OT - KF: Newswatch.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.

At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other
news?".

I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)

[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]

By then I had two points:
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
(Saturday 11). It is still available though (only 12 minutes):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019

I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

[Chris McMillan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other
news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

Wow! Well done!

Sincerely Chris

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019

Well done! I must admit I was pleasantly surprised, on the R4 6 o'clock
news that they *didn't* lead with the birth but only switched to that
after one or two other headlines.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

I think you're probably right.

[Nick Odell]

On 11/05/2019 10:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

Well done!

I have every confidence that from now on the BBC will follow a broad and
balanced news agenda...

...until London Bridge is down. Who knows what will happen then

Nick

[Penny]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 10:37:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019

Well done!

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

Oh, I'm not so sure.
I think their compromise may be to ticker-tape any other stories rather
than actually stop for brief periods but we can hope they'll do a bit more
than that.

[a l l y]

On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I often
do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly wondering if
there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into the
usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do that -
but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even any
bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is nominally the
BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them and Newswatch,
saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did! (The
eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on the
channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get me
in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the early
morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning (Saturday 11).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I rather
got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been heard was
apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".
--
Never. For me, there has to be a meaning. There's not much meaning in eating
bugs. - Darcey Bussell (on whether she'd appear on /I'm a Celebrity/), in RT
2015/11/28-12/4

Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens and
pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

ally


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, a l l y
<***@sitTHEDOGuponseats.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens
and pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.

Now, when I post here, imagine that I have that pocketful ... (-:

jpeg
[]
Petitions are still unfair. [Still need over 9000 signatures by 19 May )-:!]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 and 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[a l l y]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens and
pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)

ally


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens
and pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)

[]
It was the first time I have worn a tie for some considerable time! I
had to choose between the Old School Tie, and that rarity, a Newcastle
Polytechnic one. (From before it became Northumbria University.)

[a l l y]

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens and
pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)

[]
It was the first time I have worn a tie for some considerable time! I had
to choose between the Old School Tie, and that rarity, a Newcastle

.Polytechnic one. (From before it became Northumbria University.)


I don't think it's compulsory to wear a tie to appear on TV these days.

ally


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of
pens and pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)

[]
It was the first time I have worn a tie for some considerable time! I
had to choose between the Old School Tie, and that rarity, a Newcastle

.Polytechnic one. (From before it became Northumbria University.)
I don't think it's compulsory to wear a tie to appear on TV these days.
ally
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

No; I wasn't given any instructions. I decided what I had to say might
have more weight, be taken more seriously, or something like that, if I
did, though, so I did. I didn't wear a jacket.

[a l l y]

Post by a l l y

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens
and pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)

[]
It was the first time I have worn a tie for some considerable time! I had
to choose between the Old School Tie, and that rarity, a Newcastle

.Polytechnic one. (From before it became Northumbria University.)
I don't think it's compulsory to wear a tie to appear on TV these days.
ally
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

No; I wasn't given any instructions. I decided what I had to say might have
more weight, be taken more seriously, or something like that, if I did,
though, so I did. I didn't wear a jacket.

It did look as though they were actually paying attention to you, so perhaps
you were right. (Wonder if it works for women? I could do with people taking
me more seriously sometimes.... :-D )

ally

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of
pens and pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

[]

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
No; I wasn't given any instructions. I decided what I had to say might
have more weight, be taken more seriously, or something like that, if
I did, though, so I did. I didn't wear a jacket.

It did look as though they were actually paying attention to you, so
perhaps you were right. (Wonder if it works for women? I could do with
people taking me more seriously sometimes.... :-D )
ally

Probably - a business suit or something. More difficult for ladies,
though, if there are males in the audience, as we can be distracted, so
remember the presenter rather than the content. (I don't know if that
applies the other way round.)

[Vicky Ayech]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 22:27:39 +0100, "a l l y"

Post by a l l y

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by a l l y
Excellent! And let's face it, a man with a shirt pocket full of pens and
pencils is ALWAYS worth listening to! :-D

LOL! Thanks.
jpeg

I'll always remember you just like that. :-)
ally
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Once again the BBC spokesman had no real answer. Just wittering. They
must have had normal half hourly news bulletins ready to go and to say
everyone had to be busy with the baby stuff so nobody could do those
was bull. Or was it that everyone wanted a chance to say they'd
worked on or reported on baby stuff? Oh no, skip the bulletin at 5,
Susie hasn't had ehr turn yet to present the baby's weight news.


Jon, you looked like a brownie.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky Ayech
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by Vicky Ayech
Once again the BBC spokesman had no real answer. Just wittering. They

Well, he started from the premise that he was right, which, though human
nature, oughtn't to be the position of someone in his position.

Post by Vicky Ayech
must have had normal half hourly news bulletins ready to go and to say
everyone had to be busy with the baby stuff so nobody could do those
was bull.

Of course it was.

Post by Vicky Ayech
Or was it that everyone wanted a chance to say they'd
worked on or reported on baby stuff? Oh no, skip the bulletin at 5,
Susie hasn't had ehr turn yet to present the baby's weight news.

I admit I hadn't thought of that possibility!

(I was also cross that, at least in the spoken commentary, the weight
was always given in pounds shillings and ounces. OK, that's what a lot
of people - including me, to some extent - relate to, but lots of people
[especially younger] _do_ think in metric; again, it's a matter of
balance. [I did see it _on screen_ in kg. Once.] "Children have had
metres coming out of their mouths for decades; the BBC have feet in
theirs.")

Post by Vicky Ayech
Jon, you looked like a brownie.

Possibly mythical creature vaguely akin to leprechaun, economy-size girl
guide, or small square of cake (often, allegedly, laced with marijuana)?
[John, by the way, but no problem.]

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

Well done, John. I don't know whether "That's very useful feedback"
means "We'll re-think for the future" or "I'm going to ignore you
completely," but I thought you made your points clearly, strongly and
refreshingly courteously.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
<***@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Sid Nuncius
Well done, John. I don't know whether "That's very useful feedback"

Thanks.

Post by Sid Nuncius
means "We'll re-think for the future" or "I'm going to ignore you
completely," but I thought you made your points clearly, strongly and
refreshingly courteously.

I find it's more effective to be so. If you rant, not only don't your
interlocutors feel they have to try very hard, but anyone just watching
tends to react against you (at least, I know I do).

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find it's more effective to be so. If you rant, not only don't your
interlocutors feel they have to try very hard, but anyone just watching
tends to react against you (at least, I know I do).

From time to time I have been accused of being "excessively
reasonable", usually by BOFE.

This failing is characterised as calmly putting forward a point
of view with which it is impossible to find fault, yet which is
not shared by the recipient.

I wonder if a FoI request to the BBC could be formulated to get
them to declare what percentage of viewer and listener complaints
were deemed to be justified, wholly or in part?

I guess they would just say the data isn't kept, and it would be
too costly to produce.

Chris

[Mike]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find it's more effective to be so. If you rant, not only don't your
interlocutors feel they have to try very hard, but anyone just watching
tends to react against you (at least, I know I do).

From time to time I have been accused of being "excessively
reasonable", usually by BOFE.
This failing is characterised as calmly putting forward a point
of view with which it is impossible to find fault, yet which is
not shared by the recipient.
I wonder if a FoI request to the BBC could be formulated to get
them to declare what percentage of viewer and listener complaints
were deemed to be justified, wholly or in part?
I guess they would just say the data isn't kept, and it would be
too costly to produce.
Chris

0.0% if the retorts we hear on Fed-up are anything to go by - Auntie, in
her infinite wisdom is ALWAYS right!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find it's more effective to be so. If you rant, not only don't your
interlocutors feel they have to try very hard, but anyone just watching
tends to react against you (at least, I know I do).

From time to time I have been accused of being "excessively
reasonable", usually by BOFE.
This failing is characterised as calmly putting forward a point
of view with which it is impossible to find fault, yet which is
not shared by the recipient.
I wonder if a FoI request to the BBC could be formulated to get
them to declare what percentage of viewer and listener complaints
were deemed to be justified, wholly or in part?

Good idea, if the following wasn't likely to be the answer )-:.

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
I guess they would just say the data isn't kept, and it would be

Well it jolly well should be!

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
too costly to produce.

Can't see why it should be, really.

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
Chris

0.0% if the retorts we hear on Fed-up are anything to go by - Auntie, in
her infinite wisdom is ALWAYS right!

I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

[Mike]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find it's more effective to be so. If you rant, not only don't your
interlocutors feel they have to try very hard, but anyone just watching
tends to react against you (at least, I know I do).

From time to time I have been accused of being "excessively
reasonable", usually by BOFE.
This failing is characterised as calmly putting forward a point
of view with which it is impossible to find fault, yet which is
not shared by the recipient.
I wonder if a FoI request to the BBC could be formulated to get
them to declare what percentage of viewer and listener complaints
were deemed to be justified, wholly or in part?

Good idea, if the following wasn't likely to be the answer )-:.

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
I guess they would just say the data isn't kept, and it would be

Well it jolly well should be!

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
too costly to produce.

Can't see why it should be, really.

Post by Mike

Post by Chris J Dixon
Chris

0.0% if the retorts we hear on Fed-up are anything to go by - Auntie, in
her infinite wisdom is ALWAYS right!

I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

They haven’t responded to that complaint - as they haven’t been able to
hear the voices of complaint over the ‘background’ music...

[Penny]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they

(It never actually goes away.)

Post by Penny
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.

It (and muttering) will continue to be a problem as long as producers
(be it drama or documentary) _know_ what the words being spoken are, and
thus can "hear" them even if they're inaudible - in other words, it will
be with us for ever. Even the old standby of having at least one of the
monitoring sets have a grotty speaker (typical of a cheap domestic set)
doesn't work if those checking _know_ what the words are.

Post by Penny
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

Oh, it is increasingly being pointed out that we have an ageing
population and that this is therefore going to be a problem for more
people. I don't hold out much hope though.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)

Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

No, it was what I used to call it when I had one, often listening to Radio
Luxembourg under the bedclothes (showing my age).

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

Well...
If there had been anything in my offering which involved, or even hinted
at, gender fluidity - then I suppose you could have a point.

Having looked through it again I really can't find anything of that sort
(but perhaps I would be the last person to see it if it is there) I
can't see why there should be a problem in using such a time honoured
word (the 1960s _are_ ancient history to a fair percentage of the
population) for a "transistor radio".

I do accept that some people might wish to use this word in a gender
context, I accept their choice.
Does that negate my choice to use the (long standing) word in a radio
context?

I do hope this doesn't seem grumpy, it isn't meant to be, but I thought
Vicky had brought up an interesting question.

[LFS]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

Well...
If there had been anything in my offering which involved, or even hinted
at, gender fluidity - then I suppose you could have a point.
Having looked through it again I really can't find anything of that sort
(but perhaps I would be the last person to see it if it is there) I
can't see why there should be a problem in using such a time honoured
word (the 1960s _are_ ancient history to a fair percentage of the
population) for a "transistor radio".
I do accept that some people might wish to use this word in a gender
context, I accept their choice.
Does that negate my choice to use the (long standing) word in a radio
context?
I do hope this doesn't seem grumpy, it isn't meant to be, but I thought
Vicky had brought up an interesting question.

I had no problem with your usage but did for an amused moment reflect on
the reaction your usage might have prompted in that other ng we
frequent. After that, I plunged happily into nostalgia for the trannies
I owned in the dim and distant past.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by LFS

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

Well...
If there had been anything in my offering which involved, or even
hinted at, gender fluidity - then I suppose you could have a point.
Having looked through it again I really can't find anything of that
sort (but perhaps I would be the last person to see it if it is
there) I can't see why there should be a problem in using such a time
honoured word (the 1960s _are_ ancient history to a fair percentage
of the population) for a "transistor radio".

Indeed: originally the device (at component level) was a "transferred
resistor", then transistor. Replaced the valve (or toob, as the Merkins
call them). Hence the transistorised radio set, then transistor radio,
then tranny - as we've agreed, common in the '60s and '70s, and still
now. (I'm sure my brother would say it has come to mean the type of
small, fairly robust though not necessarily high quality, set, somewhat
similar to the more recent phrase "kitchen radio".)

Post by LFS

Post by Sam Plusnet
I do accept that some people might wish to use this word in a gender
context, I accept their choice.
Does that negate my choice to use the (long standing) word in a radio
context?
I do hope this doesn't seem grumpy, it isn't meant to be, but I
thought Vicky had brought up an interesting question.

I had no problem with your usage but did for an amused moment reflect
on the reaction your usage might have prompted in that other ng we

Come on, you can't leave us hanging like that!

Post by LFS
frequent. After that, I plunged happily into nostalgia for the trannies
I owned in the dim and distant past.

If you don't tell us, we can only conjecture with enjoyment what the
denizens of that other NG might think of you saying you owned one, let
alone Sam saying he used one!

jpeg
--


(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)

Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.

[LFS]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by LFS
I had no problem with your usage but did for an amused moment reflect
on the reaction your usage might have prompted in that other ng we

Come on, you can't leave us hanging like that!

Post by LFS
frequent. After that, I plunged happily into nostalgia for the
trannies I owned in the dim and distant past.

If you don't tell us, we can only conjecture with enjoyment what the
denizens of that other NG might think of you saying you owned one, let
alone Sam saying he used one!

If you want to dip a toe into the waters of alt.usage.english you are
most welcome. It is very unlike umra. I tend to avoid the threads
relating to gender: they get rather heated. (Indeed, they gets rather
heated.)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by LFS

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by LFS
I had no problem with your usage but did for an amused moment
reflect on the reaction your usage might have prompted in that other

Come on, you can't leave us hanging like that!

Post by LFS
frequent. After that, I plunged happily into nostalgia for the
trannies I owned in the dim and distant past.

If you don't tell us, we can only conjecture with enjoyment what the
denizens of that other NG might think of you saying you owned one, let
alone Sam saying he used one!

If you want to dip a toe into the waters of alt.usage.english you are

Oh, how disappointing - I thought you were "into" something, shall we
say, "interesting" (-:!

Post by LFS
most welcome. It is very unlike umra. I tend to avoid the threads
relating to gender: they get rather heated. (Indeed, they gets rather
heated.)

I did dip into AUE (and possibly AEU) some decades ago; I found it
generally rather heated (and also high traffic). I'm not surprised it
hasn't changed.

APIHNA, on the other hand, _was_ very like UMRA - even to having its own
drink, but really having several characters similar to those here (and
in Ambridge). Sadly, it seems very moribund now - a thread less than
once a month, possibly several times less. It doesn't just discuss its
nominal subject, but misuses of English in general, with a particular
interest in things like "alarmed barrier" and PNS syndrome.
(Another group of similar _friendliness_ is uk.tech.broadcast; it seems
to be mostly retired folk from the TV, radio, and cinema trades, but
discusses a lot more than purely tech - programmes, plus UMRA-type
thread wander. Cat-loving UMRAts should read [at least] the third entry
on http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/annexe/index.shtml, which is by one of
the regulars there.)

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

Well...
If there had been anything in my offering which involved, or even hinted
at, gender fluidity - then I suppose you could have a point.
Having looked through it again I really can't find anything of that sort
(but perhaps I would be the last person to see it if it is there) I
can't see why there should be a problem in using such a time honoured
word (the 1960s _are_ ancient history to a fair percentage of the
population) for a "transistor radio".
I do accept that some people might wish to use this word in a gender
context, I accept their choice.
Does that negate my choice to use the (long standing) word in a radio
context?
I do hope this doesn't seem grumpy, it isn't meant to be, but I thought
Vicky had brought up an interesting question.

I am sorry, maybe problem was the wrong word. It is just that the
meaning changed for me. I am from the days it meant radio too. It just
isn't the first meaning now.

[Mike]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

Does anyone else have a problem with the word tranny in that sentence?
I thought I was being silly and odd so I googled it.

Well...
If there had been anything in my offering which involved, or even hinted
at, gender fluidity - then I suppose you could have a point.
Having looked through it again I really can't find anything of that sort
(but perhaps I would be the last person to see it if it is there) I
can't see why there should be a problem in using such a time honoured
word (the 1960s _are_ ancient history to a fair percentage of the
population) for a "transistor radio".
I do accept that some people might wish to use this word in a gender
context, I accept their choice.
Does that negate my choice to use the (long standing) word in a radio
context?
I do hope this doesn't seem grumpy, it isn't meant to be, but I thought
Vicky had brought up an interesting question.

Transistor radios were very popular in that era ( and though current
devices tend to use integrated circuits for most applications including
lowish wattage amplification ), and are still utilised some 50 +years
later; I feel that ‘tranny’ or ‘trannies’ in this sense is as appropriate
now as it was then. (But don’t get me started on ‘leccy’ please.)

[Mike]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

I think the producers of such programmes think of their productions as a
very subtle, many-layered soufflé[1] which demands the full attention of
their audience who should listen, via carefully placed, well matched
speakers, in a suitable 'Listening Room'. (adjust as required for TV)
Someone using a tranny, whilst doing the washing up, isn't quite what
they expect.

