This is going to be the last thing I write about the radio piece. First off, thanks to Adrian who managed to provide a link straight to the segment that I was on. It saves people having to listen to an hour of chat radio. It will be there until early next Monday morning.

I got a reply back from BBC radio Scotland letting me know that I would be breaching copyright if I edited or hosted the clip, which is pretty much what I expected. Although as 'contributing artist' (or some such) shouldn't I also have some form of say over what happens to the copyright? Oh well, I'm not a lawyer.

Re-listening to the broadcast, I don't think I did that badly, although there was a large number of 'Umms' and 'Errs', but this is normal if I talk to people on the telephone so it's hardly surprising considering that I was the same sitting in a booth on my own. Maybe I'll do better next time...

Thanks for all the comments on the segment, I love the support that I get from you folks every time. I wonder if Bob gets the same amount of support from his employees?

And finally - listening to the broadcast again I realised the irony of Bob's position. Here was a man, talking about how blogging allows people to say anything to a large population of people, and that there were dangers of defamation. Also that without journalistic training there would be no fact-checking or ethical reporting.

The ironic thing was that Bob was ranting and raving to a radio population, slandering me (calling me racist), getting his facts wrong (saying I have a New Year Resolution to hurt drunks, when it was the exact opposite) and having no knowledge of anything that I do ("New Ham"). Yet he was allowed to state these falsehoods to a large audience with no editing of his remarks.

I wonder if Nick, the lawyer, cringed when he heard Bob call me a racist?

So it seems that Bob should learn to keep quiet if he doesn't want to come across as a hypocrite.