# TiVo lets me down at the last post



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

I've been using TiVo over the last few weeks to record the radio 4 series "The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", the second of Douglas Adams' stories in the Dirk Gently series.

Episode 1-5 recorded flawlessly and I was looking forward to listening to them all back-to-back in the near future, until I discovered an ancient wishlist caused TiVo to record a programme I would never want to watch on a channel I never watch which overlapped it by 10 minutes, thus missing the last episode in the series.

Can anyone suggest where I can get a recording of the last episode in the series? I ask for a recording as I don't think I'll be able to use the "listen again" feature within a week as I want to listen to the entire series off CD in the car while driving - and listen again doesn't cut the mustard in that respect.

I can .. erm, listen to TiVo recordings quite easily in this fashion though. Any advice either here or by PM would be appreciated on any possible solution on getting the sixth episode.

*very* annoyed with TiVo at the moment, even if a single keyword in a synopsis (which had no real relation to the programme itself) superseded a recently booked season pass. I guess that would have been something that I'd have to have dealt with anytime since TiVo launched though...

However,

I now also realise how much I miss suggestions as I used to use them to gauge how much space was left on the hard drive. Now, programmes just disappear off the bottom of the list without any warning - at least Sky+ actually estimates how full the hard drive is and how much time is left.

Becoming increasingly disillusioned with how TiVo is now working and how the company is leaving its last remaining customers with a slowly decaying service - I'm seriously looking into a Freeview alternative to replace my second SKy box that's servicing my second TiVo. I hope something comes up soon., or that a Freesat PVR comes up with the goods.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

It's available on a certain UK torrent site, if you know the one, as it's clashed with something else I was recording and Listen Again is too much of a faff with an easy torrent by comparison.


----------



## Andy Leitch (Apr 30, 2005)

alt.binaries.sounds.radio.bbc


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Why is it that the first this anyone suggests is the _illegal_ way to so something; especially in this case when there is a perfectly _legal_ way? 



dvdfever said:


> ...Listen Again is too much of a faff with an easy torrent by comparison.


No. I would suggest people are just too lazy.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I've found the iPlayer downloads play fine on Media Center, once you figure out where they are stored on you hard disk.

The problem with iPlayer Carl is that a) the recordings time out and b) you can't use them on portable media. So there isn't a "legal" way to do what you want.

Having said that, it's coming out on CD next week Hywel!

http://www.bbcshop.com/Science-Fict...g-Dark-Teatime-of-the-Soul/invt/9781405687553


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

cwaring said:


> there is a perfectly _legal_ way?


Aerialplug said he wouldn't be able to use Listen Again.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

I agree with aerialplug getting something from iplayer to cd or dvd is a bit of a pain.
I often use Tunebite to do the job but that only does it in realtime.


----------



## Cainam (May 25, 2004)

I still have not got round to setting up my Tivo to access Radio channels as well as Sky, so I have been recording the series on my Pure Bug.

If you have an FTP site or something I am happy to upload it for you? Not sure my e-mail program will let me send 30MB attachments!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

verses said:


> Aerialplug said he wouldn't be able to use Listen Again.


Ahh. Okay. Missed that bit 

So, he's not back home within 7 days? He doesn't know anyone who could download it for him, which would then keep it available for 30 days; iirc?


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

cwaring said:


> So, he's not back home within 7 days? He doesn't know anyone who could download it for him, which would then keep it available for 30 days; iirc?


Just to be awkward  maybe he uses a Mac or Linux and therefore doesn't have downloading as an option.

Not having used the download version of the iPlayer myself (Mac user), I'm sketchy on the details, but if someone else downloads it doesn't that mean the DRM locks it to that person's PC? (Unless you meant someone else using his PC that is)

Ian


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

My point was that using any illegal option should be a _last_ resort, not a first


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

cwaring said:


> My point was that using any illegal option should be a _last_ resort, not a first


I think this clearly demonstrates that the illegal option is far easier than the legal ones - a sorry state of affairs caused by the broadcast and media companies making no attempt to understand their audience and cater for it. All in my opinion of course, but piracy is not just about not paying...


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

davisa said:


> I think this clearly demonstrates that the illegal option is far easier than the legal ones - a sorry state of affairs caused by the broadcast and media companies making no attempt to understand their audience and cater for it. All in my opinion of course, but piracy is not just about not paying...


Your argument might be valid if it wasn't on iPlayer _at all_. Does AP not have a spare half-hour to nip into a local library or Internet Cafe to listen to it? (Okay, not the best idea but it _is_ an option )


----------



## Heuer (Mar 15, 2004)

Given the programme was broadcast free to air by a provider to whom we all have to pay a fee I think the 'illegal' part of this argument is extremely grey. You can listen live, record on TiVo, record on a tape, record on a DAB radio, get a friend to make a copy and give it you, 'listen again', use iPlayer or wait until it is repeated but not download a copy from a 'friend' who has it available on a peer to peer network. Weird!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Maybe on this type of occasion, but the point, in general, still stands.

Oh, and TCM... huh?


----------



## Andy Leitch (Apr 30, 2005)

Rearrange these words.

Two goody shoes.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

TCM

Brilliant reply


----------



## Heuer (Mar 15, 2004)

Ohh and all the episodes are available on Demonoid. Registrations are open at the moment.


----------



## staffie2001uk (Apr 1, 2004)

Freecorder http://applian.com/sound-recorder/ should allow you to record the i-player stream and play it back later. This is just as you would from the radio broadcast, so I can't see a legal issue.


----------



## Davyburns (Jan 7, 2004)

fastest and easiest http://thebox.bz/details.php?id=57267


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

That link only works if you log in and you cannot register.


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Your argument might be valid if it wasn't on iPlayer _at all_. Does AP not have a spare half-hour to nip into a local library or Internet Cafe to listen to it? (Okay, not the best idea but it _is_ an option )


iPlayer isn't the answer as I cannot take it with me. Typical example: I was watching a BBC programme the other night, but wanted to watch the end whilst on the train travelling in to work the next day. I cannot legally download from iPlayer and copy to my iPhone, transferring from TiVo takes an age and then needs to be re-coded. Bittorrent took less than 5 minutes to download the programme and get it onto iTunes ready for my journey


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Andy Leitch said:


> Rearrange these words. Two goody shoes.





RichardJH said:


> Brilliant reply


Indeed. Very droll  I agree there are grey areas, and of course I'm not above bending the rules myself, but iIt's nice to know that you have such a disregard for the law that you deride anyone breaking it.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Did you mean "anyone NOT breaking it"?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Possibly


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Indeed. Very droll  I agree there are grey areas, and of course I'm not above bending the rules myself, but iIt's nice to know that you have such a disregard for the law that you deride anyone breaking it.


Carl,

Surely the point is that your mainly home based life if not representative of the lifestyles lives by other forum members. Therefore you should not expect what works for you to work for them.

Obviously the long term solution is for everyone to get a mobile data contract with a high data allowance and a car audio device that can access that mobile internet device and to access the BBC iplayer site directly while in the car. Any of the downloading and moving to other media options are inherently a faff by comparison.

And the BBC's restrictions do have to exist or no one would buy the CD just about to come out and so ultimately the program might not be made if the production company does not get enough money for making it.....


----------



## Heuer (Mar 15, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Obviously the long term solution is for everyone to get a mobile data contract with a high data allowance and a car audio device that can access that mobile internet device and to access the BBC iplayer site directly while in the car. Any of the downloading and moving to other media options are inherently a faff by comparison.


Is it me or is that the most complex and expensive solution to the problem to date?   :down:


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Heuer said:


> Is it me or is that the most complex and expensive solution to the problem to date?   :down:


In the longer run this will be the solution and most people will have live internet access in their cars.

This will render the need for burning to CD, DVD or downloading to ipods and so on completely redundant. Perhaps you are fearful of what you are not yet used to but this is clearly where things will be going over the next few years.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

davisa said:


> iPlayer isn't the answer as I cannot take it with me. Typical example: I was watching a BBC programme the other night, but wanted to watch the end whilst on the train travelling in to work the next day. I cannot legally download from iPlayer and copy to my iPhone, transferring from TiVo takes an age and then needs to be re-coded. Bittorrent took less than 5 minutes to download the programme and get it onto iTunes ready for my journey


I don't know where the law stands on converting Iplayer content to Iphone, but the downloading of bittorrents is not a criminal act. AIUI, you'll be breaking a civil law but if you're just watching on the train and not flogging the copy on then it's fine.

Even if it was a criminal act to convert Iplayer content to Iphone, it took Mark Thompson the best part of a week to speak up about the Ross/Brand nonsense so by the time he gets round to your Iphone, the man's pointless in society will have increased ten-fold.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> I don't know where the law stands on converting Iplayer content to Iphone, but the downloading of bittorrents is not a criminal act. AIUI, you'll be breaking a civil law but if you're just watching on the train and not flogging the copy on then it's fine.
> 
> Even if it was a criminal act to convert Iplayer content to Iphone, it took Mark Thompson the best part of a week to speak up about the Ross/Brand nonsense so by the time he gets round to your Iphone, the man's pointless in society will have increased ten-fold.


It's certainly a breach of copyright (a civil offence as you say, unless you sell it on.) That doesn't make it "fine" though, although in practice the BBC seems unlikely to sue a license fee payer over what could be construed by a good lawyer as a time shift, and therefore legal.

It would however have involved circumventing the DRM, which is probably a criminal offence (not yet proven in court though).


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> I don't know where the law stands on converting Iplayer content to Iphone...


Which you don't _have_ to do now anyway 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html



dvdfever said:


> ... it took Mark Thompson the best part of a week to speak up about the Ross/Brand nonsense so by the time he gets round to your Iphone,....


Firstly, there were a grand total of TWO complaints immediately after the Brand/Ross show, and both of those were about the language and _not_ the content.

It was only when the Murdoch-owned BBC-hating Daily Wail ran with it that anyone else (and I'll bet not one of them listened to the _actual_ broadcast) complained.

Besides, it probably wouldn't be Mr Thomson personally that has anything to do with "your iPhone".


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

Murdock doesn't own the Daily Mail.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Firstly, there were a grand total of TWO complaints immediately after the Brand/Ross show, and both of those were about the language and _not_ the content.
> 
> It was only when the Murdoch-owned BBC-hating Daily Wail ran with it that anyone else (and I'll bet not one of them listened to the _actual_ broadcast) complained..


You're missing the point Carl. Of course the kind of people who tune in to Brand's show weren't offended. The issue isn't that any listeners were offended. The point is that Brand and Ross behaved unacceptably to Sachs. Surely that is inarguable?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Ashley said:


> Murdock doesn't own the Daily Mail.


Okay. I sit corrected. (I think I got that wrong last time too  No more room in my head I guess )
The rest of it is still correct though 



TCM2007 said:


> The point is that Brand and Ross behaved unacceptably to Sachs. Surely that is inarguable?


Absolutely. However, Mr Sachs didn't make a huge fuss, accepted their apologies and that was - or at least should have been - that. The rest is just hyperbole, faux indignation and a complete over-reaction.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Absolutely. However, Mr Sachs didn't make a huge fuss, accepted their apologies and that was - or at least should have been - that. The rest is just hyperbole, faux indignation and a complete over-reaction.


The point is that Ross and Brand are over confident yobs who other trendy yobs for some reason find funny but it is the job of their minders to stops them going too far because it is well known they can go too far.

The chief minders failed and hence they have been fired. If minders can't do their job properly then what is the point of having the minders.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> The chief minders failed and hence they have been fired.


Actually, they quit.

Perhaps, knowing the audience for these two people, those in charge thought it would be okay and, given that they initially only received two complaints (about the language, not content) they thought they were right. Then the Daily Wail heard about it and decided to use it as another stick to beat their hated BBC with. This was some two weeks _after_ the broadcast, remember.

I'm more than willing to bet that a lot of those who complained probably didn't even hear a clip, read a transcript or even care what they were complaining about. They just saw a band-wagon and jumped right on it.

Of course, I don't suppose we'll ever know the full facts, so the above is of course, only my opinion.


----------



## taid (Oct 19, 2008)

aerialplug said:


> .
> 
> Episode 1-5 recorded flawlessly and I was looking forward to listening to them all back-to-back in the near future, until I discovered an ancient wishlist caused TiVo to record a programme I would never want to watch on a channel I never watch which overlapped it by 10 minutes, thus missing the last episode in the series.
> 
> .


too late for this I know, but ..

if I want to make sure I get all of a new season pass I shift it to the top of the pecking order .. then .. no problem


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

And check your wishlists regularly


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Absolutely. However, Mr Sachs didn't make a huge fuss, accepted their apologies and that was - or at least should have been - that. The rest is just hyperbole, faux indignation and a complete over-reaction.


