"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ssuqkb$du1$1@dont-email.me...
> On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
>> I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
>> seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
>> indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
>
> Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so probably
> listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
>
> It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own
> station. I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
> people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV advert
> will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented

If anyone watched the new Bradley Walsh version of Darling Buds of May,
they'll have seen the number of black and Asian characters in it. Excellent
that there are *some*, but I think they went a bit OTT and there were a few
too many token non-whites - and without any racist comments by other
characters which sadly would have been prevalent at the time (1950s).

On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
> "Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>
>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>> youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>
>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>
> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the
> channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
> broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years
> ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start
> broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they
> discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
> true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast
> channel?
>
>
When BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they also
transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to do) and
some of those were quite watchable.

When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 - if
it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule on a
computer. At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what they
have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.

I will have to do a retune in the next few days.

Jim

On 28/01/2022 09:38, NY wrote:
> "MB"<MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ssuvaj$ggp$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 27/01/2022 19:17, Tweed wrote:
>>> Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I
>>> was
>>> there….
>>
>>
>> The "4" got lost somewhere.
>
> 4-play?
>

More like 4-gotten

In message <st0dbs$org$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
>"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>
>>>They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>>youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>
>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>
>I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom
>the channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
>broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few
>years ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them
>to start broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed -
>or did they discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was
>not entirely true and that there are some viewers after all who want it
>as a broadcast channel?
>
>
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In their
desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of losing the
one they've already got.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more money
> on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - and less
> and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In their
> desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of losing the one
> they've already got.

The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made for
BBC Four.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p7j7vghg58vja2mou83v20vaaepuais9da@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:39:02 +0000, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> What do commercial stations do better?
>>
>>News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some
>>specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore
>>now.
>
> There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
> particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
> to choose from.
>
> Currently this may be difficult in a car, but it's only a matter of
> time before somebody finds a way.

With an internet connection (eg from a phone with mobile internet and wifi
tethering) an Alexa has access to all of her library and radio stations. Not
sure how resilient Alexa is to intermittent dropouts of internet
connection - does she abandon what you've asked for or is there just a pause
until the connection returns?

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
> particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
> to choose from.
>
> Currently this may be difficult in a car, but it's only a matter of
> time before somebody finds a way.

Android Auto links my car to my phone, it can stream radioplayer (or podcasts
etc) through the car's speakers.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9sh7vght4u83vhlgka9ft0mvqregpe032e@4ax.com...
> A couple of years ago when one of my granddaughters started
> university, I offered to get a TV set for her, but she said no thanks
> she would use her laptop. A bit later her boyfriend did get her a
> small TV set (but with a bigger screen than the laptop) and as there
> was no aerial feed in the room I offered to get an indoor aerial to
> see if it would pick up anything. Again she said no thanks, as the
> smart features in the TV would enable her to watch Netflix etc.
> Evidently the hall of residence wi-fi provided everything they needed.
>
> This really does seem to be the way alot of young people like to watch
> TV. In a typical household there will only be one proper aerial feed
> to the living room, so any bedroom TV (perhaps an older living room TV
> that has been relegated) will get fuzzy grainy pictures at best, so
> it's little wonder they prefer not just the freedom of choice but the
> superior steady picture quality of internet HD on a laptop or a
> tablet, with no faffing about with aerials. They're just not
> interested in oldfashioned broadcast TV.

Also, a lot of people watch catchup services online (with all the buffering
problems that this can encounter) whereas if I want to watch anything on BBC
channels (*) I always use get-iplayer to download the programme and then
watch it offline.

Hall of residence wifi is an excellent service for the hall to provide,
though I suppose they justify it because it is essential for access to study
materials.

(*) For example if I've forgotten to set the PVR or if there were lots of
glitches in the off-air sat/terr recording.

In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> > I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
> > money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
> > and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
> > their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
> > losing the one they've already got.

> The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
> repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
> for BBC Four.

and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
>> "Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>  wrote in message
>> news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>>
>>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>>> youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>>
>>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>>
>> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom
>> the
>> channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
>> broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few
>> years
>> ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
>> start
>> broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they
>> discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
>> true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast
>> channel?
>>
>>
> When BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they also
> transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to do) and
> some of those were quite watchable.
>
> When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 - if
> it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule on a
> computer.  At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what they
> have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
>
> I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
>

>

Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!

On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
> In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
>>> I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
>>> money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
>>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
>>> their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
>>> losing the one they've already got.
>
>> The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
>> repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
>> for BBC Four.
>
> and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
>

Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
incorrect for the present day BBC!

On 28/01/2022 11:40, Woody wrote:
> On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
>>> "Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>>>
>>>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>>>> youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>>>
>>>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>>>
>>> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people
>>> (whom the
>>> channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
>>> broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a
>>> few years
>>> ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
>>> start
>>> broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did
>>> they
>>> discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not
>>> entirely
>>> true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a
>>> broadcast
>>> channel?
>>>
>>>
>> When BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they
>> also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to
>> do) and some of those were quite watchable.
>>
>> When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 -
>> if it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule
>> on a computer.  At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what
>> they have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
>>
>> I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
>>
>
>>
>
>  Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!
>
No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active
yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.

"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:st0kpt$bco$3@dont-email.me...
> On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
>> In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
>>>> I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
>>>> money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
>>>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
>>>> their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
>>>> losing the one they've already got.
>>
>>> The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
>>> repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
>>> for BBC Four.
>>
>> and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
>
> Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
> incorrect for the present day BBC!

If humour pokes fun at *anyone* it is likely to offend *someone*, so it's
forbidden. Which doesn't leave much...

In article <st0kpt$bco$3@dont-email.me>,
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
> > In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> >>> I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
> >>> money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
> >>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
> >>> their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
> >>> losing the one they've already got.
> >
> >> The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would
> >> show repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be
> >> made for BBC Four.
> >
> > and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
> >

> Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
> incorrect for the present day BBC!

I watched "Yes, Prime Minister" on BBC 4 this week!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bam7vg17p2hptgjt2o89bbktqhis5utjn1@4ax.com...

>>No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active
>>yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.
>
> Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
> multiplex that has already been tested?

Ah, now that I don't know. They are new stream and channel IDs, but within a
mux which itself is well-established. Maybe they add the stream/channel IDs
early to allow a few days' grace for people to retune, and then the licensed
programmes begin at the beginning of a month (1 Feb) rather than the
beginning of a week (31 Jan).

On 28/01/2022 10:31, John Hall wrote:
>
> I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
> money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In their
> desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of losing the
> one they've already got.

+1

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/01/2022 03:41, williamwright wrote:
>
> I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate
> change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
> different amelioration methods,is allowed.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) as
> GB News?   And LBC too?

The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not
exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here
that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/01/2022 09:44, NY wrote:
> "MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ssuqkb$du1$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
>>> I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
>>> seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
>>> indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
>>
>> Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so
>> probably listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
>>
>> It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own
>> station.  I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
>> people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV
>> advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented
>
>
> If anyone watched the new Bradley Walsh version of Darling Buds of May,
> they'll have seen the number of black and Asian characters in it.
> Excellent that there are *some*, but I think they went a bit OTT and
> there were a few too many token non-whites - and without any racist
> comments by other characters which sadly would have been prevalent at
> the time (1950s).

I gave up on that when a character (entirely incidentally black) showed
he had no idea how a coin box phone worked. It was the old button-A
button-B ones - before my (phone using) time but I know how they work.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
>>>>
>>> All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
>>> broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7  is likely to go
>>> on or before that date.
>>>
>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>
>> It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when they
>> reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years ago, and in
>> trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts programmes in
>> one place".
>
>I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first
>couple of decades. I’m not sure if it’s me getting old or the world is
>really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I find
>almost nothing worth watching.

Pointless! And I still can't get the answers right despite being on
its second(?) round of repeats.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On 27/01/2022 19:08, MB wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
>> I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
>> seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
>> indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
>
> Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so probably
> listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
>
> It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own
> station.  I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
> people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV
> advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented

You'd need separate channels for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Jains.
Jains; what do they do? I think some of them sweep the ground so they
don't accidentally tread on an ant.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:jsSdnbSkxPaHfm78nZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> I gave up on that when a character (entirely incidentally black) showed he
> had no idea how a coin box phone worked. It was the old button-A button-B
> ones - before my (phone using) time but I know how they work.

Having never used one, and deliberately without looking it up, let's see if
I can work out what you'd do.

Insert several coins of appropriate denominations. Are they used in order of
insertion or does the phone automatically use the smallest denomination
first?

Call the number (or get the operator to dial the number, in which case
insert money after operator answers so he/she can hear the bongs relating to
the denominations of the coins).

If the call to the number I want is answered, press Button A to connect,
then Button B at the end of the call to return unused coins. If it is not
answered, press Button B to return all the coins.

Interesting that we went from pay-in-advance to pay-on-demand back to
pay-in-advance, with the new version of pay-in-advance doing automatic
"pressing" of button A when the call is answered, and automatic "pressing"
of Button B to return unused coins when the phone is put back on-hook. I
wonder why that automatic operation of Buttons A and B wasn't possible with
original payphones?

On 28/01/2022 11:54, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:42:44 +0000, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2022 11:40, Woody wrote:
>>> On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
>>>>> "Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>>>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>>>>>> youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>>>>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>>>>> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people
>>>>> (whom the
>>>>> channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
>>>>> broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a
>>>>> few years
>>>>> ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
>>>>> start
>>>>> broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did
>>>>> they
>>>>> discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not
>>>>> entirely
>>>>> true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a
>>>>> broadcast
>>>>> channel?
>>>>>
>>>> When BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they
>>>> also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to
>>>> do) and some of those were quite watchable.
>>>>
>>>> When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 -
>>>> if it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule
>>>> on a computer.  At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what
>>>> they have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
>>>>
>>>> I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
>>>  Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!
>>>
>> No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active
>> yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.
> Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
> multiplex that has already been tested?
The platform owners (in particular Sky) insist on a few days worth of
'dummy' running for any 'new' channel

On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to
> James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !

No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
myself to be distracted by other people talking - I find it irritating
enough that so much of the so-called music channels actually have so
much unnecessary talk - and anyway rightly or wrongly I view it as the
radio equivalent of the tabloids manipulating people emotively rather
than appealing to their reason. It may be there are honourable
exceptions to this general rule, I hope there are, but none that have
been linked here, and further suspicion was aroused when I found the
name "Jim O’Brien" on one of the "Hundreds of scientists that dispute
climate change!" fake lists churned out periodically by the denialist
industry, which doesn't exactly lend confidence in either the list, no
surprise there, or, if it's the same guy and not the only other possible
but less likely candidate found by a fairly extensive search at the
time, a footballer, him and his employer LBC. Of course, neither are
scientists, but then neither are a great many others in such lists, so
that can't be used to rule either of them out, and the list makers
presumably must have got the name on some pretext or other, however
flimsy, from somewhere.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/01/2022 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> I had one of those for a few weeks once until the novelty wore off and
> the annoyance began to set in. I found that if you put it back in its
> box it will pause forever.

:-)

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk