On 2009-06-07 17:14:31 +0100, "Dave Liquorice"
said:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:56:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

The BBC are supposed to inform, educate and entertain.

Agreed, that is what public service broadcasting should do and note the
order of those things. It now appears to be entertain, inform and educate.

Public non commercial broadcasting would be funded from the
infrastructure budget as it is in for example the Netherlands.

Heaven forbid that should ever happen here. The licence fee is not ideal
but at least it keeps the government of the day at arms length. I really
doubt that even the vesitages of impartiality that still exist within the
BBC would survive long if the goverment had direct control of the purse
strings.

Agree 100%.
--
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:50:50 +0200, Martin wrote:



Maybe something to do with GW personalities also writing gardening articles for
the press.

The Times commented
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6168285.ece

Written By Rosie who is one of the most insane people to write for the
british press at the moment. She's a serial house buyer who's
virtually penniless and has frequently written about being it ad
nauseum.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:30:43 +0200, Martin wrote:

There is no sign of political interference in public broadcasting in the
Netherlands.

You trust our lot? There is already an awful lot of political media
manipulation going on, it would be far worse if the government had a
tighter grip on the money.

The UK government already has direct control of the purse strings. It
controls the cost of a TV licence.

But only every 5(?) years, not as part of the the 6 monthly national
budget.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 2009-06-09 09:22:47 +0100, Martin said:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:21:13 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:30:43 +0200, Martin wrote:

There is no sign of political interference in public broadcasting in the
Netherlands.

You trust our lot? There is already an awful lot of political media
manipulation going on, it would be far worse if the government had a
tighter grip on the money.

Most of the UK media is right wing. What do you expect?

Is it? The Times is owned by a republican, and supported Blair in the
2001 and 2005 elections; the Daily Mirror is left wing, The Sun once
supported Mrs Thatcher but then came out in support of Labour and cost
the Tories 500k votes according to one observer in 1997; the Grauniad
and the Independent are left wing, though the Indy probably tries to do
a better balancing act, the FT is largely regarded as being pretty
neutral while the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are right wing, as is
the Daily Express, though its readership has fallen off quite badly,
AIUI and it supported Labour in 2001. The BBC seems to be worrying
about not upsetting the government, especially since the David Kelly
horror. The Sun and the Daily Mail have the highest circulation
figures, I believe but am not swearing to that.
The Morning Star is far left, the Observer is left wing, the Sunday
Express and Mail on Sunday are right wing. The People is left wing, the
News of the World is right wing but is hardly a serious newspaper.
Overall, I wouldn't say UK media is strongly right wing.
--
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

In message , Bob Hobden
writes

In the week of the 11th May GW was 6th in the ratings for BBC2 with 2.4
million viewers, so no chance of it being pulled.
http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyT...ammesOverview?

Looking at the most popular programmes gives one some idea of the average
viewer, it says it all!

Depressing, innit?
I will confess to being part of the largest audience, watching BGT.
That was first class entertainment, IMO, despite a couple of ridiculous
acts.
As for the rest, I am always with the minority.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Anne Welsh Jackson
writes

No, it's not just you...

My requirement of television programmes is that they either educate
or entertain. I find that fewer and ever fewer programmes achieve this.

Never mind, just a few short years and I won't have to pay for a
licence. I wonder if there'll be any programmes left, which will
be worth watching?

Springwatch, Coast, South Pacific. They are well worth what I don't
pay for my licence. :-)
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:05:33 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

Why Slough? Were you thinking of the Betjeman poem?

It's where Nigella's kitchen is located - in a prefab building on an industrial
estate.

But, but...
I've seen her getting out of a taxi and rushing into a town house in the
city, kicking off her shoes, removing her earrings and, and...
Sorry, I have to go.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

Martin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:06:24 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:05:33 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

Why Slough? Were you thinking of the Betjeman poem?
It's where Nigella's kitchen is located - in a prefab building on an industrial
estate.
But, but...
I've seen her getting out of a taxi and rushing into a town house in the
city, kicking off her shoes, removing her earrings and, and...
Sorry, I have to go.

