All 9 entries tagged BBC

View all 121 entries tagged BBC on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged BBC at Technorati | View all 5 images tagged BBC

October 28, 2007

Top Gear ∞, 0 Snooker

Follow-up to Dear BBC, re: Bloody Snooker from The randomness of tomorrow, today!

I bet televised snooker never featured The Rolling Stones' Ron Wood...

So nuts to you.


October 16, 2007

Dear BBC, re: Bloody Snooker

Dear BBC

You've cancelled Top Gear for Snooker. Why? Surely a programme that is under near constant criticism by the media doesn't make it to 10 seasons by being unpopular. I think Top Gear is one of the best programmes made in Britain at the moment and absolutely will not accept that snooker achieves even the merest fraction of an iota of a crumb of a percentage of the ratings and following that Top Gear has.

The practice of replacing perfectly good, and absolutely fantastic, regular programmes with utter rubbish like ephemeral sporting events is archaic, irrational, nonsensical, and stems from TVs infancy when there wasn't enough time in the day for one channel to fit everything in.

So why not do everyone a favour and create "BBC Pointless-Crap-That-No-One-Cares-About" for things like snooker, football, and any other upstart rubbish deluded enough to think itself superior to any other programme on TV today (yes, inferior even to that human cesspit that is Channel 4's "Big Brother").

Yours

Someone who wishes you'd see sense.


June 14, 2007

Don't click the link!

Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6749303.stm

(If you haven't seen the Apprentice final yet and don't want to know the result, this entry's safe but the link is not...)

I haven't seen the final of The Apprentice yet; I'll be watching it tomorrow. I also didn't want to know the result beforehand; but I do...

All I did was go on to Google Reader to see if there was anything exciting. To try to keep vaguely abreast of current events I subscribe to several BBC News RSS feeds; I don't read everything, just the odd one or two.

When I checked this time, there were four unread items, and one of them was a BBC News headline. It said "X named as Apprentice winner".

Why couldn't it say "Apprentice winner named" in the headline, and then give the name in the entry itself, which I wouldn't have accidentally seen...

Bastards...


March 26, 2007

"BBC defends early Easter filming

Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6494831.stm

I've just come across an article on BBC News about the BBC receiving criticism for filming their Easter Special of Songs of Praise at Christmas. I mean, come on! Do these people really think they film everything at the time?

Several newspapers have accused the BBC of "tricking" fans of Songs of Praise, just weeks after Blue Peter apologised for faking the result of a competition in November.

Because, of course, those two events are exactly the same - on the one hand, you have standard industry practice that is economical, harmless and an intelligent use of resources; and on the other hand, you have people lying about the very nature of a competition. I certainly can't see a difference between them...

I feel, as a public service, that I need to point out a few things to these people that are up in arms about the fact the show was filmed months ago:

  • The TARDIS doesn't really travel through time - it's just a box, it doesn't even had the console inside it; that's a set.
  • When game show hosts say "See you next week", 'next week' is probably filmed a few minutes later.
  • KITT from Knight Rider couldn't really drive himself - it was a man hidden in the modified driver's seat, which was a clever way to do it because 'Michael' (who is really David Hasselhoff) could just jump in the car and take over without anything fancy happening.
  • Crop Circles aren't aliens; they're guys with planks and too much time on their hands. I mean what kind of stupid alien race would design ships with such complicated undersides? They'd all have "teleporters" anyway...
  • A scene from (I believe) Attack of the Clones was actually filmed during Phantom Menace because it would save them having to go back out the the location. (Maybe you should complain to them, too?)
  • The Lord of the Rings films weren't actually in Middle Earth - they were in New Zealand.
  • I'm not actually writing this - I have a small team of an infinite number of monkeys to whom I dictate. Eventually they come up with the blog entry...

I could go on, but I won't...


July 16, 2006

Pedant's Revolt

Aside from stealing the odd photo of mine, Never Mind the Full Stops often annoys me with some of its comments on spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Here are some examples from the two most recent episodes:

Julian Fellowes

He's the presenter. His attitude is just a little grating at times; things like him trying to be hip, and being stuck in the past for one sentence then talking about "moving on" in the next.
Plus he insists on pronouncing "dialects" as "Daleks"; every time they get to the round where they showcase (some may say "mock") two regional dialects I always think he's talking about Doctor Who…

Manservant

Sometimes the question setters demonstrate that they're idiots. Thankfully Julian Fellowes and the 4 panelists all agreed that the answer provided was wrong, so it's not all bad.
In the section where they have to spot the deliberate mistakes in a short passage the singular "manservant" had been used when the plural was needed. The given answer said it should be "menservant" (possibly with an "s" too, but that's not really important for my point) which is quite clearly bollocks. Fortunately the 5 of them all agreed this was wrong and that it should be "manservants". What was also slightly annoying, though, was that the explanation of why the given answer was wrong wasn't very good. I can't remember what they said, but if you look at the word it's quite clearly a word for "the servant of a man" – "man servant". Therefore it's blindingly obvious that "many servants of a man" is "manservants". I'd be quite happy with the neologism "menservants" used in the context of "one servant serving many men", but that wasn't the case here.
I know that's not quite right, but it's an intuitive way of thinking of it…
UPDATE: Just rewriting this paragraph, because a dictionary–consult showed I'd fallen into the same trap as the 5 people on the show. I just want to apologise to the question setters: you're not idiots, you got it right.
Sorry, I was wrong, it shouldn't be "manservants", it should be "menservants". The people on the show were wrong when they criticised the answer. So, it's the panelists and Julian Fellowes that are the fools and not the question–setters (well, I say "now"; it's always been that way, I just didn't realise because I'd fallen into the same trap, as it were…).

Oxford Comma

I love the Oxford Comma. I think it's useful, worthwhile, and really helps with the understanding of written lists. If you don't know what it is, it's the comma before the "and" in my previous sentence. I don't believe there are any grammatical rules covering it, but I feel its effect justifies its use.
The 5 people on the show, however, said it was pointless and useless (well, words to the effect).
They cannot in all seriousness possibly tell me that "I have eaten fish and chips and bangers and mash" is preferable to "I have eaten fish and chips, and bangers and mash"...

Orange, Purple, Silver, and Month

The question was "what's special about these words?" the answer, to which they all agreed, was "they have no English rhymes" which is just not true.
I can't disagree with orange and month, but "silver" and "purple" do have rhymes.
Purple: Admitedly "hirple" and "curple" are technically Scottish words – the first meaning "to walk lamely", and the second being, apparently, a strap near the back–end on a horse's saddle – and the question said "English", but this is a rhyme that comes from within Great Britain, so I say my point still stands…
Silver: A "chilver" is an Old English noun meaning a "ewe lamb" that is still in use in some southern dialects (I actually saw it on signs and possibly a hotel thing – I can't really remember what it was – in Bolsover as I was on my way down to Warwick for Graduation.)

I'm glad I got that off my chest…


July 08, 2006

'Never Mind the Full Stops' Screenshots

Just randomly decided to post screenshots of my two photos from Never Mind the Full Stops that the BBC stole. They were both the first photos shown in the closing segment; not that that's that important, I just thought I'd mention it since I noticed it when I took the screenshots…

Mope Up Spillages
(If it's not bad enough that they stole it, they also squashed it…)

That Fridayyy Feeling
(I'm sure the original isn't that blurred…)


July 05, 2006

They've Done It Again

Follow-up to The BBC Stole My Photo!!! from The randomness of tomorrow, today!

I watched the Never Mind the Full Stops from the 29th on Monday, and what should I see at the end of the show but my photo of a post box with three Y's in 'Friday'. So I sent the BBC another email. The next day (Yesterday, since it's past midnight) I got a phone call from a woman at the BBC whose name escapes me saying that they were very sorry that it happened again. I said that the arrangements for the previous photo would be alright for this one as well, and that I understood that nobody's perfect, and since they were being so prompt and willing that I was happy with the £150 they were offering retrospectively for both photos.
I'm expecting the first £150 in however long it takes the BBC to get around to paying, and I'm expecting the agreement to be posted for the second shortly.
Not bad, that; £300 because I watch TV and stick up for my rights…

Having said that, the fact that the BBC seems very efficient at dealing with their mistakes could suggest they've had a lot of practice…


June 07, 2006

Intellectual Property

Follow-up to The BBC Stole My Photo!!! from The randomness of tomorrow, today!

Shortly after I posted the entry on my stolen photo I found a form on the BBC website for submitting an official complaint, and used it. Since then I've been systematicallly sharing the details with any of my housemates that seemed interested. One of my housemates, however, doesn't seem to be able to grasp my reasons for complaining to the BBC. This suprised me; I cannot see any reasons why I shouldn't complain. I automatically have the right to dictate how any of my photos are used (I love copyright) and it seems like he's saying there's no real reason why I should exercise it.
I was recently contacted by WA Shearings who wanted to know if they could use the photo of Bowes Museum I'd uploaded to Flickr in their 2007 brochure. I said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Sure, give me the credit for the photo and that'll be fine". That, BBC, is how you use people's photos…
It's not as if there wasn't enough time to get in touch; I uploaded the photo to Flickr last November, and it'd been on my website for a year before that.
I have absolutely no regrets about complaining, and cannot see where my friend is coming from. Is there anyone else that shares his opinion? I just cannot see his logic. It reminds me of a recent entry on the Dilbert Blog – basically his argument makes perfect sense to him in his little world, and my argument makes perfect sense to me in my little world, but both become meaningless garbage in the other person's little world.

June 04, 2006

The BBC Stole My Photo!!!

When I first moved into this house off campus I noticed this sign with its poor use of the English language:

Mope Up Spillages

which I photographed and added to my website.

Imagine my shock when I watched the Never Mind the Full Stops from Thursday and discovered my photo, cropped and squashed, displayed at the end of the program in a section of similar photos of lousy English. This was the first I'd heard of it; they didn't ask me, and they didn't say it was my photo, and they squashed it so it's disproportionate (that's them just generally sucking, although it doesn't help matters…). You can tell it's my photo, because the pattern from the flash is identical and is in the same place.

If they got it from my website then they stole it from a page with "© All Rights Reserved" on it, if they took it from Flickr then it quite clearly says that it has to be attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and not edited, and if they got it from somewhere else then that's 2 people I need to sue…

"The BBC – Shitting on the little guy" to paraphrase I, Robot (See! See! When I steal something from someone, I say who I stole it from!)

Bastards!


October 2019

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  |
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         
RSS2.0 Atom

Search this blog

Twitter

Google PageRank

Tags

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX