In article <k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
> > that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
> > of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
> > vaguely out of the ordinary then.
> Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a > scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
Sam
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:21:42 +0100, The Real Doctor
> <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
> >> But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
> >> that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
> >> of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
> >> vaguely out of the ordinary then.
> >Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a > >scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
On Oct 26, 12:47 pm, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
> The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > > But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
> > > that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
> > > of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
> > > vaguely out of the ordinary then.
> > Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
> > scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
> TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
> remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
> In article<k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
> The Real Doctor<ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
>>> that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
>>> of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
>>> vaguely out of the ordinary then.
>> Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
>> scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
> TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
> remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
Live up till, IIRC 1972. It was then recorded "as live" the day before transmission. The rumour at the time was that it was because some of the young ladies were a bit too scantily clad!
> On Oct 26, 12:47 pm, Sam Wilson<Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article<k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
>> The Real Doctor<ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
>>>> that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
>>>> of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
>>>> vaguely out of the ordinary then.
>>> Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
>>> scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
>> TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
>> remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
> Pan's People were barely pre-watershed material.
On one occasion, literally so when Babs popped out of her top live on air. Happy days
On Oct 25, 4:28 pm, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk>
wrote:
> On 25/10/2012 15:21, MB wrote:
> > On 24/10/2012 21:21, Charlie Hulme wrote:
> >> If there is one channel that the BBC should cancel, it's surely
> >> BBC3.
> > Rather like calls to drop Radio 1 by the Radio 3 luvvies. It
> > overlooks people growing up with the BBC and progressing from
> > BBC3 to other channels.
> People these days will watch or listen to what suits them.
> There's no such the brand loyalty you imply. Radio 1 is, AIUI,
> not listened to by kids, but mainly 30-somethings.
Wasn't that an active decision some time ago. They decided that the
youth market was adequately served by the commercial sector, so Radio
1 should be targetted at the sort of thing that commercial radio can't
provide, namely an outlet to new and interesting music. I went
through a Radio 1 phase when I was younger, but settled on Radio 2 for
"light entertainment" type listening
> I never listen to Radio 3, but it's good that it exists.
Definitely my position also.
> > I very rarely watch BBC3 but they do
> > actually produce some good programmes amongst the youth stuff
> > (perhaps more than Channel 4 does now).
> Educational stuff like 'Unprotected sex in the city.' Ye gods.
Given the way it was trailed, I reckon had I been in the 15-21 age
bracket, I would probably have chosen to watch it. As it happened, I
did watch a good part of it (there really was nothing on at the
time). Considering the BBC's objective of "entertain, educate and
inform", I thought *for its target audience* it was actually a really
good example of this. It was just titillating enough to appeal to the
late adolescent/young adult who is at highest risk of STIs, it
presented the prospect of catching an STI as a really bad thing (the
reaction of the welsh guy when he thought he had caught HIV was really
quite moving), presented the clinic in a really non-threatenning way,
and even made you want to side with the mother of the badly behaved
daughter. As a way of getting the message of safe sex out to those
people most at need of hearing it, it seems to me to be way more
effective an idea than the sorts of put-the-condom-on-the-plastic-
phalus thing that we were made to endure at school.
77002 <e27...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:47 pm, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > In article <k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
> > The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > > > But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
> > > > that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
> > > > of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
> > > > vaguely out of the ordinary then.
> > > Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
> > > scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
> > TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
> > remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
> Pan's People were barely pre-watershed material.
At the time, and as an impressionable teenager, Pan's People seemed normal to me. Compared to what you see nowadays they were pretty mild.
Sam
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> On 26/10/2012 12:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > In article<k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
> > The Real Doctor<ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
> >>> But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
> >>> that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
> >>> of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
> >>> vaguely out of the ordinary then.
> >> Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
> >> scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
> > TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
> > remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
> Live up till, IIRC 1972. It was then recorded "as live" the day before > transmission. The rumour at the time was that it was because some of > the young ladies were a bit too scantily clad!
There were also recorded repeats of PP dances IIRC, though whether that was during the live days I'm not sure.
Sam
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> In article<03vis.75506$Ol2.29...@fx25.am4>,
> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/10/2012 12:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> In article<k6chiv$pq...@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Real Doctor<ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/12 13:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> But looking back a lot of TV from the 1970s was appalling, but I realise
>>>>> that may be not quite what you mean. JS draping himself around a bevy
>>>>> of teens whilst gurning on ToTP looks excruciating now but was only
>>>>> vaguely out of the ordinary then.
>>>> Have you ever seen 70's TOTP LPs in charity shops? Ever one has a
>>>> scantily clad young bimbo on the front.
>>> TOTP had scantily clad young ladies on (almost) live every week. I
>>> remember the 70s, though I'm too young to not remember the 60s.
>> Live up till, IIRC 1972. It was then recorded "as live" the day before
>> transmission. The rumour at the time was that it was because some of
>> the young ladies were a bit too scantily clad!
> There were also recorded repeats of PP dances IIRC, though whether that
> was during the live days I'm not sure.
The first time it was performed it would have been live. After the show we often did recordings of acts that wouldn't be available another week and sometimes PP performances.
This still happened once the programme went recorded.
>> I would not want to be the person passing bad news to Murdoch.
From On and off the Rails by Peter Rayner:
Starting on the Monday the Mirror train was to spend a day at ten
main centres, starting with Plymouth, and going around the country and
back south ending in Southampton. It was launched in Plymouth by a
meeting with the Lord Mayor and other political figures and Mr
Maxwell. I travelled on the train from Paddington and met Robert
Maxwell there. I had arranged for the train to be platformed in the
main departure platform at Paddington and all was ready for us to go.
We had two saloons on the train, one for Mr Maxwell personally, and
another, the normal officers saloon, for the people running the train
and the principal customers. We were all ready but, of course, Mr
Maxwell himself was late. This was the first occasion when I saw how
senior executives could be paralysed with fear of one human being. I
had worked within the railway, and indeed worked for Sir Robert Reid,
who managed by authority and respect, and to some extent many of us
were apprehensive of his wrath. However, I had never before seen the
fear that I saw in the eyes of the executives on that Daily Mirror
train. You can imagine the panic that ensued amongst the Mirror Group
of executives when I suggested that we would leave without Robert
Maxwell. In the end, I said to the senior executive present, who was
in fact perspiring with anxiety, that in three minutes time I would be
leaving, for I had spoken with the Area Manager at Paddington and
there was no way we were going to delay commuter trains and express
trains into Paddington for this one-off Exhibition Train on behalf of
Mr Maxwell. Indeed, I pointed out to Mirror Group executives that it
would be offering the rival newspapers headlines that the Mirror was
delaying the ordinary man in the street by the vanity of its
proprietor. One minute before my deadline Mr Maxwell appeared, a giant
of a man with his overcoat flung over his shoulders, walking slowly
and accompanied by even more perspiring executives. I greeted him and
opened the door of the train for him to get in, and he said: A photo-
call, I think, before we leave. It was suggested that if he were to
lean from the train as it went out then he might obtain the
photographs that he required from the people on the platform. I heard
him saying: Right, Im ready now, and then leaning from the train
saying to himself: Whisky, whisky, whisky. I was told later that the
mere saying of the word whisky makes it looks as if you are
smiling . . . and I must admit from that day onwards, whenever I have
been forced to be photographed in one form or another, I have
sometimes used the Maxwell ploy of smiling Whisky as a means of
making sure that I dont look too miserable. Bearing in mind I have
worked trains conveying all the members of the Royal Family at
different times, the journey to Plymouth was something which was
outside my experience. Mr Maxwell appeared to make demands on his
staff, each different from the one previously issued, and in some
cases countermanding the previous one. He even got me moving chairs
from one saloon to another, for halfway down the train he decided that
the chairs in the saloon that was not his saloon were better than the
chairs in the saloon that he was going to use. So he simply ordered
his executives to move the chairs from one saloon to another and this
meant carrying them the length of eight coaches, through all the
exhibition coaches that were set up as a newspaper publishing office.
But because he had asked for it, we did it. Because he had asked for
it we had his particular yoghurts in the fridge on the saloon and
because he asked for it we did all sorts of other things to please
him. I didnt remain with the train for the rest of the tour; however,
it was a success and the professionalism of the Mirror journalists was
not impaired by their master to any great extent, for he lost interest
in the tour after the first day or two in which he played God of the
train to his own satisfaction.
--
gordon
<afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 26/10/2012 01:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:29:23 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> There is a lot of difference; Maxwell/Hoch was a self-proclaimed war
>>>> criminal who could have been a candidate for the gallows.
>>> I didn't know that, Charles. I stand corrected.
>> When the Daily Mirror serialised his memoirs some years ago he boasted
>> about sneaking into a town (implicitly out of uniform) and summarily
>> executing the mayor before the Allies officially took over the
>> following day. He didn't use so few words but it was obvious what he
>> was claiming to have done.
>That is somewhat different to what Google finds the accusation/admission >was:
><quote>
>In his brief account to his wife of the incident, Maxwell recounted how >he summoned the mayor of a town his men had surrounded, then told him to >go back and tell the soldiers to surrender or face destruction. The >mayor returned to say the soldiers agreed to the demands.
>Maxwell wrote: "But as soon as we marched off, a German tank opened fire >on us. So I shot the mayor and withdrew."
>I suspect you would have quite a lot of old men swinging if you looked >too closely into this kind of thing happening in WWII.
Unlike Floating Bob, I doubt if most would have been boasting about
it. In past times there was also the practical effect that war crimes
were only committed by the losers.
>>>>> There is a lot of difference; Maxwell/Hoch was a self-proclaimed war
>>>>> criminal who could have been a candidate for the gallows.
>>>> I didn't know that, Charles. I stand corrected.
>>> When the Daily Mirror serialised his memoirs some years ago he boasted
>>> about sneaking into a town (implicitly out of uniform) and summarily
>>> executing the mayor before the Allies officially took over the
>>> following day. He didn't use so few words but it was obvious what he
>>> was claiming to have done.
>> That is somewhat different to what Google finds the accusation/admission
>> was:
>> <quote>
>> In his brief account to his wife of the incident, Maxwell recounted how
>> he summoned the mayor of a town his men had surrounded, then told him to
>> go back and tell the soldiers to surrender or face destruction. The
>> mayor returned to say the soldiers agreed to the demands.
>> Maxwell wrote: "But as soon as we marched off, a German tank opened fire
>> on us. So I shot the mayor and withdrew."
Though the available sources suggest it was not much like what was suggested above - surely if he had discarded his uniform and sneaked into a town, his enemies would have produced details by now? Has anyone even pinned down where this is supposed to have happened? German Wikipedia doesn't mention it.
Unfortunately even the factual Maxwell stuff which is online about him is filled with loony-attracting keywords (hmm, he was involved in a Jewish plot to cover up who shot JFK according to one).
With a date and army unit the location ought to be identifiable - people obsess over this kind of thing, someone must have checked it out?
>> I suspect you would have quite a lot of old men swinging if you looked
>> too closely into this kind of thing happening in WWII.
> Unlike Floating Bob, I doubt if most would have been boasting about
> it.
They don't have to boast, only admit. I've even seen museum displays on the subject, and some of the people could presumably have been traced. Some years ago I heard a local radio phone-in where an old man, clearly wanting to tell someone his story before he died, admitted to killing a Japanese POW. I wonder if he got a knock on the door from people who will never find themselves in a jungle knowing they are unlikely to become a POW themselves?
> In past times there was also the practical effect that war crimes
> were only committed by the losers.
And nowadays "war crime" seems to mean "crime committed during a war".
I guess shooting at soldiers (allegedly) from under a white flag isn't that bad really; Dresden blah not bombing Auschwitz blah not killing hundreds of thousands in a surface war in Japan blah Cromwell Amritsar Potato Famine Agincourt etc etc.
>>>>>> There is a lot of difference; Maxwell/Hoch was a self-proclaimed war
>>>>>> criminal who could have been a candidate for the gallows.
>>>>> I didn't know that, Charles. I stand corrected.
>>>> When the Daily Mirror serialised his memoirs some years ago he boasted
>>>> about sneaking into a town (implicitly out of uniform) and summarily
>>>> executing the mayor before the Allies officially took over the
>>>> following day. He didn't use so few words but it was obvious what he
>>>> was claiming to have done.
>>> That is somewhat different to what Google finds the accusation/admission
>>> was:
>>> <quote>
>>> In his brief account to his wife of the incident, Maxwell recounted how
>>> he summoned the mayor of a town his men had surrounded, then told him to
>>> go back and tell the soldiers to surrender or face destruction. The
>>> mayor returned to say the soldiers agreed to the demands.
>>> Maxwell wrote: "But as soon as we marched off, a German tank opened fire
>>> on us. So I shot the mayor and withdrew."
>Though the available sources suggest it was not much like what was >suggested above - surely if he had discarded his uniform and sneaked >into a town, his enemies would have produced details by now? Has anyone >even pinned down where this is supposed to have happened? German >Wikipedia doesn't mention it.
The Torygraph says "In a letter to his wife Betty, written from
occupied Germany in April 1945," which I would have thought should not
have escaped a censor unless it wasn't thought necessary by then.
>Unfortunately even the factual Maxwell stuff which is online about him >is filled with loony-attracting keywords (hmm, he was involved in a >Jewish plot to cover up who shot JFK according to one).
We now know that he wasn't exactly factual himself.
>With a date and army unit the location ought to be identifiable - people >obsess over this kind of thing, someone must have checked it out?
"Detectives had traced some former members of the platoon led by then
2/Lt Maxwell, but none of the men, all members of the 1/5th Queen's
Royal Regt, could confirm the anecdote in Mr Haines's biography."
according to the same article :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512682/Maxwell-war-crime-clai...
>>> I suspect you would have quite a lot of old men swinging if you looked
>>> too closely into this kind of thing happening in WWII.
>> Unlike Floating Bob, I doubt if most would have been boasting about
>> it.
>They don't have to boast, only admit. I've even seen museum displays on >the subject, and some of the people could presumably have been traced. >Some years ago I heard a local radio phone-in where an old man, clearly >wanting to tell someone his story before he died, admitted to killing a >Japanese POW. I wonder if he got a knock on the door from people who >will never find themselves in a jungle knowing they are unlikely to >become a POW themselves?
>> In past times there was also the practical effect that war crimes
>> were only committed by the losers.
>And nowadays "war crime" seems to mean "crime committed during a war".
>I guess shooting at soldiers (allegedly) from under a white flag isn't >that bad really; Dresden blah not bombing Auschwitz blah not killing >hundreds of thousands in a surface war in Japan blah Cromwell Amritsar >Potato Famine Agincourt etc etc.
>>>>>>> There is a lot of difference; Maxwell/Hoch was a self-proclaimed war
>>>>>>> criminal who could have been a candidate for the gallows.
>>>>>> I didn't know that, Charles. I stand corrected.
>>>>> When the Daily Mirror serialised his memoirs some years ago he boasted
>>>>> about sneaking into a town (implicitly out of uniform) and summarily
>>>>> executing the mayor before the Allies officially took over the
>>>>> following day. He didn't use so few words but it was obvious what he
>>>>> was claiming to have done.
>>>> That is somewhat different to what Google finds the accusation/admission
>>>> was:
>>>> <quote>
>>>> In his brief account to his wife of the incident, Maxwell recounted how
>>>> he summoned the mayor of a town his men had surrounded, then told him to
>>>> go back and tell the soldiers to surrender or face destruction. The
>>>> mayor returned to say the soldiers agreed to the demands.
>>>> Maxwell wrote: "But as soon as we marched off, a German tank opened fire
>>>> on us. So I shot the mayor and withdrew."
>> Though the available sources suggest it was not much like what was
>> suggested above - surely if he had discarded his uniform and sneaked
>> into a town, his enemies would have produced details by now? Has anyone
>> even pinned down where this is supposed to have happened? German
>> Wikipedia doesn't mention it.
> The Torygraph says "In a letter to his wife Betty, written from
> occupied Germany in April 1945," which I would have thought should not
> have escaped a censor unless it wasn't thought necessary by then.
The (alleged) text of the letter appears on Page 105 of "Maxwell" by Joe Haines. Part of it can be read on Google Books - search for surrender. Neither of my local library services has a copy.
>> Unfortunately even the factual Maxwell stuff which is online about him
>> is filled with loony-attracting keywords (hmm, he was involved in a
>> Jewish plot to cover up who shot JFK according to one).
> We now know that he wasn't exactly factual himself.
>> With a date and army unit the location ought to be identifiable - people
>> obsess over this kind of thing, someone must have checked it out?
> "Detectives had traced some former members of the platoon led by then
> 2/Lt Maxwell, but none of the men, all members of the 1/5th Queen's
> Royal Regt, could confirm the anecdote in Mr Haines's biography."
> according to the same article :-
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512682/Maxwell-war-crime-clai...
Like they couldn't confirm Martians landing, perhaps? Is there any cite for "sneaking into a town (implicitly out of uniform) and summarily executing the mayor before the Allies officially took over the following day", rather than what is described above?
> Neil Williams <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> >Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The lack of any HR responsibilities is certainly one of the advantages of
> >> hiring staff on service contracts rather than as employees, yes. That's not
> >> necessarily a bad thing; there are often good reasons why, particularly in
> >> some industries, its advantageous all round not to have them. But it does
> >> have the disadvantage that misbehaviour which would not be tolerated from
> >> an employee is tolerated in contractors, because there is neither any close
> >> oversight of their activities nor any effective sanction that can be
> >> applied short of terminating the contract.
> >I would have thought it was the other way round, as any sane business
> >ensures that such a contract has a very short get out period if they want
> >it, whereas permanent staff aren't as easy to get rid of, at least once the
> >probationary period is over.
> That's not the case, Neil. The probationary period doesn't suddenly
> end the right of the employer to dismiss an employee without having to
> go through complex and onerous procedures.
> Anyone appointed on or after 6 April 2012 can be dismissed within the
> first two years' employment without being able to claim unfair
> dismissal. The employer doesn't even have to give a reason. The only
> cost to the employer is that the appropriate period of notice must be
> given, or pay in lieu of notice at the employer's discretion.
> Anyone appointed before 6 April 2012 can be dismissed within the first
> year's employment without being able to claim unfair dismissal. The
> period was reduced by the Blair government from two years to one, and
> the Coalition has since returned it to two.
That illustrates nicely, despite all of New Labour's faults, precisely
whose side the Tories are on.
New Labour may have been bad but this lot are far worse.
What's the maximum penalty for fare-dodging? If so I know of someone
who it should be applied to...
In message <ficj8856s5nbuj4deejvjq5i0upvnfh...@4ax.com>, at 22:54:30 on Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Charles Ellson <ce11...@yahoo.ca> remarked:
>>>I got Sky briefly in the 90's, naively thinking that paying would mean
>>>no adverts. Never again.
>>Sky has changed substantially since then, but still has lots of
>>adverts. I *think* they are allowed to show more minutes per hour of
>>adverts than terrestrial broadcasters. Perhaps it just seems that
>>way.
>OFCOM allows 12 min maximum per hour except for "public service"
>channels which are limited to 7-8 minutes (with some averaging across
>the day) except when broadcasting teleshopping during permitted
>times
The majority of imported US shows are 42 minutes long. Something has to fill the remaining 18 minutes. ITV's 2hour dramas are in fact 1:54 long on average, with six minutes of fluff and adverts beginning and end.
Within each such drama there are six breaks of four minutes (almost exactly, depending on whether you count the "Sponsors message" as an advert - I've always assumed it was a loophole and therefore not - which gives a net content of one hour thirty minutes (1:54 - 6*0:04).
So one way or another 15 minutes of non-content per hour.
-- Roland Perry
