On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
> 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.
>
LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically
balanced.

Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-

Nick Ferrari   'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair  'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'

You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.

As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
News, so go figure.

On 28/01/2022 12:50, Java Jive wrote:
>  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.

Eh ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Brien_(broadcaster)

The last thing LBC's James O'Brien is, is a climate change sceptic !

On 28/01/2022 13:06, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> On 28/01/2022 12:50, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>  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.
>
> Eh ?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Brien_(broadcaster)
>
> The last thing LBC's James O'Brien is, is a climate change sceptic !

Then perhaps it was actually his Telegraph journalist father whom the
list was trying to claim was a dissenting scientist? The name's a
better fit, at least!

Certainly, I never found a *scientist* of that name!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 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
>

They repeated 'Allo 'Allo on BBC4 with a warning of all sorts of
problems the viewer might have with the outdated script. This was a
couple of months after the Yesterday channel finished repeating the
entire series without any concerns at all.

Jim

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:j5i7loFtf1vU1@mid.individual.net...
> LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
> OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically
> balanced.
>
> Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
>
> Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
> James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
> Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
> Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
> Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
>
> You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour or
> so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been radicalised
> by them.
> Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
> questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.

I still hanker for the LBC of the 1970s, with its announcements "News. On
the Hour. Every hour. From LBC" and "This is LBC where News Comes First",
delivered in an ominous, sonorous voice. And the barrel-organ version of the
LBC "theme tune" at midnight. And the late-night phone-in programme
Nightline, with Jeremy Beadle ("Jeremy James Antony Gibson Beadlebum") and
later Tommy Boyd, with the regular callers, included the one who sounded
like a crusty old retired colonel who wanted to treat all women as "pink
sugar icing" (or some such condescending phrase).

All gone.

The best thing I heard on LBC (and I wish I had a recording of it) was the
news report I heard one lunchtime about a huge inflatable statue of Michael
Jackson which was being towed up the Thames (why?). This was at the time
when there were all "those" allegations about MJ and children. The reporter
said "The statue of Michael Jackson is standing upright, firmly moored
between two small buoys". And no-one realised (or cared about) the
double-entendre because the same report was still going out "on the hour
every hour" by the time I was driving home that evening. Was it an
un-noticed accident or was it a Simon Groom-like (*) "Oo matron!" attempt to
see what they could get away with?

(*) "What a beautiful pair of [door] knockers", preceded by Christopher
Wenner's set-up line, delivered with his head symbolically between two huge
bronze door knockers "... and if you want to see the two knockers
side-by-side..."

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> 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!
>

I’ve no problem with BBC4 being an archive channel, showing high quality
old stuff. The snag is I’m not sure the other channels are producing much
worthwhile to be future content for this archive.

If you look through the BBC 1 and 2 schedules for the week it’s pretty thin
fare at the moment.

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 17:13:14 UTC, wrightsaerials@aol.com 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.
>
> Bill

You mean a Yorkshire channel for Tykes? Might work, after all there are channels for Wales, Scotland and London...
OTOH it would characteristically have a very tight budget...

Ah but wait a minute it's already happened: -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_asian_network

In message <st0kpt$bco$3@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
writes
>On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
>> In article <st0ibm$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

Did you mean "unwoke"?

> and politically (!) incorrect for the present day BBC!
>

But it's being repeated on BBC 4 currently.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In article <j5h6vaFng92U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:

> > They have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to
> > the Remoaners and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate
> > change.

> 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.

"The science is settled" and "trust the science" are the most anti
science statements. Questioning science is how you do science.
Science that can't be questioned is propaganda.

Of course "All scientists agree" when you censor the ones who don't.
Hence the left's love of cancel culture.

Bob.

In message <61f3e31f.99262671@news.eternal-september.org>, AnthonyL
<nospam@please.invalid> writes
>Pointless! And I still can't get the answers right despite being on
>its second(?) round of repeats.

I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I
regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown.
(Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 28/01/2022 12:45, NY wrote:
> "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?
>

As someone who does remember using a Button-A/Button-B callbox, I can
say that you are far too modern in your imagination.

The push button callboxes had a single slot, into which you put 4 penny
(1d) coins. The penny was the largest coin in circulation at that time.
The only other coin of the same diameter was the half-crown and that
was thicker so wouldn't go into the slot (it was also worth 30 pennies
so nobody would do that anyway). Other coins were smaller and just fell
through the mechanism and out into the coin return tray.

At the time these phone boxes were in use, there was no such thing as
Subscriber Trunk Dialling. For local calls there was no call duration
limit. You took the handset off its cradle and listened to see if there
was a dialling tone. If there was, you put in your 4d and dialled the
number you wanted. The person called answered and when you heard their
voice you pressed Button A and you heard your coins fall into the unit's
money box. If nobody answered, you pressed Button B and got your coins
back in the coin return tray. Phone boxes were well used though and if
you talked for too long someone would open the callbox door and remind
you that there was a queue and you should end your call. If you ignored
the hint for too long, someone would normally reach in and press down
the phone cradle which ended your call.

Anything outside your local area had to go through an operator's
switchboard. For more distant ones (calling Manchester from Liverpool
for instance) you called the operator without putting coins in, gave the
number you wanted to call, then waited until the operator told you the
other party has answered and you should put your money in, and said how
long your money would last. Then you put your 4d in and pressed Button
A. After the time the operator had told you, the connection was dropped
at the exchange.

Long distance calls had to be booked, so it was only practical from a
home phone. You called the operator, said who you wanted to call, and
you were given a time window when your call would be put through and you
hung up. In the interim your operator called another operator who
connected your operator to the next operator in sequence, until
eventually there was a call relay connection to your destination and the
person you were calling answered and was told to hold on to the phone,
while your operator called your phone and when you answered you were
told that your call was through and it connected. The cost of that call
went on your phone bill, and because the relay between operators was
tying up all the relay lines, you were normally limited to 3 minutes
before the operator broke into the call to tell you your time was up,
and you were given a short period of time to stay goodbye before the
operator cut the call. The idea of the time window was to set a limit to
how long the operator would spend trying to make your connection and not
succeeding, and how long you would have to wait to find out. At the end
of your time window the operator rang your phone to say that the
connection couldn't be made.

On a practical note, the action of pressing Button A simply connected
the microphone in the handset to the line. If the person at the other
end was in a quiet location and you as caller spoke loudly in the
earpiece, they could hear you faintly and you could rather clumsily make
a call speaking and listening alternately, and still get your 4d back
afterwards.

The biggest disappointment when the Button-A/Button-B system was
replaced was the discovery that local calls were timing out when they
never had before.

Jim

On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
>> OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically
>> balanced.
>>
>> Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
>>
>> Nick Ferrari   'A fair amount Right'
>> James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
>> Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
>> Eddie Mair  'Arguably a tiny bit left'
>> Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
>>
>> You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
>> or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
>> radicalised by them.
>> Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
>> questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
>>
>> As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
>> the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
>> News, so go figure.
> I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
Perhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
load of boring old crap..."

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
>>> OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically
>>> balanced.
>>>
>>> Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
>>>
>>> Nick Ferrari   'A fair amount Right'
>>> James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
>>> Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
>>> Eddie Mair  'Arguably a tiny bit left'
>>> Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
>>>
>>> You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
>>> or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
>>> radicalised by them.
>>> Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
>>> questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
>>>
>>> As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
>>> the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
>>> News, so go figure.
>> I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
> Perhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
> Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
> load of boring old crap..."
>

I hope they can keep it going. There’s no adverts apart from the very
occasional “sponsored by Henchman Ladders” or “HP Wolf Security”. It’s the
adverts that make commercial radio unusable for me. It’s supposed to build
the subscriber base for the newspaper, but I don’t see it myself.

On 28/01/2022 14:52, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <j5h6vaFng92U1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> 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.

Again where is the *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> "The science is settled" and "trust the science" are the most anti
> science statements. Questioning science is how you do science.
> Science that can't be questioned is propaganda.
>
> Of course "All scientists agree" when you censor the ones who don't.
> Hence the left's love of cancel culture.

Says the non-scientist whose stubbornly deliberate misunderstandings of
science has been boring the arse of everyone here for more than two years.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 28/01/2022 15:03, Scott wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
>> myself to be distracted by other people talking
>
> Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
> never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.

On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:

Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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 !

Like most people, I have never heard LBC.

On 28/01/2022 09:17, Brian Gregory wrote:
> So is their programming.
> Flicking though the channels it amazes me how often the snatch of GB
> News I catch is some stupid insult of something seen as left wing by
> them such as The Guardian.

You cannot get much more Left wing than than the Guardian except perhaps
the Daily Maxwell and Morning Star.

I was listening to little Owen Jones (from the Guardian) spouting
rubbish as usual earlier today.

On 28/01/2022 11:05, 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.

Not being American, I don't like to listen to one narrow type of music
on the radio. I prefer the mixture we get on many BBC programmes and
when one of the more obnoxious (usually very camp) presenters comes on
then I just switch to memory stick or CD.

On 28/01/2022 11:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Yes, instead of wasting a channel on BBC3 which most of its target
> audience will not be interested in watching, why not use it to start a
> new channel called "White TV"? As you say, everybody else has got one,
> so why not the 85%.

You will need to go and pull down a few statues or burn a few buildings
to get attention.

85% in England but over 95% in Scotland and Wales - even higher in
Northern Ireland.

On 28/01/2022 11:54, Scott wrote:
> Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
> multiplex that has already been tested?

They are more promotions than test transmissions.

On 28/01/2022 12:47, Mark Carver wrote:
> The platform owners (in particular Sky) insist on a few days worth of
> 'dummy' running for any 'new' channel

Perhaps a bit like the principle with new UHF sites. They were on
"test" for a couple of weeks which meant originally you could take them
off for any work without needing permission first.

On 28/01/2022 14:10, Tweed wrote:
> If you look through the BBC 1 and 2 schedules for the week it’s pretty thin
> fare at the moment.

It is only a few weeks since BBC2's low budget Only Connect crushed
Simon Cowell's latest expensive production in the ratings.

On 28/01/2022 14:55, John Hall wrote:
> I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I
> regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
> have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown.
> (Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
> answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)

It is funny the number of obscure things like elements in the Periodic
Table, countries and capital cities etc that have become much more
widely known thanks to Pointless. I can't think of any other TV quiz
show that achieved that!

On 28/01/2022 15:03, Scott wrote:
> Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
> never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.

Some else said that in most homes the size of the TV screen (in inches)
is bigger than the number of books in the house.

In message <st14qo$457$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>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 !
>
>
>Like most people, I have never heard LBC.

In which you're missing a real treat!
--
Ian