You've probably seen Lord Saccharine's board room in Canary Wharf many times in
the Apprentice, despite his offices actually being located somewhere in a shed
in North East London. Heh next you'll be tell us Eastenders is real too.

Please, say no more, I have had enough illusions shattered for one day,
and not a single mention of a hybrid or a hoe.
Pssst! it surely isn't filmed in Fort William is it?.

Bobbie

Martin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:56:04 +0100, Bobbie wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:06:24 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:05:33 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

Why Slough? Were you thinking of the Betjeman poem?
It's where Nigella's kitchen is located - in a prefab building on an industrial
estate.
But, but...
I've seen her getting out of a taxi and rushing into a town house in the
city, kicking off her shoes, removing her earrings and, and...
Sorry, I have to go.
You've probably seen Lord Saccharine's board room in Canary Wharf many times in
the Apprentice, despite his offices actually being located somewhere in a shed
in North East London. Heh next you'll be tell us Eastenders is real too.
Please, say no more, I have had enough illusions shattered for one day,
and not a single mention of a hybrid or a hoe.
Pssst! it surely isn't filmed in Fort William is it?.

Only Fools and Horses was filmed in Bristol.
The Rocket Man set around Newport Gwent was filmed in Northumberland.
George Gently set in Northumberland is filmed in Dublin. The books are set in
East Anglia.


Really? Good gracious. At least I know that Doc Martin is filmed in
Cornwall. Port Isaac to be exact. The home of my in-laws and a place I
love to visit, whenever possible. They do grow the most delicious
Pasties there.

Bobbie;-)

--
http://www.smudgespatch.co.uk/newhome2.html

On 2009-06-09 14:35:00 +0100, Martin said:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:34:34 +0100, Sacha wrote:
snip

Most of the UK media is right wing. What do you expect?

Is it? The Times is owned by a republican, and supported Blair in the
2001 and 2005 elections; the Daily Mirror is left wing, The Sun once
supported Mrs Thatcher but then came out in support of Labour and cost
the Tories 500k votes according to one observer in 1997; the Grauniad
and the Independent are left wing, though the Indy probably tries to do
a better balancing act, the FT is largely regarded as being pretty
neutral while the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are right wing, as is
the Daily Express, though its readership has fallen off quite badly,
snip
I think if you look at the newspapers you list, only the Guardian and
the Mirror
are consistent supporters of the Labour party. I don;t know about the Peep hole
I had forgotten it existed. The Dirty Digger and his newspapers supports
whichever newspapers he thinks will do him the most benefit.
I don;t see any signs in the Observer of Labour support. The BBC seems to upset
everybody. Some interviewers give Tories an easy ride others give
Labour an easy
ride. The BBC political editor is horribly biased. I'm amazed he has
survived so
long.

I think there's a difference between clear support for a particular
party and a slight or considerable bias towards conservatism or
socialism (lower case!)
--
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

On 2009-06-09 17:00:51 +0100, Martin said:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:50:22 +0100, Sacha wrote:

I think there's a difference between clear support for a particular
party and a slight or considerable bias towards conservatism or
socialism (lower case!)

Nick echoes the Tory Party line every time. He is unable to present an
objective
view.

I genuinely hadn't noticed that but others' politics don't interest me
a lot. ;-)
--
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

On Jun 9, 2:38*pm, Martin wrote:

...........Heh next you'll be tell us Eastenders is real too.

Silly boy, that would be too fantastic. My daughter and I have
frequently discussed the nature of reality and have come to the
conclusion that Dr Who and Startrek are real and all the rest is
illusion.

In article , Sacha
writes
On 2009-06-06 17:25:44 +0100, "Bob Hobden" said:

"michael" wrote...
The content now is awful,and I am afraid to say that I think the
series should be pulled.
It's all about viewing figures. If they drop to a certain low level
then it
will be pulled just like "Richard and Judy".



Maybe that's what they want?

I'm afraid I lost interest in this new "rejuvenated" version about the
second programme in the current series.
Be interesting to hear what Alan T. thinks about it or to know what dear
old Geoff would have said.
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk