BBC One HD in Scotland
Scott
and BBC One cannot, even though they both use the same multiplex? (I
know there are sometimes advantages in having the choice, but that is
a different issue.)
Mark Carver
You asked the same question last November ?
The same answer probably still applies.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Scott
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> How come STV manage to show the Scottish programmes in HD in Scotland
>> and BBC One cannot, even though they both use the same multiplex? (I
>> know there are sometimes advantages in having the choice, but that is
>> a different issue.)
>
>You asked the same question last November ?
>
><https://groups.google.com/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/browse_thread/thread/47ffcee23b2fd0bd/7786fa9b518ec9c0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=scott++bbc+hd+why#7786fa9b518ec9c0>
>
>The same answer probably still applies.
Quote -
>One possible reason: Lack of narrow beam transponder space to carry BBC 1
>Scotland on satellite, and as part of the BBC's 'platform neutrality' then it
>could not be carried on DTT or D-Cab.
I was hoping for something more than speculation.
Mark Carver
Write to the Beeb and ask them then, it'll probably be the above, and/or lack
of available funds, they would still need to update their Glasgow pres area,
and that would cost a fair bit of money.
Scott
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:40:48 +0000, Mark Carver
>> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> How come STV manage to show the Scottish programmes in HD in Scotland
>>>> and BBC One cannot, even though they both use the same multiplex? (I
>>>> know there are sometimes advantages in having the choice, but that is
>>>> a different issue.)
>>> You asked the same question last November ?
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/browse_thread/thread/47ffcee23b2fd0bd/7786fa9b518ec9c0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=scott++bbc+hd+why#7786fa9b518ec9c0>
>>>
>>> The same answer probably still applies.
>>
>> Quote -
>>
>>> One possible reason: Lack of narrow beam transponder space to carry BBC 1
>>> Scotland on satellite, and as part of the BBC's 'platform neutrality' then it
>>> could not be carried on DTT or D-Cab.
>>
>> I was hoping for something more than speculation.
>
>Write to the Beeb and ask them then, it'll probably be the above, and/or lack
>of available funds, they would still need to update their Glasgow pres area,
>and that would cost a fair bit of money.
I might well make a freedom of information request, and will post the
response.
Generally, the vast majority of people on this group are very helpful
in providing information so I thought it was worth asking here first.
Zathras
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>I was hoping for something more than speculation.
Although mostly a high definition capable building, BBC Scotland's HQ
has (bizarrely IMHO) standard definition presentation facilities.
--
Z
Scott
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:40:48 +0000, Mark Carver
>> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> How come STV manage to show the Scottish programmes in HD in Scotland
>>>> and BBC One cannot, even though they both use the same multiplex? (I
>>>> know there are sometimes advantages in having the choice, but that is
>>>> a different issue.)
>>> You asked the same question last November ?
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/browse_thread/thread/47ffcee23b2fd0bd/7786fa9b518ec9c0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=scott++bbc+hd+why#7786fa9b518ec9c0>
>>>
>>> The same answer probably still applies.
>>
>> Quote -
>>
>>> One possible reason: Lack of narrow beam transponder space to carry BBC 1
>>> Scotland on satellite, and as part of the BBC's 'platform neutrality' then it
>>> could not be carried on DTT or D-Cab.
>>
>> I was hoping for something more than speculation.
>
>Write to the Beeb and ask them then, it'll probably be the above, and/or lack
>of available funds, they would still need to update their Glasgow pres area,
>and that would cost a fair bit of money.
I sent the BBC a freedom of information request yesterday. I asked
them if the issue is (a) technical, (b) financial or (c) policy
relating to platform neutrality. I also asked when the position is
likely to change and if individual 'nations' such as BBC Scotland
would be constrained to a uniform timescale.
I will update when I receive a reply for those who may be interested.
I appreciate the practical effect in England is less than in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
Zathras
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>I sent the BBC a freedom of information request yesterday. I asked
>them if the issue is (a) technical, (b) financial or (c) policy
>relating to platform neutrality.
Guessing, the answer might be (a) *and* (b) followed by a statement
saying they *are* platform neutral.
I doubt if the BBC consider HD and SD as 'platforms' in the context of
their 'platform neutrality' stance. I always thought that term applied
more to things like 'satellite' and 'terrestrial'. As such, the
'content' is available on all platforms though not in all formats. I'd
be surprised if this changes much because of a chronic reduction in
funding.
>I also asked when the position is
>likely to change and if individual 'nations' such as BBC Scotland
>would be constrained to a uniform timescale.
I think there are plans, but money is a real problem at the BBC these
days. They are focusing on increasing 'quality' by shrinking what they
do. I've no idea whether 'quality' is mainly technical or artistic but
I'm tempted to suggest it will be the latter.
--
Z
Scott
<webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:57:53 +0100, Scott
><newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I sent the BBC a freedom of information request yesterday. I asked
>>them if the issue is (a) technical, (b) financial or (c) policy
>>relating to platform neutrality.
>
>Guessing, the answer might be (a) *and* (b) followed by a statement
>saying they *are* platform neutral.
>
>I doubt if the BBC consider HD and SD as 'platforms' in the context of
>their 'platform neutrality' stance. I always thought that term applied
>more to things like 'satellite' and 'terrestrial'. As such, the
>'content' is available on all platforms though not in all formats. I'd
>be surprised if this changes much because of a chronic reduction in
>funding.
I think that was the very point Mark was making. Offering BBC
Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite would
infringe platform neutrality rules.
>
>>I also asked when the position is
>>likely to change and if individual 'nations' such as BBC Scotland
>>would be constrained to a uniform timescale.
>
>I think there are plans, but money is a real problem at the BBC these
>days. They are focusing on increasing 'quality' by shrinking what they
>do. I've no idea whether 'quality' is mainly technical or artistic but
>I'm tempted to suggest it will be the latter.
I'm still puzzled where the money comes in. AIUI not every programme
on BBC One HD is made in high definition. Those that are not are
upscaled. So if (say) Reporting Scotland [1] is not made in HD it
could be upscaled. The continuity may be an issue I suppose but you
never see continuity announcers and it usually consists of trailers of
some form, often the same trailers as shown in England.
Maybe the hardware for upscaling is expensive. I am hoping the BBC
will provide some information.
There is no doubt it is possible to transmit a Scottish programme as
part of the HD multiplex as STV do this.
[1] Other nations/regions exist also.
Mark Carver
>
> Maybe the hardware for upscaling is expensive. I am hoping the BBC
> will provide some information.
An upconverter is in the ballpark of 10k UKP, however that's only a small cost
compared to the complete upgrade of BBC Scotland's pres and playout system
from SD to HD.
You're talking about a ballpark figure of about a million UKP I suspect,
assuming all the kit requires replacing.
Scott
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the hardware for upscaling is expensive. I am hoping the BBC
>> will provide some information.
>
>An upconverter is in the ballpark of 10k UKP, however that's only a small cost
>compared to the complete upgrade of BBC Scotland's pres and playout system
>from SD to HD.
>You're talking about a ballpark figure of about a million UKP I suspect,
>assuming all the kit requires replacing.
I will let the group know when I receive a reply to my FOI request.
Zathras
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite would
>infringe platform neutrality rules.
But BBC Scotland *is* available on both platforms. Please quote the
*rule* that has been broken.
>I'm still puzzled where the money comes in.
The BBC isn't end to end HD at present and it costs money to make it
so. This money doesn't grow on trees and the license fee has been
stretched for as long as I can remember. I'm led to believe that some
BBC technical budgets have now been reduced to nothing, zero (£0). Go
figure what you can do with that kind of money.
Add to that, if you outsource your tech support then everything they
do becomes chargeable and that money is cash leaving the BBC.
> AIUI not every programme on BBC One HD is made in high definition.
> Those that are not are
>upscaled. So if (say) Reporting Scotland is not made in HD it
>could be upscaled. The continuity may be an issue I suppose but you
>never see continuity announcers and it usually consists of trailers of
>some form, often the same trailers as shown in England.
Programmes pass through continuity/presentation mixers (for branding
with local identities, subtitles, trails etc) on their way to the
transmitters or satellite uplinks. If you have SD pres and an HD
programme then you get SD transmission via down converters before
pres.
>Maybe the hardware for upscaling is expensive. I am hoping the BBC
>will provide some information.
AFAICT, no digital broadcast kit is cheap. Don't forget that the
infrastructure for HD is *massively* expensive. All the way from solid
state acquisition, editing/storage (good grief!), to tx. Much of it is
superceded or falls out of realistic support many years earlier than
the analogue kit of the good old days. This is a financial nightmare
for broadcasters, as was alluded to recently by someone high up in the
BBC (can't remember who).
If you stand back a bit, you can see the problem. Digital technology
is advancing roughly in line with Moore's Law. Problems arise if you
are a consumer of such technology and don't have much money and
previous generations have sold all the family silver to make progress
(Transmitters, OBs, Presentation etc..).
>There is no doubt it is possible to transmit a Scottish programme as
>part of the HD multiplex as STV do this.
A minnow can change direction a lot faster than a whale.
--
Z
Scott
<webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:09:28 +0100, Scott
><newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite would
>>infringe platform neutrality rules.
>
>But BBC Scotland *is* available on both platforms. Please quote the
>*rule* that has been broken.
It was Mark's point, so maybe he will comment.
AIUI the point was that if the BBC puts BBC One Scotland on
terrestrial HD they may consider they have to put it on satellite in
HD also. The logic I suppose is that the licence-payers who cannot
receive terrestrial television (many of whom will probably be in
Scotland) should not receive a lesser service.
>
>>I'm still puzzled where the money comes in.
>
>The BBC isn't end to end HD at present and it costs money to make it
>so. This money doesn't grow on trees and the license fee has been
>stretched for as long as I can remember. I'm led to believe that some
>BBC technical budgets have now been reduced to nothing, zero (£0). Go
>figure what you can do with that kind of money.
>
>Add to that, if you outsource your tech support then everything they
>do becomes chargeable and that money is cash leaving the BBC.
>
>> AIUI not every programme on BBC One HD is made in high definition.
>> Those that are not are
>>upscaled. So if (say) Reporting Scotland is not made in HD it
>>could be upscaled. The continuity may be an issue I suppose but you
>>never see continuity announcers and it usually consists of trailers of
>>some form, often the same trailers as shown in England.
>
>Programmes pass through continuity/presentation mixers (for branding
>with local identities, subtitles, trails etc) on their way to the
>transmitters or satellite uplinks. If you have SD pres and an HD
>programme then you get SD transmission via down converters before
>pres.
As you yourself said earlier, it is bizarre this was not done when PQ
was built.
>
>>Maybe the hardware for upscaling is expensive. I am hoping the BBC
>>will provide some information.
>
>AFAICT, no digital broadcast kit is cheap. Don't forget that the
>infrastructure for HD is *massively* expensive. All the way from solid
>state acquisition, editing/storage (good grief!), to tx. Much of it is
>superceded or falls out of realistic support many years earlier than
>the analogue kit of the good old days. This is a financial nightmare
>for broadcasters, as was alluded to recently by someone high up in the
>BBC (can't remember who).
>
>If you stand back a bit, you can see the problem. Digital technology
>is advancing roughly in line with Moore's Law. Problems arise if you
>are a consumer of such technology and don't have much money and
>previous generations have sold all the family silver to make progress
>(Transmitters, OBs, Presentation etc..).
That's alright then :-) The present equipment won't last for very
long and when it needs replaced HD kit will cost next to nothing.
Sorted :-)
>
>>There is no doubt it is possible to transmit a Scottish programme as
>>part of the HD multiplex as STV do this.
>
>A minnow can change direction a lot faster than a whale.
True but does the STV minnow now have to swim alongside the ITV whale?
J G Miller
> Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite
> would infringe platform neutrality rules.
Has offering BBC Alba only only on satellite for the past 12 months or
more been an infringement of these rules?
Does offering BBC Streams 2(?)-7 (not sure about the exact numbering)
only on satellite infringe these rules?
Zathras
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:54:44 +0100, Zathras
><webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Programmes pass through continuity/presentation mixers (for branding
>>with local identities, subtitles, trails etc) on their way to the
>>transmitters or satellite uplinks. If you have SD pres and an HD
>>programme then you get SD transmission via down converters before
>>pres.
>
>As you yourself said earlier, it is bizarre this was not done when PQ
>was built.
The reason could only have been money unless the necessary kit wasn't
actually available at the time of building. PQ was a pioneer in it's
technology when it was planned and built. IFAIK, in terms of scope and
reach, it's still the biggest Avid site in the world (unless that's
changed in the last few months).
>>AFAICT, no digital broadcast kit is cheap. Don't forget that the
>>infrastructure for HD is *massively* expensive. All the way from solid
>>state acquisition, editing/storage (good grief!), to tx. Much of it is
>>superceded or falls out of realistic support many years earlier than
>>the analogue kit of the good old days. This is a financial nightmare
>>for broadcasters, as was alluded to recently by someone high up in the
>>BBC (can't remember who).
>>
>>If you stand back a bit, you can see the problem. Digital technology
>>is advancing roughly in line with Moore's Law. Problems arise if you
>>are a consumer of such technology and don't have much money and
>>previous generations have sold all the family silver to make progress
>>(Transmitters, OBs, Presentation etc..).
>
>That's alright then :-) The present equipment won't last for very
>long and when it needs replaced HD kit will cost next to nothing.
>Sorted :-)
Doesn't really work that way. Complexity and sophistication go up to
ensure prices remain high. It's a brave man that puts cheap stuff into
a busy Pres environment.
--
Z
Zathras
wrote:
Quite. There are rules and there is blue sky thinking. IMHO, the
platform neutrality stance was always going to be closer to BST than a
rule to be obeyed at all times.
Also, actions have consequences. Alba is going on Freeview but there
will be a corresponding loss of radio as a result. Choices have to be
made when there are limited resources.
--
Z
Mark Carver
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:54:44 +0100, Zathras
> <webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:09:28 +0100, Scott
>> <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite would
>>> infringe platform neutrality rules.
>> But BBC Scotland *is* available on both platforms. Please quote the
>> *rule* that has been broken.
>
> It was Mark's point, so maybe he will comment.
OK I will !
I've never been certain the the Beeb have ever played the 'platform
neutrality' card. BBC Alba is an exception that breaks it of course (and I did
make that point when we first visited this topic in Nov 2010).
It's possible, but as Zathras has confirmed what I suspected, that BBC Glasgow
pres is all 'SD', then that's the primary impediment IMO. If the pres was HD,
then it wouldn't require a terribly big leap to provide it on Scottish DTT
transmitters, it would be interesting see whether D-Sat would follow though !
I await with interest the results of your FoI request !
Scott
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 2nd, 2011 at 10:09:28h +0100, Scott explained:
>
>> Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on satellite
>> would infringe platform neutrality rules.
To be fair, it was Mark's point originally - that platform neutrality
might be a factor in not placing BBC One Scotland on DTT.
>
>Has offering BBC Alba only only on satellite for the past 12 months or
>more been an infringement of these rules?
I suspect some of our esteemed MSPs think exactly that :-) Hence the
pressure to put BBC Alba on terrestrial TV.
Scott
That's another mystery. Why can't it take the place of the red
button/channel 301 or whatever it is correctly named? After all, that
is an extra while BBC radio are core services.
I know the argument is that radio is not core to Freeview (clue in the
name) but AIUI there are parts of the Highlands where television has
better coverage than FM radio and DAB is non-existent. There are even
parts of Scotland where R4 LW is difficult to receive.
J G Miller
> I suspect some of our esteemed MSPs think exactly that :-) Hence the
> pressure to put BBC Alba on terrestrial TV.
I would suggest that it is more a case of the MSPs thinking that since
tax payers are funding BBC Alba and the programs that as many people as
possible should be able to watch them, which means primarily availability
on terrestrial transmitters.
If the overwhelming majority of viewers were receving satellite (or
either satellite or cable) I do not think that the principle of "platform
neutrality" would ever be broached.
>>Does offering BBC Streams 2(?)-7 (not sure about the exact numbering)
>>only on satellite infringe these rules?
I checked these last night and two of the streams were showing aspects
of the India versus Sri Lankan world final and I was not sure if one of
them was live. If it was live, was it even available to terrestrial
viewers on 302?
J G Miller
> IMHO, the platform neutrality stance was always going to be closer to BST than a
> rule to be obeyed at all times.
Nagler has already suggested that it may very well be abandoned when
there is sufficient HD material available for the inevitable launch
of BBC-2 HD and BBC-4 HD.
(Provided of course that the Right Honorable Jeremy under the guidance
of Uncle Rupert has not already closed down BBC-3 and BBC-4 by then,
meaning only a need for bandwidth for BBC-1 HD and BBC-2 HD.)
Jim Lesurf
>
Indeed. That is why Alba TV could have
1) Been expected to pay its way on one of the other DVB-T muxes. If it
can't pay more than a shopping channel, that tells us a lot, I guess! :-)
2) Replaced just *one* TV station - e.g. BBC Ch 81 since the political
arrangements in Scotland are different, so giving some plausible basis for
the choice.This option not being chosen may also tell us a lot. :-)
3) Left it on satellite, cable, and internet.
All reasonable alternatives given that the BBC has to go though some
belt-tightening.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2nd, 2011 at 10:09:28h +0100, Scott explained:
> > Offering BBC Scotland in HD on terrestrial television but not on
> > satellite would infringe platform neutrality rules.
> Has offering BBC Alba only only on satellite for the past 12 months or
> more been an infringement of these rules?
And will not putting it onto terrestrial TV by *removing* many BBC radio
stations available via terrestrial in England not do much the same for a
different set of people? Arguably in this case to please a pressure group
for political reasons.
Jim
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:27:52 +0100, Scott wrote:
>
>>> Does offering BBC Streams 2(?)-7 (not sure about the exact numbering)
>>> only on satellite infringe these rules?
>
> I checked these last night and two of the streams were showing aspects
> of the India versus Sri Lankan world final and I was not sure if one of
> them was live. If it was live, was it even available to terrestrial
> viewers on 302?
>
The highlights package on most days was shown on BBC2
after Newsnight (11:20pm). The Stream was a way of
getting it out at 10pm for those who didn't care to
wait up or watch on recording the next day.
J G Miller
> And will not putting it onto terrestrial TV by *removing* many BBC radio
> stations available via terrestrial in England not do much the same for a
> different set of people?
Yes, it means that the people of England are denied access to BBC Alba
on terrestrial television and will continue only be able to receive it
via satellite.
J G Miller
> 1) Been expected to pay its way on one of the other DVB-T muxes. If it
> can't pay more than a shopping channel, that tells us a lot, I guess!
> :-)
Are you trying to suggest that BBC Alba should carry teleshopping like S4C?
(And why is the teleshopping in English and not Cymraeg?)
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
I suppose that might be one way to boost its viewing figures...
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Indeed. I suspect there are more "Gaelic speakers/learners" in England than
in Scotland, so this is a shameful discrimination. Certainly more there
than the number of responders to the public 'consultation' (sic).
However I fear that it will be 'rectified' in due course given that one of
the excuses... erm, I mean reasons for the change is that "Freeview is not
for sound radio, read the name".
Scott
wrote:
>In article <nm9gp6pkh3bc1odh6...@4ax.com>, Zathras
><webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:32:54 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Also, actions have consequences. Alba is going on Freeview but there
>> will be a corresponding loss of radio as a result. Choices have to be
>> made when there are limited resources.
>
>Indeed. That is why Alba TV could have
>
>1) Been expected to pay its way on one of the other DVB-T muxes. If it
>can't pay more than a shopping channel, that tells us a lot, I guess! :-)
>
>2) Replaced just *one* TV station - e.g. BBC Ch 81 since the political
>arrangements in Scotland are different, so giving some plausible basis for
>the choice.This option not being chosen may also tell us a lot. :-)
Yes but (1) Westminster is still the UK parliament and (2) Scottish
Parliament proceedings such as First Minister's questions are covered
on the Parliament channel.
>
>3) Left it on satellite, cable, and internet.
>
>All reasonable alternatives given that the BBC has to go though some
>belt-tightening.
>
Or what about replacing the red button/301 channel?
J G Miller
> Or what about replacing the red button/301 channel?
This would probably be the least worst option under current circumstances.
However so trendy digital-techno-media cabal at BBC London would scream
ever so loudly, have already had their second interactive stream removed
and lost their alternative news report service stream during the
22:00h State News Broadcast.
Jim
> In article<ince69$juj$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 3rd, 2011 at 17:48:36h +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> And will not putting it onto terrestrial TV by *removing* many BBC
>>> radio stations available via terrestrial in England not do much the
>>> same for a different set of people?
>
>> Yes, it means that the people of England are denied access to BBC Alba
>> on terrestrial television and will continue only be able to receive it
>> via satellite.
>
> Indeed. I suspect there are more "Gaelic speakers/learners" in England than
> in Scotland, so this is a shameful discrimination. Certainly more there
> than the number of responders to the public 'consultation' (sic).
>
The question (do you speak Gaelic?) was excluded from
the English census forms, last time around. There
might well be more exiles, especially in the London
area, but they'd be a very small minority compared
with speakers of other non-English languages.
A recent programme claimed over 500,000 French
citizens in London, but that figure seems to have come
from a radio station with a vested interest in
inflating its audience figures.
Jim Lesurf
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:52:52 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <nm9gp6pkh3bc1odh6...@4ax.com>, Zathras
> ><webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:32:54 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Also, actions have consequences. Alba is going on Freeview but there
> >> will be a corresponding loss of radio as a result. Choices have to be
> >> made when there are limited resources.
> >
> >Indeed. That is why Alba TV could have
> >
> >1) Been expected to pay its way on one of the other DVB-T muxes. If it
> >can't pay more than a shopping channel, that tells us a lot, I guess!
> >:-)
> >
> >2) Replaced just *one* TV station - e.g. BBC Ch 81 since the political
> >arrangements in Scotland are different, so giving some plausible basis
> >for the choice.This option not being chosen may also tell us a lot. :-)
> Yes but (1) Westminster is still the UK parliament and (2) Scottish
> Parliament proceedings such as First Minister's questions are covered on
> the Parliament channel.
The parts relevant to Scotland could be broadcast during the day. Alba TV
will only be pre-empting in the evenings.
I'm not saying that *should* be what is done. Just pointing out that there
are alternatives that can be argued to be preferrable to dumping so many
radio stations for just *one* politically-inspired TV station. I suspect if
anyone actually found out what the residents of Scotland would prefer,
they'd go for (1) or (2) over dumping the radio stations - or just say not
to bother with Alba TV. We can't tell, though, because no reliable data on
that is available. Only an unrepresentitive and tiny set of people were
consulted.
Jim Lesurf
> >
> > Indeed. I suspect there are more "Gaelic speakers/learners" in England
> > than in Scotland, so this is a shameful discrimination. Certainly more
> > there than the number of responders to the public 'consultation' (sic).
> >
> The question (do you speak Gaelic?) was excluded from the English
> census forms, last time around. There might well be more exiles,
> especially in the London area, but they'd be a very small minority
> compared with speakers of other non-English languages.
I suspect the same may be true in Scotland. Bill may want to pick the
option here to have a 'Clarkson' about the idea that if we 'need' Gaelic TV
on Freeview then there could be said to be more 'need' for some other
languages associated with minority groups.
Personally, I have no objection to such TV stations as such. My concerns
are simply about the way the decision was made, and the choice to dump so
many radio stations for just one minority TV station as the 'solution'.
Bill Wright
>
> I suspect the same may be true in Scotland. Bill may want to pick the
> option here to have a 'Clarkson' about the idea that if we 'need' Gaelic TV
> on Freeview then there could be said to be more 'need' for some other
> languages associated with minority groups.
If I said that I would be acting as devil's advocate, just out of
naughtiness.
As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
invaders.
The indigenous people should be encouraged to keep their own languages
in use as they see fit.
Of the recent invaders, the benign groups with cultural values not too
far removed from our own will do no harm in keeping their own languages
in use, because they will also quite cheerfully learn English, and will
in time integrate fully, and will add to the gaiety of the nation.
But there are those that are culturally and morally alien to our way of
life, and this group contains a significant sub-minority determined not
to integrate, and to impose their vile, depraved, cultural and moral
values on the rest of us. Need I mention homophobia, brutal punishments,
forced female circumcision, arranged marriages, anti-democracy? The
hostility of the sub-minority has spoilt it for the decent others, so
the native languages of these groups can have no place in Britain, and
the practice of some local councils in offering information in these
languages is totally wrong.
Bill
J G Miller
> and the practice of some local councils in offering information
> in these languages is totally wrong.
How else are the municipal councils going to get the message out
to people who cannot read English that "honor killings" are not
an acceptable practice?
David Kennedy
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect the same may be true in Scotland. Bill may want to pick the
>> option here to have a 'Clarkson' about the idea that if we 'need'
>> Gaelic TV
>> on Freeview then there could be said to be more 'need' for some other
>> languages associated with minority groups.
>
> If I said that I would be acting as devil's advocate, just out of
> naughtiness.
>
> As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
> islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
> invaders.
>
I will look forward to watching all future programs when they're
broadcast either in Cornish, Welsh or Manx...
Really Bill, please stick to aerials where you have some expertise and
knowledge. Your rehash of the Daily Spite's opinion column does you no
credit.
--
David Kennedy
Bill Wright
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I suspect the same may be true in Scotland. Bill may want to pick the
>>> option here to have a 'Clarkson' about the idea that if we 'need'
>>> Gaelic TV
>> As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
>> islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
>> invaders.
>>
>
> I will look forward to watching all future programs when they're
> broadcast either in Cornish, Welsh or Manx...
If the people in the relevant areas want programmes in those languages
they should have them. Note I didn't say 'the politicians' or 'the
fringe pressure groups'; I said 'the people'.
>
> Really Bill, please stick to aerials where you have some expertise and
> knowledge.
I was mentioned by name on an off-topic subject. Jim obviously expected
me to respond, as did anyone else who cared, I should think. Red rag?
Bull? What did you expect me to do?
Your problem is that you don't like what I said, so you're making out
that I have no right to say it. That's how dictatorships work. Free
speech is limited to the party line.
Your rehash of the Daily Spite's opinion column does you no
> credit.
Rehash nothing! I don't read any of the tabloids. I don't get my
opinions second hand from them or from anywhere else. I think them up
all by myself.
And what's spiteful about objecting to people who want to set up an
enclave of evil alien moral values in our country, with a view to
extending it outwards as soon as possible? Or are you in favour of
forced female circumcision and the stoning to death of homosexuals, and
women being treated like dirt? If some new loony religion came across
from America with values like that you'd be the first to want them
thrown out of the country. But you can't disentangle in your mind the
completely different issues of racism and of keeping foreign savagery
out of the UK. Luckily some of us are free of the woolly thought
processes so typical of the left and are able to make that distinction.
But maybe you welcome all forms of cultural imperialism, and think it's
quite all right for female babies in the UK to have their genitals
mutilated. Certainly your spelling of 'programme' would suggest that you
hold our British values and traditions in low esteem.
Bill
Andy Champ
>
> The question (do you speak Gaelic?) was excluded from the English census
> forms, last time around. There might well be more exiles, especially in
> the London area, but they'd be a very small minority compared with
> speakers of other non-English languages.
>
I don't recall seeing it this time either.
Q17 was about Welsh if you were in Wales. Presumably they assume
_nobody_ in England speaks it, even if born and educated there.
Andy
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
The equivalent in the Northern Ireland version was:
"Q21 Can you understand, speak, read or write Irish or Ulster-Scots?"
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
David Kennedy
> David Kennedy wrote:
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the same may be true in Scotland. Bill may want to pick the
>>>> option here to have a 'Clarkson' about the idea that if we 'need'
>>>> Gaelic TV
>
>>> As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
>>> islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
>>> invaders.
>>>
>>
>> I will look forward to watching all future programs when they're
>> broadcast either in Cornish, Welsh or Manx...
> If the people in the relevant areas want programmes in those languages
> they should have them. Note I didn't say 'the politicians' or 'the
> fringe pressure groups'; I said 'the people'.
>
>>
>> Really Bill, please stick to aerials where you have some expertise and
>> knowledge.
> I was mentioned by name on an off-topic subject. Jim obviously expected
> me to respond, as did anyone else who cared, I should think. Red rag?
> Bull? What did you expect me to do?
>
> Your problem is that you don't like what I said, so you're making out
> that I have no right to say it. That's how dictatorships work. Free
> speech is limited to the party line.
>
My problem is that I find it embarrassing that an intelligent person
should spout such obvious propaganda. It reduces the respect that people
have for you. I was trying to prevent a severe case of "foot in mouth"
disease.
> Your rehash of the Daily Spite's opinion column does you no
>> credit.
>
> Rehash nothing! I don't read any of the tabloids. I don't get my
> opinions second hand from them or from anywhere else. I think them up
> all by myself.
>
See a doctor.
Bill Wright
> My problem is that I find it embarrassing that an intelligent person
> should spout such obvious propaganda. It reduces the respect that people
> have for you. I was trying to prevent a severe case of "foot in mouth"
> disease.
Propaganda? What an odd word to use for one man's honest opinion.
So far you've attacked my right to have an opinion and my right to
express an opinion. How about attacking my opinion, with a reasoned
rebuttal of what I've said?
Incidentally I must say that having had a sleep I now feel that I was a
bit harsh when it comes to the many good honest citizens who share their
ethnic origin with the minority of fifth columnists. To those people who
wish to integrate, and who feel that they can maintain cultural links
with their countries of origin whilst at the same time always respecting
the traditions, culture, and laws of the UK, I hereby apologise.
>> Rehash nothing! I don't read any of the tabloids. I don't get my
>> opinions second hand from them or from anywhere else. I think them up
>> all by myself.
>>
>
> See a doctor.
Come now David, that's a poor quip.
Bill
J G Miller
> To those people who wish to integrate, and who feel that they can maintain
> cultural links with their countries of origin whilst at the same time always
> respecting the traditions, culture, and laws of the UK, I hereby apologise.
So that would include the Iranians who have just bought New Broadcasting
House on Oxford Road.
"The low-key Tishbi family is worth £30 million."
David Kennedy
> David Kennedy wrote:
>
>
>> My problem is that I find it embarrassing that an intelligent person
>> should spout such obvious propaganda. It reduces the respect that
>> people have for you. I was trying to prevent a severe case of "foot in
>> mouth" disease.
> Propaganda? What an odd word to use for one man's honest opinion.
>
> So far you've attacked my right to have an opinion and my right to
> express an opinion. How about attacking my opinion, with a reasoned
> rebuttal of what I've said?
Too much like hard work, if you do hold opinions like that then I can
see why the BNP does well if you're simply being provocative then I'm
afraid you're on your own.
>
> Incidentally I must say that having had a sleep I now feel that I was a
> bit harsh when it comes to the many good honest citizens who share their
> ethnic origin with the minority of fifth columnists. To those people who
> wish to integrate, and who feel that they can maintain cultural links
> with their countries of origin whilst at the same time always respecting
> the traditions, culture, and laws of the UK, I hereby apologise.
>
>>> Rehash nothing! I don't read any of the tabloids. I don't get my
>>> opinions second hand from them or from anywhere else. I think them up
>>> all by myself.
>>>
>>
>> See a doctor.
> Come now David, that's a poor quip.
It wasn't really a quip more a signal that I was giving up. You /do/
know that Alf Garnett was satire I suppose?
Roderick Stewart
> > and the practice of some local councils in offering information
> > in these languages is totally wrong.
>
> How else are the municipal councils going to get the message out
> to people who cannot read English that "honor killings" are not
> an acceptable practice?
I think it would be reasonable for public services to offer foreign
language services where practicable, but to charge extra for them. This
would facilitate communication, an essential thing if we want
foreigners to integrate into the society of the land where they live,
and also provide a small financial incentive to do so. (that's if the
sheer inconvenience of not understanding most of what is going on
around you wasn't be incentive enough already).
Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
J G Miller
> I think it would be reasonable for public services to offer foreign
> language services where practicable, but to charge extra for them.
It is interesting to note that in Kingdom of Belgium, outside of
the BHV (Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde) entity, municipal councils refuse
point blank, as a matter of principle, to offer services in the other
*official* languages of the nation, let alone the languages of
immigrant groups.
Perhaps when it comes to council budgets in these difficult times,
multilingual services should be cut before basic services of libraries
and schools?
<http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde>
Incidentally, the BHV problem is the major contributing factor
as to why Belgium has gone without an elected federal government
(since June 2010) longer thank Irak.
Zathras
wrote:
>As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
>islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
>invaders.
Yes, Gaelic should be sent back to Ireland (already attempted post
Culloden) and Old English, Pictish and Cumbric restored to their
rightful places. Seriously, how far back would you go to find 'the'
truly indigenous language of Scotland? Maybe there isn't one?
As a Scotsman from the central belt of Scotland, I believe Scottish
Gaelic would have been a foreign language to me through all of
history.
I suspect that Alba is part of some kind of attempt at *manufacturing*
a new national identity for a devolved Scotland. I mean, what's wrong
with curly orange hair and shortbread in (fake) tartan painted tins
and Rabbie Burns? ;-)
--
Z
Richard Tobin
Zathras <webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I suspect that Alba is part of some kind of attempt at *manufacturing*
>a new national identity for a devolved Scotland.
The Scottish census asks "what do you feel is your national identity".
I put "none".
-- Richard
Bill Wright
>> So far you've attacked my right to have an opinion and my right to
>> express an opinion. How about attacking my opinion, with a reasoned
>> rebuttal of what I've said?
>
> Too much like hard work,
How feeble!
if you do hold opinions like that then I can
> see why the BNP does well
What's the BNP got to do with it? They are vile racist thugs. Don't
forget that people of my generation were brought up to know all about
the Nazis, so most of us have no trouble steering clear of that sort of
philosWe aren't discussing race, we are discussing cultural values and
the respect for the British way of life.
>if you're simply being provocative then I'm
> afraid you're on your own.
One thing I ain't is on my own. Go out into the community -- white
people, Asians, anyone -- what they think about the issues I raised and
you'll find I'm extremely mainstream.
>>> See a doctor.
>> Come now David, that's a poor quip.
>
> It wasn't really a quip more a signal that I was giving up.
Most people would say "I give up." The words 'see a doctor' carry a very
different meaning to that, and there's no obvious link. What do you say
when you mean "Could I have a cup of tea?" Something like "Home loans
are scarce"?
You /do/
> know that Alf Garnett was satire I suppose?
>
Yes I had noticed. Of course from the comfortable lefty enclave that is
the BBC it was assumed that everyone would see that the programme
parodied right wing and racist opinions, but out in the real world many
people had considerable sympathy with the words spoken by Alf, even
though they weren't themselves racist. Johnny Speight used the programme
quite brazenly to promote his socialist views, and of course the BBC was
happy to let him do so. I'd like to see a programme in which the
anti-hero spouts left wing clap trap and is shouted down to good effect
by right wing hero figures. But it isn't going to happen is it?
