In message <ua18vgpk55kg8nq8dr63id9ul797v2i3uo@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>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
>
>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.

My sister-in-law's niece once said that in my hearing. She seemed to be
proud of it. I was rather shocked, but thought it better not to say
anything.
--
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 16:17, MB wrote:
>
> You cannot get much more Left wing than than the Guardian except perhaps
> the Daily Maxwell and Morning Star.

Given who's making this claim, that means they're about central.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 28/01/2022 16:26, MB wrote:
>
> You will need to go and pull down a few statues or burn a few buildings
> to get attention.

Well, I guess we could start with your home ...

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

Here at least, it's mostly the English whites complaining.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16:17 28 Jan 2022, MB said:
> 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.

The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.

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

Thank goodness Owen Jones is an opinion writer and not a reporter. He
must make a few shillings from all the newstalk shows his agent gets
him on.

On 15:11 28 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:

> 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..."

Murdoch is the owner of Times Radio, isn't he?

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> 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!

Only Connect, University Challenge. I have to say that I personally
find Pointless about as clever/inspiring as Tipping Point and The
Chase.

--
Chris Green
·

On 14:52 28 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> 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.

Did you see that Freedom of Information reply a few weeks ago about
Covid-only death certificates which Covidiots (including famed
nurse-doctor John Campbell) thought the 17,000 erroneous death
certificates were actually the true count of deaths caused by Covid? It
was an amazing reversal of the facts.

I'm no fan of the BBC but at least it doesn't make such howlers.

On Fri 28/01/2022 15:03, Indy Jess John wrote:
> 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.
>

A few little ones there Jim!

The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.

Define local area. There were local dialling codes for nearby towns,
such as 91, 92,.....96 etc. If you knew the code for the next area you
could chain dial. I used to use it to call from Derby station to
Chesterfield for 4d (or not - see below.) Dial the Ripley code, followed
by Alfreton, followed by Clay Cross followed by Chesterfield and the
number. Only catch was that there was no amplification so if you got
poor circuits you ended up having a shouted conversation!

Trunk calls were not quite so bad as you remember. Your local operator -
if they were not at the 'right' place on the system - would contact the
local regional operator who would connect to another region who would
connect to the local operator. When we lived in Leicester in the mid
50's we called Chesterfield. Leicester was a regional centre so would
connect to Sheffield who then connected to Chesterfield. If we wanted to
call an aunt in Peebles from Chesterfield the local operator would call
Sheffield who would link to Edinburgh and to Peebles. If there was a
local dialling code to direct dial Peebles numbers from Edinburgh
without going through a Peebles operator, the Edinburgh trunk op would
just dial the number directly. There was rarely any need to book UK
calls, except sometimes to NI. Any overseas call most certainly did need
booking and even then would cost you an arm and a leg.

Per making local calls, you could dial the number by tapping the handset
rest in a phone box and you would get through with speech enabled.

On 09:17 28 Jan 2022, Brian Gregory said:
> On 27/01/2022 23:14, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond
>>> the very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes.
>>> It's so refreshing.
>>
>> IMV, they ought to be renamed to "BigotsOnline"� again, every link
>> to their material that has been posted here has been a link to
>> bigoted shit.
>
> 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.

I hope GB News finds its feet because it would be useful to have a
counter to the established left-leaning broadcasters.

After a rocky start, GB News lurched too far towards the crackpot
right-wing which makes it a turn-off for less extreme viewers.

Nevertheless it is a breath of fresh air and an overdue platform for
non-conformist points of view.

One small success has been the surprisingly adept way it uses black
female presenters to argue against woke black privilege.

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.)

Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
production.

Perhaps they had more character then?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Indy Jess John wrote:

>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.

I heard that unscrupulous individuals would go to a remote box,
call, for instance, a rival taxi service, then leave the line off
the hook, unable to be cleared from the receiving end.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Fri 28/01/2022 12:59, Mark Carver 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.

Eddie Mair was best during the crash in 2007/8. Nils Blyth use to do a
finance report just after 17:30 which became known as Upshares
Downshares after the TV prog of a similar name. The next thing that
happened was people started sending in their own versions on the
original Upstairs Downstairs theme. We got versions in jazz, rock,
stylophone, Bach, church organ, Astrud Gilberto, and even the carillon
of the bells of York Minster! They eventually issued a CD of the lot (89
tracks) and sold it for a tenner apiece for charity - I don't know how
much they raised but ISTR they sold about 27K copies!

On 28/01/2022 11:11, Andy Burns wrote:
> Android Auto links my car to my phone, it can stream radioplayer (or
> podcasts etc) through the car's speakers.

Like my hundred year old iPhone then.

Bill

On 28/01/2022 17:35, Woody wrote:

> A few little ones there Jim!
>
> The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
> sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.

I think you're right about that. I can't remember which coins were
accepted, either, although I'm not sure that any "silver" was, perhaps
just "thrupny" bits.

> Define local area. There were local dialling codes for nearby towns,
> such as 91, 92,.....96 etc.

What year(s) are you referring to? In London there were no exchange
numbers before, I think, the 60s (hence the famous "Whitehall 1212" for
Scotland Yard). We lived in and commonly called relatives in London, and
all you had to remember was the exchange abbreviation and the specific
four numbers for their phone. I think that limitation of max 9999
separate lines for an exchange was the reason behind so many party lines.

More info at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Introduction_of_area_codes_and_local_dialling_codes_in_non-director_areas>
which supports what you were referring to.
and <http://rhaworth.net/phreak/tenp_01.php> (with some interesting
notes at the end)

--

Jeff

In article <st1c6u$1ta$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 17:35, Woody wrote:

> > A few little ones there Jim!
> >
> > The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
> > sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.

> I think you're right about that. I can't remember which coins were
> accepted, either, although I'm not sure that any "silver" was, perhaps
> just "thrupny" bits.

I know they took pennies - and I think there were 3 coin slots

[Snip]

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

In article <st14u3$457$3@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> 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.

Got to love him, he's in this video doing the rounds on twitter
today, it is amusing but worryingly close to true.

http://pic.twitter.com/383vvAxW8z

Bob.

On 28/01/2022 17:35, Woody wrote:
> On Fri 28/01/2022 15:03, Indy Jess John wrote:

> The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
> sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.

My memory of using the A/B system was in London in the 1950s, and I only
knew two numbers to call. You might be right about more than one slot,
but I only ever used the penny one and I would have been between 8 and
11 at the time so I was perhaps too short to see the slots.
>
> Define local area. There were local dialling codes for nearby towns,
> such as 91, 92,.....96 etc.

My local area was London, so I didn't have any need or knowledge of
onward linking codes. The info on trunk calls was from an aunt of mine
who worked for a short time as a local switchboard operator. She didn't
like the job and didn't stay in it very long so it is quite possible
that she didn't learn everything about it.
>
> Per making local calls, you could dial the number by tapping the handset
> rest in a phone box and you would get through with speech enabled.
>
I was told this, but I never succeeded in getting it to work. Perhaps I
was too fast or too slow or didn't leave the right interval between the
numbers.

One thing I was told, and it did work, was an engineer's test code. If I
dialled a certain number and hung up, the phone would be rung back 15
seconds later. So if I dialled the code, hung up and immediately left
the phone box, it just gave the next person time to get into it and
reach for the coins when the phone would ring. It was surprising how
many people wouldn't answer the ring. If they did answer it, they just
heard the dialling code.

Jim

On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
> Thank goodness Owen Jones is an opinion writer and not a reporter. He
> must make a few shillings from all the newstalk shows his agent gets
> him on.

A year or so ago, it was reckoned that he must be a millionaire with his
earnings from his book(s?) so he is one one the "wealthy" that he wants
to tax heavily.

On 28/01/2022 17:42, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>
> John Hall wrote:
>>
>> (Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
>> answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
>
> Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
> of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
> production.
>
> Perhaps they had more character then?

No, think Darwinian evolution: If you're a member of a tribe living a
subsistence lifestyle in difficult environmental conditions, there would
be zilch reason for the younger adults to keep the older adults alive if
all the old ones could remember was the same as all the young ones
remember. The benefit in keeping them alive comes from their long
recall dating back to before most people alive were born. If an old
person can remember: "Last time we had a drought like this, my
grandfather led us to a water hole about a day's walk to the northwest!"
and can thereby save the group including his own offspring, then that
will be much more useful to the group than remembering what happened
yesterday, because everyone else can remember that too.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 28/01/2022 17:42, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> 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.)
>
> Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
> of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
> production.
>
> Perhaps they had more character then?
>
> Chris

They did then, because buyers were picky about brand and aesthetics.
Nowadays, all the serious car reviews major on safety features and fuel
economy, so cars of all makes get designed by the same aerodynamics
algorithms and it is difficult to tell one from another.

This is made even worse by some similar models using the same chassis
despite being made by different companies. The Safety Standards are
partly to blame, because each new model has to be crash tested for
safety evaluation and that is expensive. Manufacturers protested that
this years model is X% of the previous model's parts (where X is a high
number) and the previous year's model's results would be the same. This
argument finally got resolved by the model being defined by the chassis,
which saved a lot of cars being written off but led to sharing such as
Volkswagen and Ford using the same chassis for their people carrier.

Jim

On 28/01/2022 19:08, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Got to love him, he's in this video doing the rounds on twitter
> today, it is amusing but worryingly close to true.
>
> h t t p : / / p i c . t w i t t e r . c o m / 3 8 3 v v A x W 8 z

No, it's just the usual right-wing bullshit propaganda.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.
>

The BBC seem to have promoted all the daytime cheap shit of yesteryear
to evening viewing

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Chris J Dixon" <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:qka8vgdd2cboinjjddm9d5cpf1u5ifku3b@4ax.com...
> Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
> of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
> production.
>
> Perhaps they had more character then?

My dad maintains that at the age of 3 I sat on his knee behind the wheel of
the car as he was parked waiting for mum outside a friend's house, at night,
and I was calling out "Ford Cortina", "Mini", "Ford Corsair", "Triumph
Herald", "Rover 2000" as each car approached. I was recognising the cars by
the pattern of their headlights and side lights.

You couldn't do that nowadays because almost all cars have a single cluster
that merges headlights, side lights, indicators etc into one amorphous blob.
And cars don't have chrome radiator grills and bumpers that can be
recognised, at least in daylight.

At least from the back there is a slightly greater chance of recognising
cars by their rear lights, but from the front it is very difficult.

"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:st19h5$cm4$1@dont-email.me...
>> As someone who does remember using a Button-A/Button-B callbox, I can say
>> that you are far too modern in your imagination.

I was right about Button A to connect the call and Button B to return unused
coins.

>> 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.

I knew that the phone sounded a gong for each coin inserted, but I thought
they accepted more that one type of coin and hence different slots and
gongs. Was there a later version which did accept larger-denomination coins
so you didn't have to carry around a huge stack of pennies but could instead
use a sixpence or a shilling if you wanted to make a longer call or a trunk
call?

Or did Button A/B phones allow you to insert more than just the four coins
and build up additional credit?

When were those phones replaced by the pay-on-answer ones, in relation to
local calls no longer being fixed price (a charge to set up the call but no
further charge no matter how long the call lasted)?

I've never used one. I remember my mum and dad pointing one out in a hotel
where we stayed on holiday, in 1970, which suggests that they were rare even
then. By the time I used payphones, all of them were pay-on-answer, with 5p
and 10p slots. What coins did those phones take just before decimalisation?
Was it 6d, 1s and 2s? Did they just block off the 6d slot on decimalisation
day? I ought to remember, but I can't. The 6d coin continued to be used
post-decimalisation, since it was worth 2 1/2 p, so maybe they continued to
accept the coin.

I notice that modern payphones charge a minimum of 60p for a call, but then
give you a very long time for that money, rather than charging a smaller
amount for a brief call. Spoilsports. How is reverse-charge costed? Does
that have a setup charge, or is it all done on connection time, but at a
higher rate than a dialled call? I imagine it is cheaper to make a reverse
charge call and then have the person phone you back, than it is to pay the
60p setup charge from a payphone. (Obviously different people pay in the two
cases!)

I remember an interesting scam with person-to-person calls, where you ask
the operator for the number and the name of the person you want to speak to,
and if the person isn't there, there's no charge. So enterprising people who
might use one of a small number of payphones would invent a series of names
of "people" so if someone received a person-to-person call for "Fred Bloggs"
they refused the call ("he's not here") but knew you were in call box 1,
whereas if the call was for "Joe Soap" they know you were in call box 2. And
then they'd ring you back on the relevant number. Cunning ;-)

I'm trying to remember when I last used a payphone. I doubt whether I have
done since I've had a mobile phone, so about 20 years.

>> 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.

Presumably there was a warning that gave you chance to insert more coins to
prolong the call. Or was it a fixed time with no option to extend it, as for
long-distance calls that you describe below?

>> 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.

I didn't know that long-distance calls were time-limited; I thought you
could stay on as long as you liked, and were charged for the connection
time.

>> 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.

I'm not old enough to remember having to book long-distance calls. Most
exchanges I called could be done by STD, and those that couldn't were
dialled on demand by the operator. I got the impression from the speed of
connection that the operator was able to directly-dial the call in a way
that the subscriber couldn't, without each operator needing to call the next
in the chain to setup the call.

I remember a myth that went round that you would be charged more for a local
(same or neighbouring exchange) call if you dialled its full STD code than
if you dialled the local exchange-specific code. I understand that this was
never true, although if you dialled the STD code the call might take a more
circuitous route because it had to go via the nearest GRACE routing point,
so you may get poorer sound quality - or sometimes better if the direct
local route was at the limit of an unamplified line and the GRACE route went
via an amplifier or two.

"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RxpUKsERPA9hFw2b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> 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.)

I find most quiz programmes have too much emphasis on tactics and
false-jeopardy of rounds and who's in the lead after each round.

The quiz I liked best was a bare-bones quiz where you never saw the
questioner and they didn't waste time being matey and putting the
contestants at their ease. It was simply a case of asking questions, with a
scoreboard which was only visible to the viewer, not to the contestants.

The questions are the interesting bit (can I answer before the contestant?)
and the rest is time-wasting dross.

OK, I'm a killjoy ;-)