I'm having a rather snide chuckle about ITV's woes after the opening episode of #TheNightlyShow

It was a blatant attempt to extend what they naively call their prime time entertainment slot. Why ITV consider David Walliams to be prime time value is way betond me. His antics may keep an X-Factor audience amused but he is actually only another camp comedian - something that is, thankfully, past its sell by date. I find his toilet humour and puerile remarks that hint at anal sex tiresome in the extreme. On top of that ITV threaten us with Gordon Ramsay, whose only talent is swearing a lot, John Bishop, the man with the most annoying accent on television, and Mel and Sue, who are little better than children's entertainers, as hosts for future episodes.

It is also quite amusing that Twitter users were complaining about following Broadchurch with something as awful as The Nightly Show. But they seem to have glossed over the fact that ITV happily followed the series of Endeavour with a new series of Broadchurch. We only had four episodes of Endeavour but we are now expected to swallow eight whole episodes of indecipherable and tedious growling.

#C4F1 Qualifying was not the only disappointing feature of the Australian GP race at the weekend.

I used to look forward to the opening race of the Formula One season in Australia, not just because it was that, but also because it gave me something to watch in the early hours of the morning. But since Channel 4 has taken over it seems the latter will apply no longer. I can only assume that the reason they have elected to ditch the live coverage is due to advertising revenue issues and of course their obsession with property shows and incomprehensible American so-called comedy shows which form the staple menu at such times.

From the minute I heard that Channel 4 was to replace the BBC the words that kept repeating in my head were 'dumbing down.' And nothing that surfaced over the weekend appeared to contradict my concern.
The new presentation team is my main dislike here.

Of course Lee McKenzie cannot be objected to in any way - her in depth interviews are minor masterpieces and an invaluable part of any race day presentation. And, while Karun Chanduk is a pleasant guy, his area of expertise comes purely from a driver's perspective and we already have David Coulthard (thank heavens) for that. Although I understand Karun's role will include talking to team bosses and engineers regarding team strategy and so on - there is still no one to give us a technical insight into tyre structure or front wing design for example.

Channel 4 may well believe that is beyond the comprehension of the average C4 viewer and so rather than merely dumbing the subjects down they have decided to exclude them altogether.

But I really question the choice of Steve Jones as lead presenter. I've never actually heard of him before and certainly not in any connection with motor racing. Apparently he is otherwise 'known' for working on the X-Factor and some pop programme called T4. I don't see how on earth that qualifies him to present a sensible Formula One Race coverage. Just compare his knowledge and experience of motor racing with Suzi Perry's - well there simply is no comparison. I assume that the reason for his selection is the same as that used by the BBC for choosing the ginger twat (Chris Evans) as lead presenter on the new Top Gear - an interest in cars and an annoying loudmouthed jocular style.

As for the rest I was glad to see Mark Webber there although I don't see how his contribution will differ in any significant aspect to that of David Coulthard. And of course Eddie Jordan will make his occasional contributions between his new Top Gear commitments.

Apparently Alain Prost will be making contributions and those will be interesting but I still think they will overlap appreciably with those of David Coulthard.

The reason behind Susie Wolff's inclusion is an utter mystery. She is a former F1 test driver who failed to be selected as a driver and the only justification that I can see is that since she is married to Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff, C4 hope to benefit from some pillow talk, which is actually more of an insult to her than describing her as a failed race driver.
I'm reasonably pleased to see Ben Edwards back although not the most competent of commentators his is, at least, a familiar voice.
And which Formula One fan would not be delighted with the presence of Murray Walker, even if only occasionally.

As for the other three Alex Zanardi, Jolyon Palmer, and Bruno Senna. I would only ask, 'Why oh why?'

Including some merely as 'occasional contributors' still makes a team of thirteen which is overmanning on a BBC scale surely?

Other dislikes about the C4 presentation included the number and frequency of advertising breaks - they seemed to be about every 5 minutes. Although Channel 4 say that the full live races will be covered ad free that still leaves more than half the schedule plus the qualifying sessions plus the lead up to the actual races to annoy us.

I know I used to criticise the BBC coverage at times and I hoped that the C4 coverage would be on a par with the way they cover horse racing but now my feeling is, 'Come back BBC, all is forgiven.'

Best news I've had all week - Susanna Reid is to leave #BBCBreakfast

According to this article in the Mail Online Reid has been offered a £1m contract to shift herself over to ITV. This means that I will be able to watch television in the morning again without those sloe eyes staring back at me while the other half of the sofa is reading the autocue. Susanna's matronly knees and rather too tight tops are not what I need with my breakfast coffee.

The Mail's article, in its usual appalling English, also gave me a bit of a laugh because apparently an ITV 'source' said that:

She (Susanna) is seen as more highbrow than previous presenters who fronted breakfast shows, which is exactly the direction ITV want to go in.

It went on to say that:

she is tipped to share the sofa with Ben Shepherd, 39, or Dermot O’Leary, 40, as a co-presenter.

Ben Shepherd reminds me of an overly friendly spaniel which keeps trying to 'have it away' on your leg, while Dermot O'Leary is no doubt a pleasant enough chap but was at his true level with X-Factor.

Well that's another ITV breakfast show doomed to fail, leaving Susanna, several million pounds richer, doing hiking shows in the Fells in a graveyard slot.

Now all I need to make my contentment complete is for the Beeb to get rid of that awful weather presenter who insists on saying "gyood morning" every 15 minutes as if she hasn't said it often enough already.

This overcheerfulness is what makes me peevish right from the start of the day. Why do they need a sofa and two presenters anyway? Is it too much work for one? There is only one for the 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock. And who needs this 'chemistry' stuff anyhow? Come in early, read the news, do the papers, interview a politician on the latest way we are going to be screwed, report on how the landscape is going to be blighted in future, bit of sports news and bugger off home again. And that is it really. So why does it take two?

Why does the #BBC have to have at least one drama series full of historical inaccuracies on the go.

And it seems they have selected Sunday evenings to host it. The White Queen was the last example of this depressing trait and The Musketeers the latest. Even the Radio Times has not managed to get it right. In last week's edition David Butcher writing in the 'Pick Of The Day' slot stated that:

all the ingredients you'd wish for are present; duels where swashes are buckled, leaping from windows, romantic intrigue, enormous flintlocks, and a costume department sponsored by World Of Leather.

Well I looked and looked for a flintlock pistol and never saw one. I saw plenty of matchlocks but no flinters. Which is a bit odd because the series is supposed to be set circa 1630 when the flintlock mechanism was fairly well established. In fact it was a French gunsmith who first incorporated a flintlock mechanism into a firearm and that was for Louis XIII in 1610.
Needless to say horribly inaccurate speech and vocabulary has not been ignored in the script. I heard the word 'bloke' used at least once among several other unlikely phrases.
For God's sake, is a little basic research really too much to ask?

So it's #GoodbyeHayley and goodbye to yet another crass #Corrie storyline

So Hayley Cropper gave herself the chop in last night's episode of Coronation Street and I have to say that I think this storyline was misguided and heartless from start to finish.
Okay so I know pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease and research into its treatment is woefully underfunded. I also know that there is a body of opinion which says that putting it on the forefront of a soap plot is a good way of "raising awareness". And I also know that a television soap is supposed, almost by definition, to be family entertainment. It's what we pay our licence fees for and why we put up with ever increasing amounts of cretinous adverts. So I sincerely question whether it is justifiable or fair to use television for this kind of purpose when we are constantly bombarded by junk mail and our progress upon the high street is impeded by continual demands for our awareness concerning one cause or another. Anyhow isn't it really more the province of one-off dramas? And furthermore any television programme which requires the setting up of a "help line" has lost it's right to be called entertainment of any but the most sensationlist and voyeuristic kind.
I have also got to say that the role Hayley Cropper was never one of Coronation Street's deftest bits of casting. This is no slur on Julie Hesmondhalgh's acting. But I have always wondered what part of gender reassignment treatment is used give a man the ditzy character and posture of a finnicky and nasally challenged middleaged woman. What I mean is that Julie was never a convincing transsexual. And so her marriage to Roy was also unconvincing. So far as I have seen it does not matter how medically proficient or expensive the reassignment procedures are, they never completely succeed in creating a totally passable female. And Julie Hesmondhalgh as Hayley Cropper was certainly that.
All in all I'm glad she's gone bringing to an end that particular vein of misery. I am also glad that the suggested storyline of Roy assisting in her suicide did not transpire as that would simply have dragged the story out well beyond human endurance.
I will end by saying that I am sure I am not the only one to have lost a loved one and who found the whole story a completely unnecessary and distressing reminder.