Bill
charles
[Snip]
like the "McMarmalade" yellow 'tartan' car seat covers of ten 1960s?
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Bill Wright
> I think it would be reasonable for public services to offer foreign
> language services where practicable, but to charge extra for them. This
> would facilitate communication, an essential thing if we want
> foreigners to integrate into the society of the land where they live,
> and also provide a small financial incentive to do so. (that's if the
> sheer inconvenience of not understanding most of what is going on
> around you wasn't be incentive enough already).
What alarms me is the tendency some of them have to live in enclaves,
with no real attempt to integrate. Of course the internet and satellite
TV make it easy for them to enjoy a full cultural life in their own
language. In days of yore I think possibly sheer bloody boredom drove a
lot immigrants out into the wider community.
Bill
J G Miller
> Of course from the comfortable lefty enclave that is
> the BBC
Have you noticed that the BBC have moved further to the left in
recent days, with the now symbolic extreme left positioning
of the digital on screen graphic identifications for BBC Three
and BBC Four?
charles
> > I think it would be reasonable for public services to offer foreign
> > language services where practicable, but to charge extra for them. This
> > would facilitate communication, an essential thing if we want
> > foreigners to integrate into the society of the land where they live,
> > and also provide a small financial incentive to do so. (that's if the
> > sheer inconvenience of not understanding most of what is going on
> > around you wasn't be incentive enough already).
> What alarms me is the tendency some of them have to live in enclaves,
> with no real attempt to integrate.
just like the Brits in Spain & Portugal
J G Miller
> What sort of "understanding" is possible in a given
> language that is NOT covered by either speaking, reading or writing?
You can hear something which somebody says in your non native tongue
eg
Ga weg, is er de deur!
(Go away, there is the door!)
and understand what they mean, but not be capable of composing the
sentence by speaking those words, or perhaps even reading them,
let alone writing them.
Richard Tobin
Mike Henry <{$usenet-spamdump$}@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>What sort of "understanding" is possible in a given language that
>is NOT covered by either speaking, reading or writing?
Being spoken to.
-- Richard
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 19:45:34h +0100, Mike Henry wrote:
Yes.
Ulster-Scots, and the Scots language from which it derives,[1] are
related to English. From the point of view of understanding someone
speaking, the language can be treated as a dialect of English. There is
an accent and some distinctive words but many of the words can be
understood as English words spoken with an accent.
[1] Ullans and Lallans. Wikipedia has articles on both.
Bill Wright
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:23:19 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned the languages of the indigenous people of these
>> islands should always take precedence over the languages of the recent
>> invaders.
>
> Yes, Gaelic should be sent back to Ireland (already attempted post
> Culloden) and Old English, Pictish and Cumbric restored to their
> rightful places. Seriously, how far back would you go to find 'the'
> truly indigenous language of Scotland? Maybe there isn't one?
various places, and the locals getting the monk on about it.
I take the view that the historical perspective is irrelevant to the
ordinary person who finds the familiar culture of his land being eroded
by foreign influences. He has every right to resist the process if he so
wishes. We are alive 'now' not 'then'. Let the past and the far future
take care of themselves: they are not our concern. Live for the day!
>
> I suspect that Alba is part of some kind of attempt at *manufacturing*
> a new national identity for a devolved Scotland. I mean, what's wrong
> with curly orange hair and shortbread in (fake) tartan painted tins
> and Rabbie Burns? ;-)
I think Alba is the BBC's attempt to hand on to some sort of relevance
in Scotland.
Personally I would like to see a fully devolved BBC, with the regions
free to take programmes from each other as they please.
Bill
>
Bill Wright
>
>> What alarms me is the tendency some of them have to live in enclaves,
>> with no real attempt to integrate.
>
> just like the Brits in Spain & Portugal
>
Absolutely. And like the Brits in India during the days of Empire. And
like Yorkshire people in London (poor buggers).
Bill
Bill Wright
> I'm intrigued by that odd inclusion of the word "understand" in that "or"
> clause. What sort of "understanding" is possible in a given language that
> is NOT covered by either speaking, reading or writing?
You could be able to get a glimmer of the meaning as you listen to
someone, without having the confidence to speak (in any real sense) the
language.
Bill
Bill Wright
understood (and ignored) by all dogs.
Bill
Bill Wright
But you aren't a dog.
Bill
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>charles wrote:
>
>>
>>> What alarms me is the tendency some of them have to live in enclaves,
>>> with no real attempt to integrate.
>>
>> just like the Brits in Spain & Portugal
>>
>Absolutely. And like the Brits in India during the days of Empire.
Not all of them. Some Brits interbred with locals to produce
Anglo-Indians. Things being the way they used to be, the Anglo-Indians
then tended to form a distinct community.
> And
>like Yorkshire people in London (poor buggers).
>
Poor bugger, indeed.
J G Miller
> You could be able to get a glimmer of the meaning as you listen to
> someone ...
It could be even worse than that!
Tonight on Horror Channel and Horror Channel +1 (so you may still
have some time to see how bad it is)
Pontypool (2008)
A Canadian town is hit by a deadly virus which drives
it's victims insane.
As the population turn on each other in a violent frenzy,
a washed-up disc jockey discovers the shocking truth -
the infection is spread through ...
... speaking and hearing the English language.
Ian
<bi...@invalid.com> writes
--
Ian
Roderick Stewart
> Personally I would like to see a fully devolved BBC, with the regions
> free to take programmes from each other as they please.
..and to *make* programmes in the regions, not just London.
Roderick Stewart
> You could be able to get a glimmer of the meaning as you listen to
> someone, without having the confidence to speak (in any real sense) the
> language.
Yes, normally this works for me, but I was completely reliant on the
subtitles for that Danish thriller on BBC4. The dialogue just sounded to
me as if the tape was being played backwards.
Roderick Stewart
> Have you noticed that the BBC have moved further to the left in
> recent days, with the now symbolic extreme left positioning
> of the digital on screen graphic identifications for BBC Three
> and BBC Four?
They put them further left on iPlayer than on broadcast. Are you sure
you're not just confusing the two?
André Coutanche
> In article <ini50u$cfm$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller wrote:
>> Have you noticed that the BBC have moved further to the left in
>> recent days, with the now symbolic extreme left positioning
>> of the digital on screen graphic identifications for BBC Three
>> and BBC Four?
>
> They put them further left on iPlayer than on broadcast. Are you sure
> you're not just confusing the two?
JG is correct, at least so far as 'World News Today' on BBC4 is concerned -
the DOG is top-left on the full 16:9 screen and no longer confined to the
central 4:3 area. That particular programme is riddled with other
unnecessary, intrusive and incompetently managed DOGs as well, but that's
another matter ... :-( .
André Coutanche
Zathras
<rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <inimgi$8kr$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright wrote:
>> Personally I would like to see a fully devolved BBC, with the regions
>> free to take programmes from each other as they please.
>
>..and to *make* programmes in the regions, not just London.
You're a bit behind. Scotland has a high output of children's
programming as well as Weakest Link (moved from Pinewood) and Question
Time (in future).
The BBC have a policy of sustainable broadcasting centres and there's
no tumbleweed blowing through a busy PQ in Glasgow. How it will stand
up when (if) Manchester comes fully on-stream is an interesting
question though.
--
Z
Zathras
Ah..I was in auto-pilot for that question and put Scottish. You're
right though, I should have put none too!
I certainly don't feel a part of the massive fake Scottish identity
that just seems to create a romantic nonsense for tourists to lap up.
--
Z
Zathras
wrote:
>The whole of history consists of waves of 'foreigners' arriving at
>various places, and the locals getting the monk on about it.
>I take the view that the historical perspective is irrelevant to the
>ordinary person who finds the familiar culture of his land being eroded
>by foreign influences. He has every right to resist the process if he so
>wishes. We are alive 'now' not 'then'. Let the past and the far future
>take care of themselves: they are not our concern. Live for the day!
Can't disagree with that.
>I think Alba is the BBC's attempt to hand on to some sort of relevance
>in Scotland.
I have a different view on the driving influence behind it but am in a
position where I would not feel at ease putting forward my alternate
theory here. However, it's not complicated and, you can see for
yourself if you investigate the whole process.
>Personally I would like to see a fully devolved BBC, with the regions
>free to take programmes from each other as they please.
Freeview is always going to be bandwidth restricted and this will
limit the ability to do this until Rupert takes over the world and all
have sat dishes installed.
--
Z
J G Miller
> Freeview is always going to be bandwidth restricted and this will limit
> the ability to do this until Rupert takes over the world and all have
> sat dishes installed.
Please do not add to the notion that having a satellite dish is equivalent
to having a subscription to B$kyB!
J G Miller
> when (if) Manchester comes fully on-stream is an interesting question
> though.
Salford.
The BBC is leaving Manchester.
J G Miller
> JG is correct, at least so far as 'World News Today' on BBC4 is
> concerned - the DOG is top-left on the full 16:9 screen and no longer
> confined to the central 4:3 area.
No it is not just World News Today, but all widescreen programs as far
as I can tell and others have reported.
Maybe they finally realized how stupid the DOG in the 4:3 area was after
Sunday night's Spiral was completely ruined by having a BBC FOUR caption
superimposed on various actor's foreheads in one particular scenes
I just happened to see and then gave up in disgust at watching any
further.
Zathras
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:52:27 +0100, Zathras wrote:
>
>> when (if) Manchester comes fully on-stream is an interesting question
>> though.
>
>Salford.
Yes..as I said, Manchester.
>The BBC is leaving Manchester.
Hardly comparable to their departure from TVC.
--
Z
Zathras
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 7th, 2011 at 11:38:58h +0100, Zathras wrote:
Why? Are you saying there are vast numbers of non-Sky satellite TV
users? All (tiny exaggeration) the folks round here have Sky for the
football.
--
Z
Bill Wright
> Yes, normally this works for me, but I was completely reliant on the
> subtitles for that Danish thriller on BBC4. The dialogue just sounded to
> me as if the tape was being played backwards.
>
> Rod.
Red Bee?
Bill
Bill Wright
hell of a lot of non-Sky satellite viewers. We aren't all sheep you know.
Bill
Scott
<webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:07:20 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:52:27 +0100, Zathras wrote:
>>
>>> when (if) Manchester comes fully on-stream is an interesting question
>>> though.
>>
>>Salford.
>
>Yes..as I said, Manchester.
I think you will find equating Salford with Manchester is about as
popular as claiming Scotland is part of England :-)
Roderick Stewart
No, I think they just talk like that. They're Danish after all. I don't think
it was really being played backwards. I mean, somebody got killed at the
beginning and they found out who did it at the end. That'd the usual way with
thrillers, isn't it?
Alan White
<rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>I mean, somebody got killed at the
>beginning and they found out who did it at the end. That'd the usual way with
>thrillers, isn't it?
You've just given me an idea for a book.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
By Loch Long, twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather
Zathras
The boundary between Scotland and England is a bit clearer than the
invisible boundary between Salford and Manchester. It's about 3K from
the town centre. Also, I'd suggest that Manchester (whether 'Greater'
or not) is, in reality, bounded by the M60 (give or take). Saying
Salford isn't Manchester is like saying Islington isn't London. Even a
cursory glance at Google maps shows the Manchester blob reality.
Salford isn't even close to the outskirts of Manchester where there
might have been some proper debate on the matter.
I love tribal Ryanair-like snobbery. I also love the way a city grows
and swamps the surrounding areas while people try and cling to
separate local identities.
Up here we have the other side of the coin like 'Glasgow' Airport
(which isn't even in *Greater* Glasgow, yet) but for sheer nonsense,
it's difficult to beat Glasgow Prestwick Airport. Presumably somebody
thinks that Scotland is Glasgow or that anyone flying into Scotland is
too stupid to work out the most basic geography of the land. Either
way, there's not even consistency. If there were, we'd have Glasgow
Paisley Airport.
I'm not interested in popular support on this as I'm not a democracy.
;-)
--
Z
Zathras
wrote:
>Zathras wrote:
Are you saying it's comparable to the number of Sky installations
though? My experience (admittedly more limited than yours) is that it
isn't.
--
Z
Zathras
<rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <inind6$9na$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright wrote:
>> You could be able to get a glimmer of the meaning as you listen to
>> someone, without having the confidence to speak (in any real sense) the
>> language.
>
>Yes, normally this works for me, but I was completely reliant on the
>subtitles for that Danish thriller on BBC4. The dialogue just sounded to
>me as if the tape was being played backwards.
Try The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo without subtitles. I thought it
sounded like Gaelic at times except there were fewer English words
that stood out like a sore thumb. I couldn't have stood a chance of
understanding it without the subtitles.
--
Z
Bill Wright
> No, I think they just talk like that. They're Danish after all. I don't think
> it was really being played backwards. I mean, somebody got killed at the
> beginning and they found out who did it at the end. That'd the usual way with
> thrillers, isn't it?
>
> Rod.
I used to be in a film club and on one occasion the plot was rather
enigmatic. Afterwards opinion was divided. A masterpiece? Or had they
shown the reels in the wrong order?
The film, by the way, was that one about circus freaks, made in the
1930s. Which, when I used to go to the film club, was recent.
Bill
Bill Wright
> Up here we have the other side of the coin like 'Glasgow' Airport
> (which isn't even in *Greater* Glasgow, yet) but for sheer nonsense,
> it's difficult to beat Glasgow Prestwick Airport. Presumably somebody
> thinks that Scotland is Glasgow or that anyone flying into Scotland is
> too stupid to work out the most basic geography of the land. Either
> way, there's not even consistency. If there were, we'd have Glasgow
> Paisley Airport.
We were appalled when they built an airport at Doncaster and called it
'Robin Hood'. We aren't in Sherwood Forest or Notts, and Robin Hood has
no place in local history. No-one has any idea where Robin Hood Airport is.
Bill
Bill Wright
>>> Why? Are you saying there are vast numbers of non-Sky satellite TV
>>> users? All (tiny exaggeration) the folks round here have Sky for the
>>> football.
>>>
>> Judging from the number of Freesat boxes we sell I'd say there was a
>> hell of a lot of non-Sky satellite viewers. We aren't all sheep you know.
>
> Are you saying it's comparable to the number of Sky installations
> though? My experience (admittedly more limited than yours) is that it
> isn't.
No I'm not saying that. Sky claims about ten times as many subscribers
as there are Freesat viewers. Freesat keeps selling though, and once
people have it they seem to keep it.
Bill
Peter Duncanson
<webnew...@nospamthanks.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The boundary between Scotland and England is a bit clearer than the
>invisible boundary between Salford and Manchester. It's about 3K from
>the town centre. Also, I'd suggest that Manchester (whether 'Greater'
>or not) is, in reality, bounded by the M60 (give or take). Saying
>Salford isn't Manchester is like saying Islington isn't London.
The City of Salford is a metropolitan borough within the metropolitan
county of Greater Manchester. The City of Manchester is also a
metropolitan borough within the metropolitan county of Greater
Manchester.
The boundary between the two cities is the River Irwell. The river is
much closer to Manchester City centre than 3 kilometers.
I lived in Manchester in the 1960s. At that time the Greater Manchester
County had not been invented. The local governments of Manchester and
Salford ran their own separate public bus services. The buses did not
enter one another's territories. I recall that I didn't need to walk for
many minutes from Manchester City centre to be able to see Salford
buses.
Of course, Manchester City Centre is not at the geographical centre of
the borough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Manchester.png
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Brian Mc
: I lived in Manchester in the 1960s. At that time the Greater Manchester
: County had not been invented. The local governments of Manchester and
: Salford ran their own separate public bus services. The buses did not
: enter one another's territories. I recall that I didn't need to walk for
: many minutes from Manchester City centre to be able to see Salford
: buses.
I lived in Manchester in the 70's and, before Greater Manchester was invented
the buses I used belonged to SELNEC (South East Lancashire/ North East
Cheshire bus company). I don't know if this included Salford as I was not
often there!
Ian
<bi...@invalid.com> writes
I think it's in Doncaster.
:¬)
--
Ian
Brian Mc
: Up here we have the other side of the coin like 'Glasgow' Airport
: (which isn't even in *Greater* Glasgow, yet) but for sheer nonsense,
: it's difficult to beat Glasgow Prestwick Airport.
I think this is beatable! Many airports in the south-east of England have
been relabelled as "London (xxxx) Airport". The most recent (and stupidest!)
example is the (tiny!) "London (Oxford) Airport". It isn't even at all
easy to get to Oxford City Centre from the airport and why anyone wanting
to go to London would want to land there is beyond most people!
J G Miller
> I lived in Manchester in the 70's and, before Greater Manchester was
> invented the buses I used belonged to SELNEC (South East Lancashire/
> North East Cheshire bus company). I don't know if this included Salford
> as I was not often there!
SELNEC was a PTE. The PTEs were set up by "yer darlin' 'arold"
as an amalgamation of muncipal bus undertakings in the metropolitan
areas in 1969, with a mandate to integrate these services with those
of the subsidiary or subsidiaries of the newly formed NBC in the area,
as a pre-cursor to the creation of metropolitan authorities.
These took form as metropolitan counties under the Heath-Walker
reforms of local government on April 1st, 1974, usually covering
an expanded geographic area from the original PTE areas.
Thus the bus services of Wigan Municipal Transport were never
part of SELNEC, but became part of GMT (the renamed SELNEC)
in 1974, whereas those of Salford were already amalgamated
into SELNEC in 1969. The PTEs even had the power to purchase
private bus companies, and in 1976, GMT bought LUT, which
it ran as an independent subsidiary until it was fully absorbed
into GMT operations in 1981.
Then after 17 years of hard work by the PTEs to create an
integrated transport system within their metropolitan counties,
it was all trashed by Nicholas Ridley with the resultant
chaos and predominantly three private company cartel
which exists today.
Paul Ratcliffe
> Zathras wrote:
>
>> Up here we have the other side of the coin like 'Glasgow' Airport
>> (which isn't even in *Greater* Glasgow, yet) but for sheer nonsense,
>> it's difficult to beat Glasgow Prestwick Airport.
Oh I dunno, London Gatwick and London Stanstead are rather a long way
from London. It always amused me landing at Gatwick and getting the
"Welcome to London" automated announcement thingy on the plane.
> We were appalled when they built an airport at Doncaster and called it
> 'Robin Hood'. We aren't in Sherwood Forest or Notts, and Robin Hood has
> no place in local history. No-one has any idea where Robin Hood Airport is.
Has anyone/anything notable ever come out of the Doncaster area, apart
from your good self and the A1 that is?
Obviously they were lacking inspiration.
Peter Duncanson
The Romans founded it and then left. The River Don flows into it and
then leaves.
This list includes a number of people I've heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Doncaster
Just a few:
Douglas Bader - Fighter pilot
Brian Blessed - Actor
George Boole - Mathematician and philosopher and inventor of Boolean
algebra.
Roy Clarke - Script writer. Credits include Keeping Up Appearances,
Open All Hours and Last of the Summer Wine.
Jeremy Clarkson - Journalist / television presenter.
Thomas Crapper - Credited with popularising the modern flushing
toilet.
Lesley Garrett - Singer
Roger Needham - Computer scientist
Diana Rigg - Actress
and a whole heap of sportspersons including Kevin Keegan.
>Obviously they were lacking inspiration.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Bill Wright
> Has anyone/anything notable ever come out of the Doncaster area, apart
> from your good self and the A1 that is?
> Obviously they were lacking inspiration.
Yes, the Flying Scotsman, The Mallard, her out of The Avengers (Diana
Rigg?), Billy Bremner, Jez Clarkson, Kev Keegan, the bloke who was Jive
Bunney, Lesley Garrett, ohh, all sorts of notables. We have also bred a
lot of criminals, too many to list.
Bill
Bill Wright
> Douglas Bader - Fighter pilot
We used to play in and around the grounds of the Old Rectory, where he
was brought up. It's being refurbed at the moment; much activity.
> Brian Blessed - Actor
He went to Bolton Sec Mod, where his English teacher was later to be my
English teacher, at the school down the road. He said Brian was a
loud-mouthed thug.
Bill
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>>It always amused me landing at Gatwick and getting the
>>"Welcome to London" automated announcement thingy on the plane.
>>
>>> We were appalled when they built an airport at Doncaster and called it
>>> 'Robin Hood'. We aren't in Sherwood Forest or Notts, and Robin Hood has
>>> no place in local history. No-one has any idea where Robin Hood Airport is.
>>
>>Has anyone/anything notable ever come out of the Doncaster area, apart
>>from your good self and the A1 that is?
>
> Thomas Crapper - Credited with popularising the modern flushing
Doncaster Crapper Airport. Yes, it has a certain ring to it.
Bill Wright
>> Thomas Crapper - Credited with popularising the modern flushing
>
> Doncaster Crapper Airport. Yes, it has a certain ring to it.
I really like that.
Bill