I believe there is an additional problem where the music and effects tracks
are re-balanced against the programme’s dialogue track; the result being
that the fx are now much higher level than required to allow for clear
audible dialogue to be enjoyed as raising the volume to an acceptable level
means the fx are far too loud! I was reminded of this only yesterday
evening when trying to follow the opening sequences of ‘Spooks’ the movie
transmitted very recently. I found the roaring motorbikes intolerably loud
compared to dialogue. Now, I only watched a few minutes to check it was the
same as the Spookes broadcast a while back - the dialogue / fx balance was
far better then! Harrumph.

[Krw]

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

Pardon?

[Mike]

Post by Krw

Post by Penny
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:02:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think they _do_ react eventually, but it needs an _awful_ lot of
pressure (possibly even including "questions in the house"). And only to
some things: somewhere in the last few years, the Radio Times - not now
part of the BBC - republished a complaint about excessive background
music. I think it was from 1922.

Ha!
That one seems to come around every few years. It's almost as though they
wonder if all the people who hate it have died yet so they test it again.
Maybe no one has pointed out that aging itself is a factor and hearing
tends to reduce with age.

Pardon?

Some years back when I was a member of the Audio Engineering Society, I
recall reading a paper on the subject of dialogue / fx levels for cinema
sound setups; ‘Dialnorm’ as it was named aimed to allow cinema sound
systems to be set with comfortable levels of the dialogue whilst fx were
still audible but not overly loud to the average listener. Don’t know what
happened to the proposal and it seems to me that any guidance has been
ignored by the likes of Prime Video etc. Jim E, have you any knowledge of
the subject please?

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Mike
Some years back when I was a member of the Audio Engineering Society, I
recall reading a paper on the subject of dialogue / fx levels for cinema
sound setups; ‘Dialnorm’ as it was named aimed to allow cinema sound
systems to be set with comfortable levels of the dialogue whilst fx were
still audible but not overly loud to the average listener. Don’t know
what happened to the proposal and it seems to me that any guidance has
been ignored by the likes of Prime Video etc. Jim E, have you any
knowledge of the subject please?

No knowledge here, I'm afraid. I thought cinemas went out of their way to
be too loud for everyone.

As I understand it the TV music too loud problem (I also suffer from it)
is made worse by programmes being mixed for multichannel sound with an
automated conversion to stereo that gets it wrong.

[Mike]

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Mike
Some years back when I was a member of the Audio Engineering Society, I
recall reading a paper on the subject of dialogue / fx levels for cinema
sound setups; ‘Dialnorm’ as it was named aimed to allow cinema sound
systems to be set with comfortable levels of the dialogue whilst fx were
still audible but not overly loud to the average listener. Don’t know
what happened to the proposal and it seems to me that any guidance has
been ignored by the likes of Prime Video etc. Jim E, have you any
knowledge of the subject please?

No knowledge here, I'm afraid. I thought cinemas went out of their way to
be too loud for everyone.
As I understand it the TV music too loud problem (I also suffer from it)
is made worse by programmes being mixed for multichannel sound with an
automated conversion to stereo that gets it wrong.

That would certainly explain the result; I wonder what happened to making
progress without compromise to any existing systems and ensuring
compatibility is maintained?

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Mike

Post by Jim Easterbrook
As I understand it the TV music too loud problem (I also suffer from
it) is made worse by programmes being mixed for multichannel sound with
an automated conversion to stereo that gets it wrong.

That would certainly explain the result; I wonder what happened to
making progress without compromise to any existing systems and ensuring
compatibility is maintained?

Where would Bill Gates have got with that sort of thinking?

[Mike]

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Mike

Post by Jim Easterbrook
As I understand it the TV music too loud problem (I also suffer from
it) is made worse by programmes being mixed for multichannel sound with
an automated conversion to stereo that gets it wrong.

That would certainly explain the result; I wonder what happened to
making progress without compromise to any existing systems and ensuring
compatibility is maintained?

Where would Bill Gates have got with that sort of thinking?

Obviously, he threw that idea right out of the windows!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Mike

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Mike

Post by Jim Easterbrook
As I understand it the TV music too loud problem (I also suffer from
it) is made worse by programmes being mixed for multichannel sound with
an automated conversion to stereo that gets it wrong.

That would certainly explain the result; I wonder what happened to
making progress without compromise to any existing systems and ensuring
compatibility is maintained?

That has faded considerably over the last, oh, 15-30 years or so. Look
at the aspect ratio flags for example (and/or the amount of older
material now archived in a hard letterbox/pillarbox form). Or quality
DAB.

Post by Mike

Post by Jim Easterbrook
Where would Bill Gates have got with that sort of thinking?

Obviously, he threw that idea right out of the windows!

(-: (-:

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Mike
That would certainly explain the result; I wonder what happened to
making progress without compromise to any existing systems and
ensuring compatibility is maintained?

That has faded considerably over the last, oh, 15-30 years or so. Look
at the aspect ratio flags for example (and/or the amount of older
material now archived in a hard letterbox/pillarbox form).

Terrestrial TV still correctly flags the aspect ratio in my experience,
apart from occasional cockups on minor channels. The BBC seems to have
stopped using the 14:9-safe flag, so all 16:9 material gets full
letterbox treatment in the STB. Other broadcasters still allow the STB to
letterbox to 14:9, which doesn't look too bad on a 4:3 set with overscan.

Archivists that I know of are very careful to preserve material in its
original form. I get very annoyed with producers who brutally chop the
top & bottom off 4:3 material to include it in their 16:9 ratio
programme. BBC4's "Time-shift" strand is a particularly bad offender.

I also don't like padding the sides of 4:3 material with distracting out-
of-focus versions of what's in the active area. Black bars or a static
image is much better, IMO.

[LFS]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

Well done, John. I thought you came over really well with specific
points, unlike the other ranters on the same topic. (All men, I notice,
I wonder if they had any complaints from women.) And the BBC chap just
repeated himself with no proper answer to the point about news summaries.

I would have liked to see him challenged more broadly on news editing.
The only time I watch BBC news these days is at 6 pm and then not every
night. I get very irritated when the main story is about a general
social issue and it turns out the whole segment is a plug for a later
episode of Panorama or some other investigative programme. At 6 pm I
just want to know what's been going on the world during the day.

And like Ally I was impressed by the pens...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, LFS
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by LFS
Well done, John. I thought you came over really well with specific
points, unlike the other ranters on the same topic. (All men, I notice,

Thanks. I didn't totally disagree with the others who appeared. Although
I may have said I don't mind a slightly sycophantic tone (actually that
_word_ might have been edited out), I expect it: the BBC and the
monarchy are in the similar position that they're part of Britain that,
if they didn't exist now, there's no way they'd be set up. (And I want
them both to continue.) As such, an element of fulsomeness in to be
expected, if not condoned. Much the same as the treatment of any other
celebrity: either fawning or hatchetry. It was just the _amount_ of
coverage (especially when there was nothing to report) that was very
wrong.

Post by LFS
I wonder if they had any complaints from women.) And the BBC chap just

An interesting wonder! I hope so; the stereotype that women are more
interested in the royals needs suppressing.

Post by LFS
repeated himself with no proper answer to the point about news
summaries.
I would have liked to see him challenged more broadly on news editing.
The only time I watch BBC news these days is at 6 pm and then not every
night. I get very irritated when the main story is about a general
social issue and it turns out the whole segment is a plug for a later
episode of Panorama or some other investigative programme. At 6 pm I
just want to know what's been going on the world during the day.

I will admit I still tend to go to the BBC News channel by default, but
I'm increasingly switching to Sky News when the BBC get stuck on
something; I originally had prejudice against them because of the way
Sky the company had behaved in the past, but their news channel are
pretty good. (I'd like to give ITV a look-in, but they don't have a news
channel as such: the amount/number of news on all their channels
otherwise means I have to remember when they're on.) Although on Baby
Day, Sky News too went doolally - though only for 3½ hours, not 4¾. I
actually went to RT out of curiosity - who, not surprisingly, were _not_
covering the baby (I think they mentioned it). They were actually
covering the air crash very well (no, _not_ just showing the clip
repeatedly - they were looking at various aspects), but then one might
have expected that.

Post by LFS
And like Ally I was impressed by the pens...

(-: There's still some engineer in me.

[SODAM]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other
news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

John, I have tried so hard to watch you on Newswatch but can’t get past the
BBC sign-in screen. It refused to accept my email address, let alone the
password. The screen seemed to be frozen. Just tried again for about the
seventh time and still no joy.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
[]

Post by SODAM

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019

[]

Post by SODAM
John, I have tried so hard to watch you on Newswatch but can’t get past the
BBC sign-in screen. It refused to accept my email address, let alone the
password. The screen seemed to be frozen. Just tried again for about the
seventh time and still no joy.

Can anyone who has succeeded help SODAM? I'd send the download, but it's
3xx or 4xx megabytes, which I doubt would get through the mail system.

If you _do_ have a login (or whatever they call it) for iPlayer (?) that
you have used before, you could try a different browser (I fear Chrome
seems to work with anything these days). Or a different device (tablet,
'phone, ...)

[Penny]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:55:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019

[]

John, I have tried so hard to watch you on Newswatch but can’t get past the
BBC sign-in screen. It refused to accept my email address, let alone the
password. The screen seemed to be frozen. Just tried again for about the
seventh time and still no joy.

Can anyone who has succeeded help SODAM? I'd send the download, but it's
3xx or 4xx megabytes, which I doubt would get through the mail system.

I wasn't asked to log in but I have watched something on iPlayer recently
so probably already have a cookie or whatever.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Monday, I happened to have the BBC News channel on, as in fact I
often do, in the background - though in this case I was slightly
wondering if there was anything more about the tragic Russian air crash.
At 14:00, there was the announcement that someone had gone into labour.
Somebody obviously pressed the "Royal Baby" button, and they went into
the usual overdrive mode. Fair enough, one rather expects the BBC to do
that - but this was covered _to the exclusion of all else_ - not even
any bulletins on the hour (about other news, anyway). For what is
nominally the BBC News channel, so after over two hours, I emailed them
and Newswatch, saying "Dear BBC Baby, can I please have some other
news?".
I received an email back inviting me to appear on Newswatch, so I did!
(The eventual total was 4¾ hours before _any_ other subject appeared on
the channel.)
[_Don't_ go anywhere near Tunbridge Wells if you're driving. I set off
expecting to be there 10-15 minutes early; I actually arrived 20 minutes
late (complicated car park didn't help), but they still managed to get
me in.]
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.
Sorry, I meant to tell UMRA earlier, but forgot - and I thought the
early morning repeat was Sunday, but in fact it was this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000500s/newswatch-10052019
I'll leave it to you to decide whether they'll pay any attention; I
rather got the feeling that Samira Ahmed's assurance that I _had_ been
heard was apologetic, as she realised "but not absorbed".

John, I have tried so hard to watch you on Newswatch but can’t get past the
BBC sign-in screen. It refused to accept my email address, let alone the
password. The screen seemed to be frozen. Just tried again for about the
seventh time and still no joy.

I watched with no problem and he was very good. I think I am signed in
to the BBC because the weather for here is one of the things google
chrome loads on opening.

[Steve Hague]

Post by SODAM
John, I have tried so hard to watch you on Newswatch but can’t get past the
BBC sign-in screen. It refused to accept my email address, let alone the
password. The screen seemed to be frozen. Just tried again for about the
seventh time and still no joy.

I had the same problem initially. I found I could load earlier editions,
so I did that, then went back to John's edition, and it worked.

[vk]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!

How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

[Mike]

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I’ll feel right royally pi**ed orff.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by vk

1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject 2. Their inability to revert once
it became obvious that minimal information on the birth itself was
forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Penny]

On 15 May 2019 17:03:35 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <***@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by vk

1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject 2. Their inability to revert once
it became obvious that minimal information on the birth itself was
forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

[Mike]

Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by vk

1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject 2. Their inability to revert once
it became obvious that minimal information on the birth itself was
forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Yes, it’ll be down to the Winds o’ change.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by vk

1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject 2. Their inability to revert once
it became obvious that minimal information on the birth itself was
forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Was that all? It certainly seemed much much longer than two weeks.

[Fenny]

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

[Paul Herber]

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

[Mike]

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

[Paul Herber]

Post by Mike

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

[Mike]

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

He might be a bit crusty round the edges now.

[Steve Hague]

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:10:43 +0100, Fenny

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long
black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

I wouldn't swear to it.[1]

[1]We're talking about what is possibly my favourite pop record ever, btw.

[vk]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:10:43 +0100, Fenny

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long
black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

I wouldn't swear to it.[1]
[1]We're talking about what is possibly my favourite pop record ever, btw.

<languid wave>
though I'm also very partial to Don't Come the Cowboy with Me, Sonny Jim

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by vk

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Steve Hague
The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

I wouldn't swear to it.[1]
[1]We're talking about what is possibly my favourite pop record ever, btw.

<languid wave>
though I'm also very partial to Don't Come the Cowboy with Me, Sonny Jim

Indeed - and England 2 Colombia 0, In These Shoes, A New England...etc
etc. The woman was a wonder, and anyone who titles an album Electric
Landlady[1] gets my vote anyway, but There's A Guy... is a towering
masterpiece, IMO.

Other contenders for Favourite Pop Record Ever include Gimme Shelter,
Won't Get Fooled Again, Sound & Vision, Wish You Were Here and maybe a
couple of others, but faced with a desert island and just one of them, I
think it's either Kirsty MacColl or the Stones.


[1]A humorous variation on the title of a pair of long-playing records
by the late Mr. James Hendrix, m'lud.

[Steve Hague]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by vk

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Steve Hague
The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

I wouldn't swear to it.[1]
[1]We're talking about what is possibly my favourite pop record ever, btw.

<languid wave>
though I'm also very partial to Don't Come the Cowboy with Me, Sonny Jim

Indeed - and England 2 Colombia 0, In These Shoes, A New England...etc
etc.  The woman was a wonder, and anyone who titles an album Electric
Landlady[1] gets my vote anyway, but There's A Guy... is a towering
masterpiece, IMO.
Other contenders for Favourite Pop Record Ever include Gimme Shelter,
Won't Get Fooled Again, Sound & Vision, Wish You Were Here and maybe a
couple of others, but faced with a desert island and just one of them, I
think it's either Kirsty MacColl or the Stones.
[1]A humorous variation on the title of a pair of long-playing records
by the late Mr. James Hendrix, m'lud.

Can't argue with any of those, but would add The Weaver's Answer.
Steve

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Sid Nuncius
Other contenders for Favourite Pop Record Ever include Gimme Shelter,
Won't Get Fooled Again, Sound & Vision, Wish You Were Here and maybe a
couple of others, but faced with a desert island and just one of them,
I think it's either Kirsty MacColl or the Stones.

Can't argue with any of those, but would add The Weaver's Answer.

I know what you mean - it stood out a mile as a great song when it was
released - but for some reason I find it hard to listen to these days.
Probably reminds me too much of people from that time whom I've lost.

[Krw]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:10:43 +0100, Fenny

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long
black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

I wouldn't swear to it.[1]
[1]We're talking about what is possibly my favourite pop record ever, btw.

Wish I had seen her live.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:10:43 +0100, Fenny

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long
black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

My favourite Elvis was "The Swedish Elvis" - noted for his complete
inability to remember any of the lyrics, and his (lack of) command of
English.
Quite good at the "Uh Huh!"s though.

[Nick Odell]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:10:43 +0100, Fenny

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long
black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

My favourite Elvis was "The Swedish Elvis" - noted for his complete
inability to remember any of the lyrics, and his (lack of) command of
English.
Quite good at the "Uh Huh!"s though.

Well, if we are going down that road, my favourite Elvisae are the
Finnish Leningrad Cowboys and they aren't really Elvish at all.

Nick

[Paul Herber]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Mike

Post by Paul Herber

Post by Fenny

Post by Penny
I seem to recall at least a fortnight when Diana died :(

Ten years or more in assorted daily "news"papers!

Diana works in my local fish and chip shop. She is 5' 2", has long black hair and speaks
with a Chinese accent but I'm sure it's the same person.

Does she know Elvis?

He works in Costello's pizzeria next door.

The other Elvis works in a chip shop.

The fat one balances the two skinny ones.
Oh yes, there was only the fat one.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by vk
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I have seen a relevant folder on the wall in a BBC local radio
studio, but didn't get a chance to see the content.

Perhaps there is a plan to bury the Brexit news?

Chris

[Fenny]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by vk
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

If we get away with as little as 24 hours I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I have seen a relevant folder on the wall in a BBC local radio
studio, but didn't get a chance to see the content.

I've seen some of the plans for local authority response.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I don't think it will be - (a) they _do_ react [usually over-react] when
there's a _lot_ of adverse feedback (and I think there was quite a bit
this time) - compare their treatment of the death of DiPOW, and then
stepping back a lot for the next one, and (b) it won't be a similar
situation: when HM KTB they'll _know_ that nothing more will be
forthcoming, unless something unexpected happens to the succession or
something.

jpeg
--


Petitions are still unfair. [Still need over 9000 signatures by 19 May )-:!]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 www.255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Penny]

On Wed, 15 May 2019 20:21:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I don't think it will be - (a) they _do_ react [usually over-react] when
there's a _lot_ of adverse feedback (and I think there was quite a bit
this time) - compare their treatment of the death of DiPOW, and then
stepping back a lot for the next one, and (b) it won't be a similar
situation: when HM KTB they'll _know_ that nothing more will be
forthcoming, unless something unexpected happens to the succession or
something.

True but it's been a very long time since it last happened (a couple of
months before I was born) so they will have all those years to look back
upon as well as speculation about the coronation. None of which should take
up any time on actual 'news' programmes but you can be sure it will -
before all being repeated in documentaries etc :(

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Penny
On Wed, 15 May 2019 20:21:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I don't think it will be - (a) they _do_ react [usually over-react] when
there's a _lot_ of adverse feedback (and I think there was quite a bit
this time) - compare their treatment of the death of DiPOW, and then
stepping back a lot for the next one, and (b) it won't be a similar
situation: when HM KTB they'll _know_ that nothing more will be
forthcoming, unless something unexpected happens to the succession or
something.

True but it's been a very long time since it last happened (a couple of
months before I was born) so they will have all those years to look back
upon as well as speculation about the coronation. None of which should take
up any time on actual 'news' programmes but you can be sure it will -
before all being repeated in documentaries etc :(

They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died. He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

[Penny]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

[Mike Ruddock]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

+1

Mike Ruddock

[Penny]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 15:17:54 +0100, Mike Ruddock

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

+1

I hold no brief for the Dimblebods but they do feel like an institution
which has been around all my life and their departure felt to me a bit like
the ravens leaving the Tower - a portent.
(Did you know the ravens have names? Jubilee, Harris, Gripp, Rocky, Erin,
Poppy and Merlina.)

[Mike]

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 15:17:54 +0100, Mike Ruddock

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

+1

I hold no brief for the Dimblebods but they do feel like an institution
which has been around all my life and their departure felt to me a bit like
the ravens leaving the Tower - a portent.
(Did you know the ravens have names? Jubilee, Harris, Gripp, Rocky, Erin,
Poppy and Merlina.)

Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence. Things have become worse since then, IMO.

Dear Feedback,

I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.

Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation. Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.

Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question. This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman. Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

[Mike]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence. Things have become worse since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation. Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question. This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman. Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

The sheer cheek of you young Sid - how dare you?1 (I really hope it was
shown to Eddie - I have always liked his style and manner when
interviewing.)

[BrritSki]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence.  Things have become worse since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation.  Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question.  This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman.  Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

Having just watched the start of last night's QT before we gave up, it
would seem that Fiona Bruce was given your email, but does not
understand sarcasm :(

[LFS]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence.  Things have become worse since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation.  Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question.  This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman.  Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

<applause>

[Dumrat]

Post by LFS

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011 (below) when Eddie
Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's absence.  Things have become worse
since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in the absence of
Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists and the audience
can understand the questions put without a lengthy, patronising explanation.
Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists are allowed to speak without interruption -
sometimes for long enough to make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end
up in the ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the programme, treating
it as an opportunity for people to put questions to a panel and for the panellists then
to express and exchange their own views in answer to the question.  This is a travesty
of its true purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman.  Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this before allowing
him to take charge again.

<applause>

From MTAAW. Did Feedback acknowledge you at all, Sid?

[Penny]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:48:49 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence. Things have become worse since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation. Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question. This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman. Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

Brilliant!

[Nick Odell]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Mike
Years ago, ‘Any Questions’ meant just that; more recently, this became ‘Any
(political) Questions’ and the majority of the panel are picked from poly
tisions. :-(((

I expressed my view of the subject in an email to Feedback in 2011
(below) when Eddie Mair had chaired an edition or two in Dimblebore's
absence.  Things have become worse since then, IMO.
Dear Feedback,
I wish to complain about Eddie Mair's chairmanship of Any Questions in
the absence of Jonathan Dimbleby.
Mr Mair seems to harbour the absurd and dangerous idea that panellists
and the audience can understand the questions put without a lengthy,
patronising explanation.  Furthermore, when he is in charge panellists
are allowed to speak without interruption - sometimes for long enough to
make a slightly complex point - and then, of course, we end up in the
ludicrous situation of hearing more from panellists than the chairman.
Eddie Mair seems to have completely misunderstood the nature of the
programme, treating it as an opportunity for people to put questions to
a panel and for the panellists then to express and exchange their own
views in answer to the question.  This is a travesty of its true
purpose, developed over many years by Mr Dimbleby, which is to provide a
showcase for the chairman.  Please ensure that Mr Mair understands this
before allowing him to take charge again.

I know that there's a groundswell of opinion that, like Question Time,
Any Questions ought in future to be chaired by a woman but I've been
lobbying (on uk.media.radio.bbc-r4) for Eddie Mair. I think he has been
excellent every time he's deputised on that programme - and of course
I've never forgotten his interview with Boris Johnson when he was
standing in for Andrew Marr. Do you suppose he could be tempted back to
the Beeb?


Nick

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Nick Odell
I know that there's a groundswell of opinion that, like Question Time,
Any Questions ought in future to be chaired by a woman but I've been
lobbying (on uk.media.radio.bbc-r4) for Eddie Mair. I think he has been
excellent every time he's deputised on that programme - and of course
I've never forgotten his interview with Boris Johnson when he was
standing in for Andrew Marr. Do you suppose he could be tempted back to
the Beeb?

I hope so, but I doubt it.

I'd like to see[1] Martha Kearney chair AQ. I think she has a perfect
combination of intelligence, courtesy, deep knowledge, a razor-sharp
bullshit detector and ready humour. And she keeps bees. She'd be
excellent, IMO.


[1] All right, *hear* Martha Kearney chair AQ. Honestly, you lot can be
so picky sometimes.

[Mike]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Nick Odell
I know that there's a groundswell of opinion that, like Question Time,
Any Questions ought in future to be chaired by a woman but I've been
lobbying (on uk.media.radio.bbc-r4) for Eddie Mair. I think he has been
excellent every time he's deputised on that programme - and of course
I've never forgotten his interview with Boris Johnson when he was
standing in for Andrew Marr. Do you suppose he could be tempted back to
the Beeb?

I hope so, but I doubt it.
I'd like to see[1] Martha Kearney chair AQ. I think she has a perfect
combination of intelligence, courtesy, deep knowledge, a razor-sharp
bullshit detector and ready humour. And she keeps bees. She'd be
excellent, IMO.
[1] All right, *hear* Martha Kearney chair AQ. Honestly, you lot can be
so picky sometimes.

OAPOP, Martha Kearney had to give up bee-keeping as she found she has an
allergy to bee stings. :-(

[Dumrat]

I know that there's a groundswell of opinion that, like Question Time, Any Questions ought
in future to be chaired by a woman but I've been lobbying (on uk.media.radio.bbc-r4) for
Eddie Mair. I think he has been excellent every time he's deputised on that programme -
and of course I've never forgotten his interview with Boris Johnson when he was standing
in for Andrew Marr. Do you suppose he could be tempted back to the Beeb?

I miss Eddie Mair on PM and have stopped listening to it now. I feel he is unsuited to the
formula of LBC and don't listen to him there, either (also in an early broadcast of his
from LBC, I believe I heard him voicing pro-Brexit opinions, which I have to say, put me
right (left?) off him. I'd always previously heard him as unbiased.).

[LFS]

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 15:17:54 +0100, Mike Ruddock

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

+1

I hold no brief for the Dimblebods but they do feel like an institution
which has been around all my life and their departure felt to me a bit like
the ravens leaving the Tower - a portent.
(Did you know the ravens have names? Jubilee, Harris, Gripp, Rocky, Erin,
Poppy and Merlina.)

And the new babies share a birthday with me and Jpeg:

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/the-tower-of-london-celebrates-as-baby-ravens-make-their-debut-122347

[Chris McMillan]

Post by LFS

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 15:17:54 +0100, Mike Ruddock

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

+1

I hold no brief for the Dimblebods but they do feel like an institution
which has been around all my life and their departure felt to me a bit like
the ravens leaving the Tower - a portent.
(Did you know the ravens have names? Jubilee, Harris, Gripp, Rocky, Erin,
Poppy and Merlina.)

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/the-tower-of-london-celebrates-as-baby-ravens-make-their-debut-122347

Wow! That’s a kf and no mistake

Sincerely Chris

[SODAM]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

I do agree. I wish young Dimblebod who dominated^H introduced Any Questions
for years had learned the concept of a neutral chairman, instead of
starting mini-inquisitions with some luckless panellists.

His presentation was as counterproductive as “journalists” who shout
asinine questions at politicians as they leave high-profile meetings. Even
worse, clips of these encounters are shown on the national news. Of course,
the politicians do not deign to reply, so the “news” is that our
representative shouted something in the street.

[LFS]

Post by SODAM

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Penny
On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Both younger Dimblebods have recently left the BBC - we're all doomed!

For "doomed" read "relieved", in my case.

I do agree. I wish young Dimblebod who dominated^H introduced Any Questions
for years had learned the concept of a neutral chairman, instead of
starting mini-inquisitions with some luckless panellists.
His presentation was as counterproductive as “journalists” who shout
asinine questions at politicians as they leave high-profile meetings. Even
worse, clips of these encounters are shown on the national news. Of course,
the politicians do not deign to reply, so the “news” is that our
representative shouted something in the street.

Oh yes! Absolutely pointless exercise.

[Vicky Ayech]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:54:19 +0100, Sid Nuncius

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

But his sons seem to go on forever - both chronologically and verbally.

Parentage does seem to be an unfaily big help.

[BrritSki]

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

When he died, 52 WAS much older !

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sam Plusnet
They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died.  He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

When he died, 52 WAS much older !

I guess he seemed, at 35 years older than me, as a generation
away (though younger than my father), and certainly was the Voice
of Authority.

I suppose, as a youngster, most adults seem to be from a world
apart. Meeting teachers at school reunions was interesting, as
some of them were less than 10 years older than us, yet in the
classroom it felt as if they were from a different world..

Chris

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Wed, 15 May 2019 20:21:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I don't think it will be - (a) they _do_ react [usually over-react] when
there's a _lot_ of adverse feedback (and I think there was quite a bit
this time) - compare their treatment of the death of DiPOW, and then
stepping back a lot for the next one, and (b) it won't be a similar
situation: when HM KTB they'll _know_ that nothing more will be
forthcoming, unless something unexpected happens to the succession or
something.

True but it's been a very long time since it last happened (a couple of
months before I was born) so they will have all those years to look back
upon as well as speculation about the coronation. None of which should take
up any time on actual 'news' programmes but you can be sure it will -
before all being repeated in documentaries etc :(

They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died. He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

I think it was his build and his voice.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Vicky Ayech

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Penny
On Wed, 15 May 2019 20:21:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by vk

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. The 4¾ hours of no other subject
2. Their inability to revert once it became obvious that minimal
information on the birth itself was forthcoming.

Watched this now. Well done. Agree about the pens!
How will you feel when Her Madge KTB. 24 hour coverage and no other news.

I don't think it will be - (a) they _do_ react [usually over-react] when
there's a _lot_ of adverse feedback (and I think there was quite a bit
this time) - compare their treatment of the death of DiPOW, and then
stepping back a lot for the next one, and (b) it won't be a similar
situation: when HM KTB they'll _know_ that nothing more will be
forthcoming, unless something unexpected happens to the succession or
something.

True but it's been a very long time since it last happened (a couple of
months before I was born) so they will have all those years to look back
upon as well as speculation about the coronation. None of which should take
up any time on actual 'news' programmes but you can be sure it will -
before all being repeated in documentaries etc :(

They've had plenty of time to raise a clone of Richard Dimbleby to do
the outside broadcast.
Incidently, I was surprised to see that he was only 52 when he died. He
seemed to embody the authority of someone much older.

I think it was his build and his voice.

To a teenage lad, anyone over 21 seemed to belong to another era.