I have never accepted the argument that if the victim is all right with it, the original offence can be can be disregarded.

Female victims of domestic violence sometimes go back to their husbands, and put up with the abuse. That doesn't mean that wife-beating is acceptable.

As for Jonathan Ross, he should have been sacked long ago for his comments during his December 2006 interview with Nigella Lawson, where he stated he would **** on their couch if anyone offered him goose for Christmas lunch.

There used to be an article on the BBC website that stated that 200 people complained; however, I can no longer find it.

The complaint went to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee who concluded, 
'Jonathan Rosss reference to **** on their couch and use of sexual innuendo when interviewing Nigella Lawson was part of a litany of grotesque overreactions which derived its comic effect precisely from its outrageous exaggeration '.

In other words, he can do and say what he likes, and it will be excused as a joke.

I've tried to pull together evidence for you to decide for yourselves.
*BBC's Editorial Standards Committee report
The Times' report on the BBC's report.
The Telegraph's report on the BBC's report.
The Telegraph's list of other Jonathan Ross crudities.*

For the record, I do not accept that you can say, or do, exactly what you like, or be as rude as you like to people in the name of entertainment.

Indeed, I would go further and say that acceptance of the type of behaviour that Jonathan Ross has heretofore enacted, has a corrosive effect on society.


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Which you don't _have_ to do now anyway
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html


Works well, but requires a WiFi connection, which is unfortunately lacking on the Underground


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

ericd121 said:


> I have never accepted the argument that if the victim is all right with it, the original offence can be can be disregarded. Female victims of domestic violence sometimes go back to their husbands, and put up with the abuse. That doesn't mean that wife-beating is acceptable.


Sorry, but there's a huge difference between a few words and actual physical violence.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point of your post, but I do think that this incident has been blown out of proportion by people with anti-BBC agendas.

ETA: 


ericd121 said:


> BBC's Editorial Standards Committee report


As far as I can see, there are two references to complaints made about JR' Friday night show and _neither_ were actually upheld.

Specifically, and this could apply just as well to the current situation.....



> The style and format of the show would have been well known to the audience.


Not sure that helps your argument or not


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Actually, they quit.


No they both only actually resigned rather than otherwise be fired and not get a decent reference and severance package. Look how long they took to resign!



> I'm more than willing to bet that a lot of those who complained probably didn't even hear a clip, read a transcript or even care what they were complaining about. They just saw a band-wagon and jumped right on it.


My mother complained to the BBC and unlike me she is not prone to filing complaints on things. She has always disliked Jonathan Ross and she likes the Fawlty Towers guy and Russell Brand is just off the scale of someone of her age group's comprehension. I also dislike Russell Brand and the kind of audience he is trying to exploit, even though I can see that from a commercial point of view he is clever and deliberately exploiting a gap in the marketplace.

The thing is Carl would you accept those things being said about you on air and do nothing about it? And Andrew Sachs has a big camp of supporters amongst the over 60s (who of course hate Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand by instinct). So that was their other mistake in attacking a publicly very popular figure and not a bogeyman of most of the general public.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

If an employee of mine did what they did while working for me, they would be sacked , no question. The issue is not that people have overreacted, but how Ross still has a job at the BBC at all.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ericd121 said:


> I've tried to pull together evidence for you to decide for yourselves.
> *BBC's Editorial Standards Committee report
> The Times' report on the BBC's report.
> The Telegraph's report on the BBC's report.
> ...


Here, here Eric. For once I am 100% in agreement with what you say. But you forgot to mention that Ross and Brand aren't even funny but certain people at the BBC have persuaded themselves they are.

I just can't believe Ross has got away with his likeable yob act for so many years without ever developing or expanding it further. And it is an act because we can see in Film whatever year it is that he does have a more serious persona. But that persona is not at all witty or enjoyable unlike Barry Norman.

As to Russell Brand the less said the better other than that the BBC should have never embraced him in the way they have.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

cwaring said:


> As far as I can see, there are two references to complaints made about JR' Friday night show and _neither_ were actually upheld.
> 
> Specifically, and this could apply just as well to the current situation.....
> 
> Not sure that helps your argument or not


I obviously didn't made my point clear enough when I said 
"In other words, he can do and say what he likes, and it will be excused as a joke.".

It's the fact that the complaints weren't upheld that led to the current situation.

The BBC gave Ross license to say and do anything, so he and Brand didn't see anything wrong in what they were doing.



> I do think that this incident has been blown out of proportion by people with anti-BBC agendas.


 I think you may be right but I'm happy it has been. I'm hoping this will lead to a lessening in crude behaviour and language on TV and Radio.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> No they both only actually resigned rather than otherwise be fired and not get a decent reference and severance package.


Once again, pure speculation on your part. Can be nothing else unless you know the people personally.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with the point of your post, but I do think that this incident has been blown out of proportion by people with anti-BBC agendas.


No it hasn't as we all know Ross and Brand are capable of such things but the program producer and/or director is meant to prevent it from ever getting on air.

They failed in their primary purpose.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> My mother complained to the BBC and unlike me she is not prone to filing complaints on things. She has always disliked Jonathan Ross and she likes the Fawlty Towers guy and Russell Brand is just off the scale of someone of her age group's comprehension.


So she didn't hear the item concerened and the show and it's presenters aren't to her taste. So, in effect, she is one of those "band-wagon jumpers" I mentioned earlier.

One wonders what she might have made of, say, Monty Python, had she been the age she is now back in the 60s; if you see what I mean.



Pete77 said:


> The thing is Carl would you accept those things being said about you on air and do nothing about it?


They're words. They can't _really_ harm anyone. (I can say that now that I am grown-up enough to realise it. At school - where I _was_ bullied a lot - it was a different story of course )

Look at the exposure that it got for Georgina Baillie, for example.



Pete77 said:


> And Andrew Sachs has a big camp of supporters amongst the over 60s (who of course hate Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand by instinct).


QED.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Once again, pure speculation on your part. Can be nothing else unless you know the people personally.


No its just called having a deductive brain rather than one that can only understand what has been printed in the newspaper in black and white.

If they had been genuinely embarrassed they would have resigned right away. Instead of which they clung on for ages with the BBC hoping that their overpaid BBC careers could be preserved and the storm would die down.

And they wouldn't have resigned unless they were offered a deal. Otherwise they would hung on to be fired and then go an Employment Tribunal and contest it claiming it was all part of a BBC culture of pandering to the masses for the sake of ratings that came down from board level. But as the BBC can't afford that to happen we go the resignation and fat payoff route with a further agreement that they keep quiet about the terms of the payoff.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I just can't believe Ross has got away with his likeable yob act for so many years without ever developing or expanding it further. And it is an act because we can see in Film whatever year it is that he does have a more serious persona.


Since the late '90's he's adopted this coarse persona for certain shows. It started on "They Think It's All Over", and that's the time the Beeb should have clamped down on it.

As regards the current situation, at first I would have been happy if Jonathan Ross had gone, but I think the current 12 week suspension may be the best solution.

JR can be a good interviewer, and his talent is diminished by his schoolboy use of F*ck and "C*nt" for effect.

IF he can do his chat show without crude references to sexual practices or scatological and other biological functions, he will be a better presenter.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> They're words. They can't really harm anyone.


Really. So why do you think we have a law against libel and slander then?


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

cwaring said:


> So she didn't hear the item concerened and the show and it's presenters aren't to her taste. So, in effect, she is one of those "band-wagon jumpers" I mentioned earlier.


Carl, you don't have to witness an event to be affected by it. In fact, that is how things work:-

An event happens.
There are particepants and witnesses.
They tell their stories and these are reported.
We hear the reports of their stories and we react.

Your logic would dictate that no-one should comment or react to anything that is outside their personal experience.


> They're words. They can't really harm anyone. Look at the exposure that it got for Georgina Baillie, for example.


No, Carl, words can harm. They affect people. A lot of bullying is verbal.

Words are important and powerful. They form the basis of our society and culture.

As for Georgina Baillie, I think Ian Hislop said it best when he said that she, having been thrust into the public mainstream, has decided to make some money.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I have been in the USA for three weeks so haven't followed this closely but it now appears to on balance actually be likely to be true that one or both of Ross and Brand have slept with Sachs's grand-daughter.

That actually makes their actions far worse than if it had purely been a joke with no foundation to it as it is a major invasion of privacy involving a third party likely to be very offended and hurt by directly being given in the news and being pit in the news over the matter (Sachs).

Also isn't Ross supposed to be happily married and have children or he is divorced by now. If he is married with school age children and makes a virtue of sleeping around with the sleepee's grandfather then that surely again crosses a line somewhere.

As to my mother she did read verbatim transcripts of the comments by Ross and Brand and/or hear live clips of them on news broadcasts before making her own complaint. So she was in a position to comment on the suitability of those comments.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> No its just called having a deductive brain rather than one that can only understand what has been printed in the newspaper in black and white.


Possibly, except that....



Pete77 said:


> Instead of which they *clung on for ages* with the BBC hoping that their* overpaid BBC careers *could be preserved and the storm would die down.


...your emotive an pejorative language suggests otherwise.



Pete77 said:


> And they wouldn't have resigned unless they were offered a deal.....


Again, you don't _know_ that.



ericd121 said:


> JR can be a good interviewer, and his talent is diminished by his schoolboy use of F*ck and "C*nt" for effect.


Agreed. No-one _needs_ to use language like that.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> ...your emotive an pejorative language suggests otherwise.


You clearly use a wider range of vocabularly than I might have expected Carl.



> Again, you don't _know_ that.


Pay offs in these circumstances rarely, if ever, involve a press release.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> As to my mother she did read verbatim transcripts of the comments by Ross and Brand and/or hear live clips of them on news broadcasts before making her own complaint. So she was in a position to comment on the suitability of those comments.


From her own view-point of not liking Brand or Ross or their sort of presentation style/humour. _Of course_ she's going to complain.

Fortunately, the BBC has to also cater for those people who may actually _like_ Ross (4.something million viewers to his Friday night show; *30%* of the available viewing audience on a Friday night, btw) or Brand's humour; even given that they may, occasionally, step over the mark sometimes.



Pete77 said:


> You clearly use a wider range of vocabularly than I might have expected Carl.


What a curious remark  However, thanks; I think  I have always been good at use of spoken English even though my writing's abysmal 



Pete77 said:


> Also isn't Ross supposed to be happily married and have children or he is divorced by now. If he is married with school age children and makes a virtue of sleeping around with the sleepee's grandfather then that surely again crosses a line somewhere.


It might have had it not been Brand who "did the deed". Perhaps you should have followed it more closely


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

> From her own view-point of not liking Brand or Ross or their sort of presentation style/humour. Of course she's going to complain.
> 
> Fortunately, the BBC has to also cater for those people who may actually like Ross (4.something million viewers to his Friday night show; 30% of the available viewing audience on a Friday night, btw) or Brand's humour; even given that they may, occasionally, step over the mark sometimes.


But they crossed a line which is not acceptable regardless of whether or not the audience of the program found it funny.

There would be a big audience for live hangings from Iran and live full on sex from individual viewer's bedrooms on BBC One if it was allowed to show them. The fact something may have an audience that likes it does not make it acceptable to broadcast it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> What a curious remark  However, thanks; I think  I have always been good at use of spoken English even though my writing's abysmal


Isn't that what they call a logical non sequitur?

By the way I note that you also spelled pejorative correctly whereas I would have wrongly used an additional r. Of course perhaps a spell checker helped you out on that though?


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Pete77 said:


> Isn't that what they call a logical non sequitur?
> 
> By the way I note that you also spelled pejorative correctly whereas I would have wrongly used an additional r. Of course perhaps a spell checker helped you out on that though?


Aaaah Pete,

Your return after an absence of leave has made me realise how much I miss your condescension, patronizing attitude, assumptions portrayed as fact and general argumentative demeanour. Welcome back....................??*!!???

Martin


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Isn't that what they call a logical non sequitur?


Dunno. I'm not _that_ clever 



Pete77 said:


> By the way I note that you also spelled pejorative correctly whereas I would have wrongly used an additional r. Of course perhaps a spell checker helped you out on that though?


No.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Once again, pure speculation on your part. Can be nothing else unless you know the people personally.


For once, I think Pete's supposition is almost certainly true. Ever heard the phrase "to ask for someone's resignation"?


----------



## taid (Oct 19, 2008)

Is it me .. or hasn't this thread gone 'off-topic'


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Ya think?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Ya think?


And to see who most substantially first dragged it off topic why not check out your post #32 in this this thread, even though the process did begin in a more minor way in post #30.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

So what? The original subject was done and dusted anyway


----------

