The BBC are saying that Lord Pearson has recorded an interview to be shown over the weekend for BBC's Hardtalk programme with Brillo, and have revealled that UKIP will not be standing against Conservatives Philip Davies, Doug Carswell & Phillip Hollobone and "at least" one unnammed Labour MP who are all well know EU Sceptic MP's.
Lord Pearson is also quoted as saying that if David Cameron wins a working majority at the election it "is certainly the end of this country".
I will have to do my best to catch this interview as this is the stuff I have been writing about for some time now.
Congratulations to UKIP for putting country before party by not running against MP's of similar conviction who wish to see the people of the UK be granted a referendum on EU membership.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Friday, April 09, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why People Hate Politicians - Part 3
Nicholas Winterton is another one who thinks he is better than the rest of us. I have only today had chance to listen to the interview, which if I can figure out how to do, I will embed it here.
In the Interview he says there is:
In the Interview he says there is:
A totally different type of people in standard class [trains carriages]He continues
If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction.And then
They are a totally different type of people.He also remarked that it was a
There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling
Grotesque injustice that the expenses system had been misrepresented by the mediaFunnily enough he and his wife are stepping down at the next election after revelations about thier own Mortgage claims. Perhaps then Mr Winterton can travel first class all he likes on Private Sector money. Bye bye, you are another one who will not be missed.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
IPCC - More Gates Than Wickes
Dr North takes the lead again in the fight back against the IPCC, with another revelation about the 2007 IPCC report which bogusly claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers would have melted in the next 25 years. That revelation showed that this was an entirely false claim and has rippled around the world and is what we know as Glaciergate.
Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.
Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.
The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are notmotivated scared into making changes that mean we become consumers to their new markets, and that existing corporations through the necessity of following their consumers move too. Many in fact are financially invested in the inevitability of this future.
So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.
The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.
Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.
Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.
An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.
A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular. I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.
Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:
The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.
Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.
The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.
It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).
When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.
If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?
The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.
Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.
Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.
Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.
The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are not
So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.
The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.
Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.
Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.
An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.
A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular. I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.
Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:
“The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.So, will the BBC now change its editorial line? No, it will not. Why, because even if it was conclusively proven that CO2 was not linked to man-made climate change their pensions and financial security is on the line. The Climate Change argument allowed them to push their viewers towards a lifestyle they largely believe is better, but it is rooted in a fictional belief. Contrast the money invested globally in efforts to prove the CO2 link to Climate Change and that invested to disprove it, and the BBC has years worth of stories to follow Scientist’s efforts to look in a single direction, and to push for a change in lifestyle that they approve of.
“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”
The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.
Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.
The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.
It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).
When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.
If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?
The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.
Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Random Thoughts #3
Now that Chris Mounsey (aka Devil's Kitchen) is the leader of The Libertarian Party UK, I wonder how long will it be before he gets an invite onto BBC's Question Time?
Friday, October 23, 2009
QT Last Night
I was going to post my thoughts here on QT last night, but Blogger has been down all morning and I have to start work in the next few minutes.
I would like to hear what people's opinions are on the appearance of Nick Griffin, and also, if anyone saw the early part of This Week on their theory that voters in London being more sophisticated; and thus reject the BNP but those of us not fortunate enough to benefit from living in the capital are ignorant, unfeeling and/or uneducated becuase we can't see what the BNP is really about. [Their arguement, which of course completely failed to acknowledge the BNP presence on the London Assembly.]
Anyway off to work, more later.
I would like to hear what people's opinions are on the appearance of Nick Griffin, and also, if anyone saw the early part of This Week on their theory that voters in London being more sophisticated; and thus reject the BNP but those of us not fortunate enough to benefit from living in the capital are ignorant, unfeeling and/or uneducated becuase we can't see what the BNP is really about. [Their arguement, which of course completely failed to acknowledge the BNP presence on the London Assembly.]
Anyway off to work, more later.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
An Observation
The nation is in frenzy. Not since England’s last appearance at a summer tournament (coming on for 4 years ago) can I recall so many people all talking about the same thing.
As peoples focus is on politics today, it might be a good idea if the mainstream parties took full advantage and talk about how mass engagement in politics is a good thing.
I feel a little like I am in bizarro world today. For the first time ever I don't want Jack Straw or Chris Huhne to be on the end of a resounding spanking on QT. Let's hope for a good debate, and some talk from the big parties on getting people back to work immigration and yes, Europe.
As peoples focus is on politics today, it might be a good idea if the mainstream parties took full advantage and talk about how mass engagement in politics is a good thing.
I feel a little like I am in bizarro world today. For the first time ever I don't want Jack Straw or Chris Huhne to be on the end of a resounding spanking on QT. Let's hope for a good debate, and some talk from the big parties on getting people back to work immigration and yes, Europe.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tit For Tat - Which Is A Bigger Waste Of Public Money?
BBC News Readers or Politicians?
I don't like paying as much as we have to for either.
I don't like paying as much as we have to for either.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Guido vs Dolly
If you didn't see it earlier, here are the videos of Guido vs Dolly.
I am glad that the BBC found time to show a clip from Daniel Hannan's speech, but I suspect it will still be absent from tea-time telly on the Beeb tonight. They may poorly claim that not many people know about Daniel Hannan, but they fail to realise that a tax-payer funded broadcaster must take a big chunk of the blame for that given Daniel's tireless work. A balanced broadcaster would have long ago picked up Daniel's work and given him some airtime. The Beeb has been shown up by Fox News. I imagine some BBC news editors sneer at Fox News, but they are more balanced than the BBC and they have scooped them on this.
Anyway, once you have watched the above, come join in the banter and make Question Time bearable by live blogging with us over at Biased BBC.
I am glad that the BBC found time to show a clip from Daniel Hannan's speech, but I suspect it will still be absent from tea-time telly on the Beeb tonight. They may poorly claim that not many people know about Daniel Hannan, but they fail to realise that a tax-payer funded broadcaster must take a big chunk of the blame for that given Daniel's tireless work. A balanced broadcaster would have long ago picked up Daniel's work and given him some airtime. The Beeb has been shown up by Fox News. I imagine some BBC news editors sneer at Fox News, but they are more balanced than the BBC and they have scooped them on this.
Anyway, once you have watched the above, come join in the banter and make Question Time bearable by live blogging with us over at Biased BBC.
Friday, March 06, 2009
ITV Cutbacks
I was saddened this week to read that ITV needs to make cutbacks in order to survive. Mainly because ITV is a welcomed UK alternative to the BBC.
I do not know all the in's and outs but it does seem that ITV has a lot of regulatory targets to meet which seem outdated and a burden in the world of digital TV. We still have a bloated BBC and Channel 4 that can be regulated and over burdened by regulations, the BBC is proped up by tax payers to allow that to happen. ITV should have been cut lose a long time ago.
However, it would also seem that ITV has been making mistakes. ITV Digital's collapse is still fresh in the mind, and since then the notable purchase of Friends Reunited must surly rank as an outright failure.
ITV faces big challenges, it will need to shrink before it grow again. It's top stars may need to take pay cuts if they want a new "golden handcuffs" deal. 600 Job losses have been announced as well as other cost cutting measures.
Favourite shows are being cancelled or reduced such as the Bill, Heartbeat and the Royal.
I have noticed in recent years that as ITV has expanded the overall quality has dipped, and a further dip could see ratings plummet. As ITV has moved into the digital world, too many programmes include the same conveyor belt of z-listers on some kind of circuit. To people like myself that have no earthly concern for these people it does tend to preclude a number of shows from my watch list and I increasingly find myself cutting in and out of programmes to skip the latest tabloid tease "keeping it real". This is of course not just ITV but TV as a whole.
Anyway, I was giving it some thought and I had a couple of ideas for low cost TV that would not be scrapping the barrel, well not too much anyway. With the fear that more "reality" shows are coming I thought I would put my ideas here and encourage others to do the same.
Idea 1. To steal the format of Question Time and put a competitive show up against it at the same time. QT gets a lot of press and can be unnecessarily dull some weeks. I log-on to live-blog with Biased BBC and share my frustrations with others each week. An ITV alternative could also redress the left wing bias that QT exhibits most weeks and could perhaps make QT on the BBC up its game and try a bit harder.
It would be fairly cheap (I would imagine) as the biggest contributor is the attending audience with the questions. A host would be required, some guests might appear for free or a low fee if they have a book to promote or an agenda they wish to discuss.
An extension on the idea would be to hold it in a pub to make it a little livelier. Though some weeks this could admittedly descend into chaos.
Idea 2. Another panel show that perhaps does not have many years in it but could be really good in the short term. The idea is to pit believers against non-believers on topics of paranormal and extraterrestrial basis and of some wilder conspiracy theories. A two hour show where by the first 40 minutes is given to the believers to make a case, the next 40 to the doubters to dispute and then the last 40 to audience and neutrals. A text vote could be employed to boost revenues.
Shows could include the existence (or not) of, Ghosts, or spirit people, Roswell, JFK plots, Big Foot, Area 51 etc...
Idea 3. Polytechnic Challenge. A cross between University Challenge and Blockbusters. Teams of students representing universities on general knowledge and contemporary topics. Not as hard as University Challenge so that more people can play along at home. Again Contestants would not need to be paid, so would just need a host and a time slot. Also, the format should be quick fire questions rather than this whole slow-burning, music playing, non-suspense, suspense.
Idea 4. Drama school. Let Drama schools make their own programmes and put them on late at night. Would attract a student audience, would be free and could unearth a few gems.
Feel free to add you own.
I do not know all the in's and outs but it does seem that ITV has a lot of regulatory targets to meet which seem outdated and a burden in the world of digital TV. We still have a bloated BBC and Channel 4 that can be regulated and over burdened by regulations, the BBC is proped up by tax payers to allow that to happen. ITV should have been cut lose a long time ago.
However, it would also seem that ITV has been making mistakes. ITV Digital's collapse is still fresh in the mind, and since then the notable purchase of Friends Reunited must surly rank as an outright failure.
ITV faces big challenges, it will need to shrink before it grow again. It's top stars may need to take pay cuts if they want a new "golden handcuffs" deal. 600 Job losses have been announced as well as other cost cutting measures.
Favourite shows are being cancelled or reduced such as the Bill, Heartbeat and the Royal.
I have noticed in recent years that as ITV has expanded the overall quality has dipped, and a further dip could see ratings plummet. As ITV has moved into the digital world, too many programmes include the same conveyor belt of z-listers on some kind of circuit. To people like myself that have no earthly concern for these people it does tend to preclude a number of shows from my watch list and I increasingly find myself cutting in and out of programmes to skip the latest tabloid tease "keeping it real". This is of course not just ITV but TV as a whole.
Anyway, I was giving it some thought and I had a couple of ideas for low cost TV that would not be scrapping the barrel, well not too much anyway. With the fear that more "reality" shows are coming I thought I would put my ideas here and encourage others to do the same.
Idea 1. To steal the format of Question Time and put a competitive show up against it at the same time. QT gets a lot of press and can be unnecessarily dull some weeks. I log-on to live-blog with Biased BBC and share my frustrations with others each week. An ITV alternative could also redress the left wing bias that QT exhibits most weeks and could perhaps make QT on the BBC up its game and try a bit harder.
It would be fairly cheap (I would imagine) as the biggest contributor is the attending audience with the questions. A host would be required, some guests might appear for free or a low fee if they have a book to promote or an agenda they wish to discuss.
An extension on the idea would be to hold it in a pub to make it a little livelier. Though some weeks this could admittedly descend into chaos.
Idea 2. Another panel show that perhaps does not have many years in it but could be really good in the short term. The idea is to pit believers against non-believers on topics of paranormal and extraterrestrial basis and of some wilder conspiracy theories. A two hour show where by the first 40 minutes is given to the believers to make a case, the next 40 to the doubters to dispute and then the last 40 to audience and neutrals. A text vote could be employed to boost revenues.
Shows could include the existence (or not) of, Ghosts, or spirit people, Roswell, JFK plots, Big Foot, Area 51 etc...
Idea 3. Polytechnic Challenge. A cross between University Challenge and Blockbusters. Teams of students representing universities on general knowledge and contemporary topics. Not as hard as University Challenge so that more people can play along at home. Again Contestants would not need to be paid, so would just need a host and a time slot. Also, the format should be quick fire questions rather than this whole slow-burning, music playing, non-suspense, suspense.
Idea 4. Drama school. Let Drama schools make their own programmes and put them on late at night. Would attract a student audience, would be free and could unearth a few gems.
Feel free to add you own.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Crime Is Up, Crime Is Down..... Thanks BBC
The BBC reported today that reported crime numbers are up. The figures are as follows:
Knife/Sharp Instrument Robbery - Up 18%
Fraud/Forgery - Up 16%
Drugs - Up 9%
Home Burglary - Up 4%
Other Burglary - Up 3%
However, at the same time, a separate BBC report states that crime numbers are down. The key points being:
Gun Crime - Down 26%
Knife Crime - Down 12%
Robbery - Down 17%
Rapes and Domestic violence - Both Up
The difference between them being that the figures that show the increase are for the UK, where as the figures showing a reduction are for London only.
The two BBC reports, despite being online do not make reference to each other.
So let me ask the question. How is it that crime nationally continues to rise, but crime in London is falling? Could the answer be that in London the Met Police Authority is Chaired by the Mayor, currently Boris Johnson? This is not a Tory/Labour Comparison, as the figures show in London year-on-year trends meaning this is a continuation of a trend started under former Mayor Ken Livingstone. It is the only authority in England that is not completely controlled from Centralised targets sent down from the Home Office, and where the Met Authority has a say on policing, rather than the Chief Constable rolling out initiatives based on centrally set Home Office targets.
Could this be the real evidence that can be used to further the case for locally elected sheriffs and/or elected Police Commissioners? With the Mayor being an elected official in London chairing the Met Authorities meetings we can see a tangible link between an elected official conveying the concerns of the public that they are elected to represent.
A convincing case for local Sheriff's has been made by Daniel Hannan and Doug Carswell in their book The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. I must confess that I was sceptical about local Sheriffs until I read their proposal, but they won me over on this particular point.
Knife/Sharp Instrument Robbery - Up 18%
Fraud/Forgery - Up 16%
Drugs - Up 9%
Home Burglary - Up 4%
Other Burglary - Up 3%
However, at the same time, a separate BBC report states that crime numbers are down. The key points being:
Gun Crime - Down 26%
Knife Crime - Down 12%
Robbery - Down 17%
Rapes and Domestic violence - Both Up
The difference between them being that the figures that show the increase are for the UK, where as the figures showing a reduction are for London only.
The two BBC reports, despite being online do not make reference to each other.
So let me ask the question. How is it that crime nationally continues to rise, but crime in London is falling? Could the answer be that in London the Met Police Authority is Chaired by the Mayor, currently Boris Johnson? This is not a Tory/Labour Comparison, as the figures show in London year-on-year trends meaning this is a continuation of a trend started under former Mayor Ken Livingstone. It is the only authority in England that is not completely controlled from Centralised targets sent down from the Home Office, and where the Met Authority has a say on policing, rather than the Chief Constable rolling out initiatives based on centrally set Home Office targets.
Could this be the real evidence that can be used to further the case for locally elected sheriffs and/or elected Police Commissioners? With the Mayor being an elected official in London chairing the Met Authorities meetings we can see a tangible link between an elected official conveying the concerns of the public that they are elected to represent.
A convincing case for local Sheriff's has been made by Daniel Hannan and Doug Carswell in their book The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. I must confess that I was sceptical about local Sheriffs until I read their proposal, but they won me over on this particular point.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Breaking news from the BBC 10pm News
The reason the "Millennium Bridge" in London was prone to swaying was NOT a design flaw. It has, after a lengthy and costly investigation been attributed to the forces those people walking over the bridge were exerting.
....and i didn't just make that up.
....and i didn't just make that up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)