BBC WM Phone-ins

On my way in to work this morning, Phil Upton was doing his usual "phone Phil" segment, which involves people of the general public phoning in to discuss topical matters.

Of course, todays topic was the recent riots and general civil disturbances seen around the UK.

Now, I like these phone ins, you really get a cross section of community speaking on a single platform - you wouldn't get that anywhere else, however, there is one thing that really gripes me about Phil Upton's phone ins - he's too tepid, he just accepts whatever is said by the caller, without offering a stable middle ground view.

I know we live in a "lefty" society now where everyone is right, no one is wrong, kids cant be disciplined and Police are merely spectators, but without a sensible voice chairing these live on-air discussions, they descend in to farce and just serve to give air time to loonies.

Take the call I heard this morning. A chap from Wolverhampton calls in. Having told you he's from Wolverhampton, you should probably be able to guess that he wasn't going to be an intellectual. Anyway, he called in and the point he wanted to make was about water cannons, and whether they should be used in the face of these riots.

Now there are sensible arguments to be made against the use of water cannons - firstly, the UK don't have many of them, and those that they do have are stationed in Northern Ireland. Secondly, they are slow ponderous things that are ideal for use against gatherings of balding, middle aged, pissed up football hooligans trying to fight another bunch of balding, middle aged, pissed up football hooligans - generally because they all gather in one place and have it out. However, the riots we have seen recently involve kids spread out over the length of a high street, running to and fro, legging it down alleys, through looted shops etc. I cant see that a water cannon would be of much use in this situation.

So there are decent arguments against Water Cannons in this context.

Anyway, back to our man from Wolverhampton, he was against Water Cannons, but his reasoning left a little to be desired. He said; "water cannons are no good, they just send people flying. Seeing a 20 stone man tumbling down the street is not a pretty sight". I'm sure it's not a pretty sight, but why does it matter? Will the English Tourist Board downgrade a town or city because of the eyesore of a 20 stone man tumbling down a street?

There are many possible arguments against Water Cannons, be they ethical, tactical or moral - But I'm pretty sure aesthetics aren't on that list.

Back to Phil Upton, in this situation, I'd expect any decent chair of any debate to step in and said "hold on a second, but you are talking rubbish", but no, we live in this lefty society where everyone is allowed their view, no matter how ridiculous, irrelevant or downright incorrect it may be.