William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:13:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> It was on, or about, Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:30:50 +0100, that as I was
>>> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that William Poaster spake thusly:
>>>>>> How about raising it with your MP? And who the *hell* gave anyone at
>>>>>> the BBC the go-ahead to hand over licence payers fees to a *foreign*
>>>>>> company? Did the chairman pass this? Was it the Director-General?
>>>>>> Who is to be held accountable for this, no one? Jezus H Keeerist, no
>>>>>> wonder Paxman likened the BBC to Stalinist Russia:
>>>>> Here's that three page withering attack in full ... excellent stuff:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3y2uaw (Telegraph)
>>> Ah, that's it. Thanks, [H]omer.
>>>> Of course, it wasn't the chairman or the DG, as there isn't either of
>>>> those any more. We now have, rather ironically named "trustees". I
>>>> don't think we can trust them at all, and perhaps they should be
>>>> renamed "untrustees", which would be far more apt.
>>>> ... stops to read...
>>>> Wow! Excellent speech.
>>> Yes, he *really* laid it on the line. I remarked elsewhere in another
>>> group, sometime ago, that I thought the BBC had declined since the
>>> 1980's. Someone said I must be looking back "through rose coloured
>>> glasses" IIRC. Seems JP has vindicated what I said.
>> I think that there's always an element of nostalgia in any backwards
>> look. The brain is very good at covering up the bad bits!
> Perhaps, but I do recall that programs such as 'Horizon' being
> good,informative programs. The last one I watched was "trash tv" with
> idiotic camera angles & intrusive "background" music rising to a
> crescendo so that you could hardly hear WTF the narrator was saying. I
> suppose this is so-called 'pop science' for the morons with attention
> spans of gnats.
Well, as we have a schooling system where you can get an A-level with a
mere 17% (really - this was the lowest pass grade this year!), then it's
hardly surprising that even the simplified science Horizon used to cover
would be far too much for many of today's "scientists".
> At least they haven't interfered with "The Sky at
Would you take on Patrick Moore? :-)
>> Even so, the quality of programming has fallen dramatically, about in
>> line with the government pushing the BBC to outsource production,
>> basically. The funny thing is that we have all these extra channels,
>> but we've stopped the BBC from making all that good television and
>> radio which they used to make, so there's even less material to spread
>> across the broadcast spectra.
> Quite, & you'll note they just repeat the same program on different
> channels. Then they wait a few weeks/months, & then repeat them again
> with "Another chance to see..." or somesuch. In other words "Yet
> *another* repeat of...." If Paxman's correct that they're cutting £2
> billion from the budget, things can only get worse.
One of my greatest frustrations with wasted spectrum is the ITV4+1
rubbish. The /same/ programme running an hour later. How can that
possibly justify the forced obsolescence of 20 Million televisions?
The landfill impact is going to be comparable to the Vista layer.
>> And Jeremy Paxman does well. Gordon Ramsey can't catch his own f*cking
>> fish :-))
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |