Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: Peter Twydell on 4 Dec 2009 07:23
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> writes
>On Dec 3, 5:55�pm, Peter Twydell <Pe...(a)twydell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> writes>This is what happens when the
>>state owns and runs media
>> The BBC is not owned by the state.
>> The BBC is a 'public corporation': neither a private corporation nor a
>> government department. The high ideal is that it is held in trust for
>> the public of the UK by the BBC Trust (the successor to the Board of
>> Governors following the renewal of the BBC Charter by the government in
>> Practically every government is convinced that the BBC is against it,
>> which probably shows that in general it gets things about right.
>No, it shows governments don't hold with any dissent when it comes to
>things they own. Americans won't be familiar with this, but Canadian
>and British governments hold an iron fist over all employees (party
>members) in that any dissent is grounds for dismissal. American
>politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to internal
I meant that the BBC had got it right, not the governments. As you seem
not to understand, let me say it again: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE
As for political parties, when was anyone thrown out of one in the UK
for not toeing the party line, whatever that might be? I think that's
what you said, but your logic escapes me. As for dissent, Fleet Street
used to have some headlines permanently ready. Along with British
Leyland Strike, there was Scotland Fail to Qualify and Split in Labour
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Ying tong iddle-i po!
From: Bruce on 4 Dec 2009 07:35
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:23:33 +0000, Peter Twydell
>As for political parties, when was anyone thrown out of one in the UK
>for not toeing the party line, whatever that might be?
Many Labour MPs were deselected in the 1980s for not being left wing
From: Paul Heslop on 4 Dec 2009 09:37
Jim Bob wrote:
> As for Top Gear, sometimes it appears that they do seem to push the
> boundaries when it comes to causing disruption. That said, most of the
> time, I think it's all just an act for the show anyway. Who knows.
It's all tongue in cheek but it has always struck me that much of what
they do is set up to look a lot worse than it really is. Obviously
when they play tricks on each other they are all well aware of what is
going on or the danger would be unacceptable and as far as I am
concerned most of what we see is scripted and played for laughs.
They did try to insist that the confrontation they had with rednecks
while in America was true but again I have serious doubts about that.
Paul (we break easy)
Stop and Look
From: michael adams on 4 Dec 2009 12:30
"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> This is what happens when the state owns and runs media
> We understand that the makers of Top Gear may be reluctant to further
> inflame photographers' relations with the Met.
Nothing to do with the state. Everything to do with not antagonising
the Met - that's the London Police to you, when "Top Gear" - a major export
earner, are always seeking permission to engage in some bordlerline legal
stunt or other, to be filmed on public roads.
What happens when you've got no TV makers with the originality and creativity
of the BBC - with the admirable exception of HBO who are forever short of funding
- is that you have to import stuff like Top Gear. Over here on the BBC, we watch
it right through.
Over there you sit through 20 minutes of commmercials per hour, for the privilige of
being allowed to watch the sort of low budget LCD dross the likes of Murdoch hopes
he can get away with. And which Murdoch knows won't upset the applecart or alienate
any of the big-money, who really pull the strings. While you just sit there with glazed
eyes and mouth agape, lapping it all up, while dribbling all over your pizza.
From: tony cooper on 4 Dec 2009 12:51
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:30:55 -0000, "michael adams"
>Over there you sit through 20 minutes of commmercials per hour,
No we don't. The most recent figures are 15:48 minutes on broadcast
and 14.55 on cable of non-fresh program. That's not all commercials,
either. That includes the re-cap portion (where what went on last
week is shown if applicable), news spots, and teaser material. The
commercials must be limited to 12 minutes per hour.
Those of with cable access can watch the show straight through on BBC
> for the privilige of
>being allowed to watch the sort of low budget LCD dross the likes of Murdoch hopes
>he can get away with. And which Murdoch knows won't upset the applecart or alienate
>any of the big-money, who really pull the strings. While you just sit there with glazed
>eyes and mouth agape, lapping it all up, while dribbling all over your pizza.
It takes some chutzpa for someone from the UK to talk about the low
budget dross we are offered. Half the shows in the UK are about
sending in a 27 member team of decorators to redesign the airing
cupboards of some squat in Luton. Or, some show about the fattest
people or the biggest breasts in England. Or, how to buy tat cheaply
and auction it off for profit.
You do offer some good shows, though.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida