . . . but then boasted about a $1 million grant it provided for a local school system."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/05/having-their-cake-and-voting-against-it-too/

Obama mentioned this during his question and answer session with Republicans, and in true partisan style, they dismissed a policy based on who passed it, only to agree with the detail when the policy was broken down.

"There was an interesting headline in CNN today: 'Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it.' And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed. Well, that's what the Recovery Act was..."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/05/having-their-cake-and-voting-against-it-too/

A true indication of how media coverage can muddy the waters of people's perceptions. A policy is broken down into segments, and questions asked without any party affiliation, as in the CNN poll, a whole new perspective can emerge. Hurray for fair and balanced media.

Stewart Vs O'Reilly - Uncut!

http://gawker.com/5465299/im-not-saying-your-mothers-a-whore-how-fox-news-censored-jon-stewart-vs-bill-oreilly

Or http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=12099 Videos available on both.

Brilliant analysis from 'Gawker'.

Fox News has generously placed the full, unedited conversation between Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart online, so we can see precisely how unfairly and deviously Fox edited the interview in order to weaken Stewart's case: A lot!

Last night on his show—Part Two of a ludicrously overhyped "faceoff" between O'Reilly and Stewart in which Stewart attempted, among other things, to present a critique of Fox as a fear-mongering GOP messaging operation—O'Reilly boasted that his edit of their 42-minute interview for broadcast was "a fair cut" and invited viewers to have a look at the unedited version online to judge for themselves: "Some of these idiots in the press who hate us, 'O'Reilly cut the interview to make Stewart look'—OK, all of that is bull. It's a fair cut. And then when you watch the cut and watch the whole interview you'll see it."

So we took him up on the offer, and guess what? If by "fair cut" O'Reilly means "cut in a manner that left some of Stewart's best lines, most effective arguments, and most convincing evidence out of the interview and hidden from the broadcast audience," then he's absolutely right.

Here's the best exchange of the whole interview, in which Stewart gets O'Reilly to admit that he thinks Barack Obama believes in "tyranny and socialism," and then asks him why Obama's most generous spending has been to bail out banks. He closed with this unanswerable question: "How many tyrants do you know that really suffer because they can't get cloture?" O'Reilly rejoindered with a lame joke about NBC, because what else could he do? None of this made the air:

Orwell, Wikipedia and Guantanamo-bay.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/of-orwell-wikipedia-and-guantanamo-bay/

Winston Smith, the protagonist in George Orwell’s “1984,” worked at a government job he hated, rewriting history to conform to current propaganda imperatives. This week, a group called Wikileaks asserted that the United States military appeared to have a Winston Smith of its own at the Guantánamo Bay naval base, mucking about with the way Wikipedia and news sites portray the base and, curiously, posting odd assertions about Fidel Castro.

Julian Assange of Wikileaks laid out evidence on the group’s web site Wednesday indicating that computers belonging to the base’s Joint Task Force-Guantánamo command were used for the suspicious online activity, including:

“deleting detainee ID numbers from Wikipedia last month, the systematic posting of unattributed ’self praise’ comments on news organization web sites in response to negative press, boosting pro-Guantánamo stories on the internet news site Digg and even modifying Fidel Castro’s encyclopedia article to describe the Cuban president as ‘an admitted transexual’ [sic].”

Mr. Assange’s report caught the attention of, among other news outlets, The Daily News of New York, which wrote about the situation on Thursday.

A denial followed a day later from Lt. Col. Edward Bush, a spokesman for the command’s public affairs office, The News reports today:

“There has been no attempt to alter/change any information that has been posted anywhere,” Lt. Col. Bush said in the statement e-mailed to us. “That would be unethical.”

Bush said in a subsequent phone call that there’s no way to know if any of the 3,000 uniformed military at Gitmo was responsible for the documented changes, but he promised his public affairs staff was not behind it. He also blasted Wikipedia for identifying one sailor in his office by name, who has since received death threats for simply doing his job - posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.

The Wikileaks group’s main purpose is to create an “uncensorable” version of Wikipedia where people around the world could post leaked documents and other things governments didn’t want seen, without fear of the material being suppressed or the source being traced. So Mr. Assange and his colleagues have an obvious interest in exposing government attempts to manipulate popular Internet sites like Wikipedia and Digg for propaganda purposes.

Comments:

"I have been wondering, as media becomes increasingly digital, how do you maintain accurate records when digital data can be edited so easily? Without a paper copy, if you read something that is 5 years old, how can you be sure that it still presents the same information that it did 5 years ago? It could have been written yesterday for all you know.

Anyway, this is interesting, sort of like Big Brother in reverse.

Be careful, Little Brother is watching you!

— Paul T"

"I read 1984 in 1964, and when 1984 rolled around I thought perhaps that we might have escaped Orwell’s prophecy. But sadly, he has become a true prophet, and his prophecy materialized not in old corrupt Europe but new, hopeful, and free America. It is time to stop pretending that America has any edge on truth and freedom. We are as bad and likely worse than the systems we used to laugh at. There must be KGB and Stazi retirees chuckling into their vodka at our hypocrisy.

— Bob Sterry"George says: Looks like all my idol wrote about is coming true, especially surrounding the military and intelligence services. Freedom is the only way. Freedom of speech, thought and information.

Terry takes the sting out of the expenses?

So the press is covered from front to back with the England ex-captain. A whole week of sensationalism, speculation and scandal. Who slipped under the radar? The MPs. Yes, they did get a days worth of coverage, yes it was the head story for the BBC and The Times, but seriously, the whole investigation cost more than was paid back. That is by far a more socially relevant story than John Terry having an affair. How did the investigation cost so much? Furthermore we are now hearing there is a little known loophole called parliamentary privilege. It beggars belief.

Politicians have urged the MPs facing charges over their expense claims not to use Parliamentary privilege to try to avoid court proceedings.

Lawyers for Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine have raised the issue of privilege.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said the public would be outraged by the use of the principle - which normally protects MPs from civil actions.

The three MPs all deny charges which they face under the Theft Act.

So does a fourth politician who faces charges - the Tory peer Lord Hanningfield.

The politicians face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. If found guilty they face a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8502026.stm

"Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege," Starmer said. "We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/05/mps-expenses-criminal-charges-jail

Lord Hanningfield, who is charged with six counts of false accounting between March 2006 and May 2009, said he was "extremely disappointed" and insisted all his expenses claims had been made in good faith. He resigned as frontbench business spokesman in the Lords and from his post as leader of Essex county council, and was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party.

The three MPs have engaged the same legal firm, Steel and Shamash, who also act as the Labour party's solicitors.

The MPs said in a joint statement: "We are clearly extremely disappointed that the DPP has decided to instigate proceedings against us. We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly."

They added that they believed their cases should have been dealt with by the parliamentary standards commissioner, adding: "We are confident of our position and have been advised by eminent QCs."

Some MPs and legal experts questioned whether a defence of parliamentary privilege could be sustained. David Heath, the Liberal Democrats' constitutional affairs spokesman MP, said: "If there is any question about whether parliamentary privilege gives protection against prosecution for fraud, then parliament should make it very clear by passing a resolution to say that it does not."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/05/mps-expenses-criminal-charges-jail

George wonders that if £1.1 million was paid back, then how can only four MPs be charged with theft? This is one of the biggest, scandals in history and John Terry, bless his little cotton blue socks, has taken the sting out of the expenses story. That is a reason to take the armband off him, not his private life.

Charlie Brooker - How to report the news

Highest rated video in any genre? That's not bad Brooker, but are you the 8th most subscribed comedy channel on Youtube? No your not, not like The Podcast Four, keep trying mate.

Watch the whole episode - http://watchingwithgeorge.blogspot.com/2010/02/brooker-newswipe-series-2-episode-3.html

Or watch The Podcast Four - http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePodcastFour

Mr Eugenides (you are a human being after all) - Drinking, lots.

http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2010/02/denormalisation-of-drinking.html

"We drink 46 bottles of vodka every year, they scream, but of course we don't; we relax with friends on a Friday night, we share a bottle of wine with a lover, we get unsolicited life lessons over a pint with our dads. I saw in the Millennium sitting in the sand with a bottle of champagne, a few old friends and a few new ones, and a view of the extraordinary fireworks in Sydney harbour. That night, I thought - with due apologies to the banal cheesiness of this sentiment - fuck me, it's great to be alive: here, in this moment, and with these people. Perhaps NHS Scotland could calculate how many seconds closer that magical night brought me to the day of my death, or what six glasses of champagne would be in centilitres of methylated spirits. What a productive use of my tax money that would be."

I've known, and know, alcoholics - true alcoholics - and I pity them, and wish they could find a healthier balance in their lives. Alcohol, which I love but enjoy reasonably responsibly (Monday night notwithstanding), may end up killing them. Hell, it may end up killing me.

But I pity the puritanical tossers more, because they're trying to force their joyless, bloodless worldview on the rest of us, and they simply do not have that right. I'm going to die. How I do it, and when, is just none of their fucking business."

Well, we agree on this kind of freedom then. He even thinks C Brooker is a genius. Is Mr Eugenides lurching ever so closer to the liberal left, whisper it quietly, but I think he might be... Although don't tell him I said so...

A letter from David Cameron - The NHS

Have you received your David Cameron letter yet? You know the one, everybody I have met in the last six months has got one, flashy NHS leaflet, photos of him rubbing shoulders with the doctors and nurses in the NHS, smiling with cheese, ending the letter with "I'll look forward to hearing from you soon", all very pleasant stuff. Except, and this is the give-away, the Conservative Party do not believe in the National Health Service.

Too cynical I hear you cry? Dave will "cut the deficit - not the NHS", the Tories will increase spending year on year. Dave wants a "world class NHS". Garbage, he might increase spending, but not for the NHS itself. Ill let Richard the blogger explain (and his blog has some outstanding, in-depth, detailed analysis of Tory Health proposals.)

"Whenever possible, we will ensure that national public health initiatives funded by public money are paid for on the basis of the results they achieve. … By paying organisations running national campaigns by the results they achieve, we can encourage such innovation and improve the value we get from the money spent on public health."

This is clearly indicating that a Conservative Government will franchise public health responsibilities to new private corporations: these are private super-nannies who will tell you what you should eat and drink: "public health initiatives funded by public money".

http://torylies.blogspot.com/2010/01/conservative-public-health-green-paper.html

The key wording is, as Richard quite rightly points out, public health initiatives. These will be private companies.

"PRIVATISATION AGENDA

The first thing that is extremely obvious is the Conservatives intend to have a much larger involvement of private suppliers in the NHS. The manifesto is littered with terms like "any willing provider", "choose any healthcare provider", "new independent and voluntary sector providers", "allow new providers" and "encouraging hospitals to compete for patients".

There we go, an old political trick, don't say the actual word 'privatisation', just use other double-speak phrases to mask your real intentions. Not a solely Tory practice, as we found with the spinning of Alastair Campbell et al, but is hugely significant in this mirror image of what the Conservative Party truly intend to do to the National Health Service.

I really do urge you to read the blog written by Richard, it is full of clear explanations about the intentions the Tories have regarding the 'world class' NHS Dave C so clearly loves.

http://torylies.blogspot.com/2010/01/conservative-public-health-green-paper.html

"The Conservatives originally promised an extra 45,000 single rooms at a cost of £1.5 billion, but on the 7 January when pressed on this figure David Cameron admitted that it was not achievable and said that it was simply an "aspiration". Here was Cameron admitting that the manifesto has at least one policy that could not be achieved, a Conservative lie

If we have learnt anything from the expenses scandal it is that the public want politicians to be honest and open. The fact that the "draft manifesto" includes policies that cannot be achieved shows that it is neither honest nor open.

CONCLUSION

There is very little of worth in the Conservative "draft manifesto" on health, but there is a lot to be worried about. First it shows the natural inclination in Cameron for centralising power, next it shows his zeal for privatisation and finally it shows dishonesty by claiming Labour policies as theirs and including unobtainable policies. It is clear that the only people who will benefit from these policies are the private healthcare providers. This is not a manifesto for the NHS it is a manifesto for private healthcare."

Brooker - Newswipe - Series 2 - Episode 3

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qjnl2

"Constantly brilliant, if everybody watched this programme the world would be a better place."

George Allwell

Watching with George

Tower Block of Commons - Needs to be seen to be believed

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/tower-block-of-commons/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

In this new four-part series the MPs leave Westminster and their comfortable homes to live for eight days and nights in tower blocks on different council estates in some of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods. They will be living alongside and meeting a wide range of residents on the estates and coming face-to-face with issues that affect their lives: including gangs, immigration, drug addiction, poverty, crime, housing and unemployment.

This really is an appalling example of why our politicians seem to have no concept of the world they constantly argue about.

Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten experiences the dire housing conditions of Goresbrook Village in Barking and meets the residents disenchanted with mainstream politicians who have turned to the BNP. But he's upset when verbally attacked by local youths.Conservative Tim Loughton finds out first-hand what some residents really think of politicians on the gang-divided Newtown estate in Birmingham.Austin Mitchell and his wife Linda are shocked by poor living conditions and a drug problem on the Orchard Park estate in Hull.And former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith learns a thing or two on the Carpenters estate in Stratford, East London.

George was going to write an article reviewing each of the individual MPs involved, their reactions to the estates they found themselves on, and whether this would have any real effect on the policies they would subsequently look to promote. Upon reading the comments board of the Channel Four programme, and some of the reactions of the general public, George has decided to pick out a few of the diverse reactions, compliments, criticisms and at times moving responses made by the 'Have Your Sayers'. It will hopefully do it more justice than George's own, somewhat biased, political opinion.

STEVE on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 18:55 Austin Mitchell; hang your head in shame, retire at the next election, but please do not continue to embarrass yourself and your party. If Gordon was watching he should have been hiding behind a cushion before he got on the phone and gave you the almightiest rollicking you've ever had. You made the Tory and the Lib Dem look half credible you muppet.

PIERSKNOWEREIVER on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 17:53 Rarely do I feel moved to comment so publically on a mere TV show - this, however, just couldn't be ignored. It is high time that our political representatives (increasingly career ones) were exposed to real life. I believe that this show is fairly well intentioned, although it is obvious that a commercial TV company needs to highlight controversy in order to generate ratings. To my mind the participants in episode 1 deserve credit for their willingness to attempt to engage with a lifestyle clearly alien to them - EXCEPT AUSTIN MITCHELL - I can't remember why, but I had always associated his name with the small list of politicians that seemed to deserve respect - NO LONGER!!! I truly suspect that any chances of re-election have now been blown out of the water, unless his constituents have been unable to see this series.

MARK W on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 at 16:00 i enjoyed this programme. out of all of them only mark oaten came across as caring. the others were going through the motions and thinking about their paycheck from channel 4. i was moved by the young girl who asked them what they were doing.

CMILLY on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 01:49 The concept of this programme is brilliant, I love it. Things/programs like this expose people for what they REALLY are {of course there are those that needs to be pressed a bit harder to show their true colours}. Austin Mitchell- I felt his behaviour was insulting to the audience and a shameful reflection on his party and constituent Grimsby. He came across narrow minded, lazy, self centred and ignorant. They lacked the discipline to even participate in the program fully. His purpose there is merely, to take up space. He demonstrated that ignorance is not a 'class' thing but an individuality thing - MP or council tenant. Igorance is a poverty issue, i.e lacking knowledge. You can be an MP, Prime Minister or King and still have a poverty/ignorant problem. I love the fact that he shows clearly that stupidity is not a council tenant issue, as many people assume. Too many people assume that council tenants are stupid, lazy and ignorant, when Mitchell is a clear example that it isn't a council tenant thing. Iain Duncan Smith %u2013 I pray that his wife recovers fully. Mark Oaten %u2013 I loved seeing his struggles as it is a huge reality shock and psychological adjustment MP or no MP. Seeing his struggles made the experience real, which I believe anyone needs to experience to make a persisting difference. I believe that he has contributed the most thus far, due to the petition and time he invested into getting this off the ground. Mark %u2013 whether or not you did what they claim you did, forgive yourself and let go of the past, stop beating yourself up and move forward. You CAN make a positive difference in people’s lives. Live, Love and Forgive... Tim Loughton - Appears to be down to earth. His zeal and enthusiasm is nice. Tim going out and partying illustrated a level of strategic ‘normality%u2019. I hope he makes a positive difference in Sheree’s life.

NEIL GILMOUR on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 00:10 I'm not into blogging and don't even facebook but feel i have to shout my words out - I congratulate the programme makers to some extent in trying to highlight issues but it is really just a sensationalise to grab some ratings, politicians who have taken part my hat off to all of you except austin mitchell - you sir should feel ashamed of yourself for ever claiming to have a career in politics, you have a disgusting display of arrogance and could never represent the public when you simply cannot appreciate any other class of people other than your preferred selection - your own. I am not into the belief that all fault lies with the government or the people, the faults we have in our society lies in all of us, an apathetic society and a selfish society of which I too am guilty, trouble is at nearly 40 now what can i do to effect any change ?? what can the politicians do to effect any change ?? In essence the tower block and the no go areas of many of our cities and towns are now into their 2nd and 3rd generations of ill educated and immoral classes of people that our social benefits system promotes continued downward spiral rather than to promote change in people and raise aspirations, our policing, courts and prison system is completely FAILED not failing, there is no deterent to crime when perpitrators have to live in these conditions and worse when of course our prisons are so well equipped, comfortable and clean. Without going into the relms of boring the ass off anyone interested in reading this - nothing will change when we have mp's that are too frightened to effect the change needed for a great country and a great population because to attempt to make the real changes means they will lose their jobs - unpopular choices need to be made and the mp's are too busy pandering to the minorities of society as they are the only ones who seem to get a voice - poor criminals if they don't get what they want, poor young single mothers and multiple absent fathers because they can't have a house, poor never worked a day in their lives claimants - what about poor majority of society that work, struggle, pay their bills, keep a roof, educate their kids and disipline them when necessary - Listen up all politicians - watch the programme and learn from it - the tower blocks will show a mixture of people, some beyond help I am sure but on the whole people who deserve to live better - simple suggestion is this - lets have a social benefits system that instead of giving away free money, how about every claimant capable of working does work, for the state, and is paid benefits according to the hours worked each week, minimum no of hours applicable, say 16 hrs a week, otherwise no payments of any money at all will be made to the claimant, give people some ability to earn a living wage whilst on benefits and looking for a job, employers would be able to see that claimants are capable of working and at the same time the work done by claimants could be cleaning the streets of all the broken glass, needles, grafitti, repairing damage etc - maybe it will also promote a reluctance to cause the damage in the first place if they are then having to clean it up or clean up the mess made by their mates, this would I am sure also pose an interesting debate amongst them !! Finally - maybe the purpose of this sort of programming is to dissolve the apathy we all seem to have, give a voice back to the people where it should be and not to leave the MP's in total control and to screw it up any further !!!

DEB on Monday, February 01, 2010 at 23:56 Make no mistake,the solutions to the many and varied problems this series highlights are unlikely to be found quickly. I remember seeing World in Action and Panorama programmes from 40 years ago and where tower block living is concerned I see little change:same damp and mould, same excuses by Councils,same lack of recreational facilities and community involvement,same petitions that raise hopes and smash them when nothing happens. Most of those MP's have been in Westminster for many years,how come they still lack understanding of constituents daily lives? Why so surprised? They were all scared,as well they might be, at being cut off from the comfort of their own little world. The one who shocked me the most was the Labour MP Austin Mitchell. He's been around the block and he's obviously grown used to ignoring the underbelly of UK life. Why go on the programme if he can't do what's required? He was fixated more on a bloody newspaper than his hosts difficult circumstances. His wife in trying to empathise with Selina, at least had the humility and honesty to share her personal understanding of addiction ,albeit to a legal drug, was shut up by Mitchell's completely selfish and brutal rebuke about his reputation as an MP now being shattered by her public admission. So we all know where his true interests lie! Will be watching with interest.

SIMO on Monday, February 01, 2010 at 22:19 Mmmmmmmm........not a nice place to live....i would hate it........i wouldn't do it........i would rather sleep rough in a farmers field and be surrounded by creepy crawlies ........my heart went out to the little children......poor things..........its a vicious cycle that needs breaking.....and that means demolishing them. As for the MP's....well.......it's not a fair test for starters.........ok they get to see the other side of life for a short time and all the knockers say you should try it for a year or five years ..........but get real....these are high achieving people who would WORK themselves out of the situation in no time...........and that's THE major difference between them and a lot of the residents....going on what was shown...they wouldn't accept the situation and would get themselves out of it instead of expecting handouts and benefits. A lot of them seem incapable of doing anything for themselves.......come on.....if i lived in that flat the shower wall would not look like it did and be all mouldy and flaky.........i would clean it and buy some paint......even if i had to do it once a month to keep on top of it.........And drugs are not compulsary........everyone can say no! And to fags too. It's all about choices and what you are prepared to accept as an individual.

LILLIAN MAY on Monday, February 01, 2010 at 22:14 Typical, harping on about poverty and how hard their life is living on benefits but sat there watching a 42" flat screen television. Right at the end summed it up perfectly...MP struggled to keep within the weekly shopping budget and then the mother spent ?42 on cigerettes (compliments of the British Tax Payer)...what a joke!!

ELIZABETH on Monday, February 01, 2010 at 22:12 I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MY LOCAL MP FOR THE PAST 8 MONTHS, EMAILING HIM ABOUT THE SAME SORT OF ISSUES, HE HASN'T HELPED AT ALL AND IT MAKES ME LAUGH AS ABOUT A MONTH AGO I EMAILED HIM TELLING HIM MAYBE HE SHOULD MOVE INTO MY BLOCK AND FIND OUT WHAT ITS REALLY LIKE, HE WOULDN'T LAST A WEEK, SO UNLIKE MY MP WHO ISN'T INTERESTED AT LEAST THESE MPS OFF THE PROGRAM HAVE AT LEAST BOTHERED TO EXPERIENCE LIVING LIFE IN A RUN DOWN BLOCK OF FLATS.

CHILLI71 on Monday, February 01, 2010 at 22:11 Found the programme fascinating, was a shame that Ian DS had to leave as he seemed to really grasp the challenge though he had no alternative - family life has to come first. I think both the Tim Loughton and Mark Oaten tried to understand the lives of the people they were living with but the labour guy Austin Mitchell- what a total idiot. He wouldnt even live with his host, his wife complained about the accommodation they were going to stay in for a few days, they didnt appear to spend much time with their host and even when she came round with lunch and discussed her drug programme he sat and read the paper, totally disinterested in her story, they also left the tower block for a nice cosy supper with friends!! Am looking forward to what the rest of the series shows us about our MP's. Good start to what could be an interesting series.

George too was appalled by the behaviour of Austin Mitchell, truly a self-obsessed, pampered, champagne socialist. But enough has been said about him above. George truly hopes Iain Duncan Smiths wife is on her way back to health and a full recovery. The shock to the system was the attitude and behaviour of the Tory MP Tim Laughton, he tried to empathise, and was willing to 'muck' in and be involved, even though his attempt at dancing was hilarious, at least he gave it a go (take note Mitchell). The same has to be said about Mark Oaten, compassionate, showed real emotions, and tried to actively do something - pointless maybe, but he tried, again, unlike Mitchell.

Looking forward to the second episode.