From: Paul Heslop on
Wilba wrote:

> > I just look at it as pure entertainment nowadays, like a bunch of kids
> > playing with their toys.
> Exactly, and that's refreshing. :- )
> You know they did a local version here in Australia? Hideous!

I think they said on this week's show the only country where it isn't
a big thing is america. but essentially it really does need the
presenters it has to be what it is. the old top gear was way more

Paul (we break easy)
Stop and Look
From: Paul Heslop on
mikeos wrote:
> michael adams wrote:
> > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> > news:96iih5tk7kof1qohffkkvbpt93lrck6ns5(a)
> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:30:55 -0000, "michael adams"
> >> <mjadams25(a)> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> Strange. When we watch a US show on TV, most "hour long" shows, like SVU
> and CSI come out at around 40 minutes once the commercial breaks are
> stripped out.

I have to say that may be true of most commercial progs now.
Paul (we break easy)
Stop and Look
From: Neil Harrington on
tony cooper wrote:

> To what destination is the BBC towing the line?
> Will they toe it when they get it there?

Now if only "tough" rhymed with "dough" we could examine this even further.
As it is we'll just have to pour over you're reply.

From: Neil Harrington on
Twibil wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:23 pm, Oliver <rup...(a)> wrote:
>>> American
>>> politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to
>>> internal party dissent.
>> McCarthy.........!
> Uh, yes, and now think hard and see if you can recall what became of
> McCarthy...
> Yup. That's right. Reviled by just about everyone except Nixon, and
> completely discredited in the end.

Except of course that he was mostly right, which keeps him from being
*completely* discredited. He certainly was reviled, and is so to this day.
Such was the power of the left-leaning press. Nowadays it's mostly only
Hollywood types who still have that warm, fuzzy feeling toward communists,
at least openly.

From: Neil Harrington on
Peter Twydell wrote:
> In message
> <dd7d2311-c6c2-4946-b7a1-3739abed9016(a)>,
> RichA <rander3127(a)> writes
>> On Dec 3, 5:55 pm, Peter Twydell <Pe...(a)> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <177e6123-b9f1-45f4-8720-50334d5a3...(a)>,
>>> RichA <rander3...(a)> writes>This is what happens when the
>>> state owns and runs media
>>>> corporations.
>>> 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 2006).
>>> 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
>> party dissent.
> 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

Then who does own the BBC?