Inaccurate programme descriptions in the Radio Times No 1 (probably the first of many)

Had to laugh while scanning the Christmas Day schedules in the vague hope of finding something even remotely worth watching this evening.
Under the heading in the Channel 5 listing is
Eddie Stobbart: 12 days Of Christmas
"A chance to catch up with some of the best moments from the series......."
Only of course there weren't any best moments. It was all totally moronic.
I don't know which were worst - the drivers or the utter morons who follow them about taking stupid pictures.

Is it me or is Noel Edmonds utterly stupid?

Having a touch of my usual insommnia I have been sitting up with the TV on. At this hour the choice is limited to teleshopping, business news from Singapore on BBC1 news or the mixed fare on Channel 4. Currently showing is Deal or No Deal. In his introduction Edmonds made the ourageous claim that every show is different because every player plays a different way. No they don't you fuckwit, they just select boxes to open. There is no skill or variety to that. He followed that by asking a contestant of Chinese origin,
"What is a buffet restaurant?" Surely even he knows what a buffet is and also a restaurant? Therefore he must be able to add both together to obtain an answer without asking?
Incredibly he has just enquired of a girl on the panel of cheering idiots what kind of buses and lorries are made in Solihull.
Shish! I'd better go to bed before I throw the telly out of the window.

#itt #scd Rachel Riley out and the fallacy of It Takes Two

Nothing will make up for my disappointment in seeing Rachel Riley go out even though she never really lived up to my hopes for her. I don't really know why other than the fact that she is not an actress nor even any musical background. It's just that she is without any doubt the prettiest girl ever to have graced the Strictly dancefloor.

Her American smooth this week earned her 30 pts and the comment from Len that it was her best dance so far. The score put her ahead of Fiona Fullerton (28), Sophie Ellis-Bextor (28), Mark Benton (25), and, of course, Dave Myers (19). Yet there she was in the dance off with Abbey Clancy (34). If I was inclined towards conspiracy theories I would smell a rat but I'm sure it's just the strange nature of the incomprehensible voting public.

I shall not be commenting on the betting any more as that ship has well and truly sailed now. I would say that Natalie Gumede is virtually uncatchable and her magical Viennese waltz on Saturday earned her a near maximum of 38 points. At 5/4 she is no longer a value betting opportunity in a current field of 10. However it is worth pointing out that; as Natalie might yet succumb once again to her back problem, and, since, Sophie Ellis-Bextor's limitations have been so fully exposed, a small flutter on Abbey Clancy at 7/1 could be justified.
However on to my real peevish gripe of the day. One of my dislikes in modern language is the use of the word goss which is a totally unnecessary abreviation for gossip. The viewing public is constantly being harangued to get the goss about this show or that. And it always seems to me that if the word goss is used then there never is any real gossip involved. Gossip is, of course, items of salacious tittle tattle.
Well the real gossip to emerge from last week was the spat between pro dancers Ola Jordan and Karen Hauer. I don't know what the cause of it was or even the truth of the words exchanged but one thing of which I am utterly certain is that there will not be a single mention of it on It Takes Two tonight. And that is the programme on which we are constantly being encouraged to get all the Strictly goss. What utter rubbish!!!!!!

#SCD I wasn't particularly enthusiastic when I read that Vanessa Feltz would be competing in this year's Strictly Come dancing.

It's not that I have anything much against La Feltz (thank goodness) except that I really don't see the point of her. She isn't particularly good at anything except getting her name in the papers bleating about her weight/marital issues. And I could not give a damn about either of those. No. The thing that annoys me about commpetitors like Feltz is that they keep getting public votes to remain in (or not enough to remove them.) Always at the expense of dancers I would like to see more of.
But, while still in despair, I saw that she would be joined by Rachel Riley - O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! I have had a thing about Rachel for a while and I think she is by far and away the best thing to happen to television for years. The words beautiful, intelligent and funny do not even begin to describe her. Lovely long legs and a delightful embonpoint. I don't think she has the face or attitude for Latin dances but I'm looking forward to seeing her in a flapper costume. She has the right sort of quirky humour to pull that style off well and I'm sure that elegant waltzes will also suit.

I'm not too pleased to see Susanna Reid in the line up. Not that I have anything against her skill as a newsreader but I am sick of seeing her vacantly staring back at me with those piss-hole eyes from the other side of the BBC Breakfast sofa when her partner is talking. There's something sinister about the woman, mark my words.

So far the cast of Strictly stereotypes looks like this:
Rachel Riley 27: So far the favourite to win and I'll be having a bet provided that her price does not get much lower before the others are officially announced.
Susanna Reid 42: allegedly 2nd favourite
Tony Jacklin: The obligatory elderly (but popular sports personality) No chance!
Deborah Meaden 54: Interesting. Obviously not in it for the money. Woe betide the sharp tongued judges.
Ben Cohen: A rugby player or so I'm informed. Never heard of him and I don't think he will be anywhere near graceful enough on the dancefloor.
Natalie Gumede: Bad girl from Corrie - Could be the dark horse.
Fiona Fullerton: The obligatory aging model/actress wanting a bit of glitter to lighten up her twilight years. Absolutely stunning in her day.
Sophie Ellis-Bextor: The obligatory pop princess although I don't think she is either a princess nor suffiently pop to gain many votes.
Abbey Clancy: A model apparently. Long legs and might just form a part of my betting trio.
Julien Macdonald: I heard more than enough from him in the last series commenting during It Takes Two on the costumes. He is one of those stupid people who simply cannot stop saying stuff is *AMAZING* I'll have to keep using the mute button.
and
Vanessa Feltz of course who must be this year's comic turn and the partner for Anton.

The other thing that vaguely amused me this weekend was the launch of ITV's rival to Strictly called Stepping Out. I only had to see that it was hosted by that graceless hyena Davina McCall for me to decide never to watch it under any circumstances.

#GBBO.....Hollywood rejects Paul Hollywood. Wahay! Oh no wait a minute.........

That means that the smarmy twat will be back on our screens in another cookery programme to add to the zillions already crowding the airwaves. Actually it's not that I object to the man himself, it's really that I can't abide celebrity chefs (though I make an exception for Nigella of course) and cooking programmes. What I really abhor about the Great British Bake Off is the incessant trailers featuring the awful Mary Berry taking a mouthful of something right into the camera and onto the screen in my sitting room, Yes I know she's probably a quite harmless old dear but when she bites into something it reminds me of the living dead taking a tasty morsel of human flesh. Okay so it's not her fault that she has an overbite and badly fitting false teeth and the complexion of a creature from the black lagoon but does the BBC really have to inflict the old dear on us? I'm sure there is a twilight home somewhere that would appreciate a little help in the kitchens.

Talking of the BBC, it rather amuses me that they have obviously encouraged Hollywood to do some public bleating in the Daily Mail about how his marriage break up wasn't entirely his fault and that he would have been happier if he'd never become famous. Well it was his fault that he embarked on an affair while trying to crack America and abandoned his wife.

I sense the hand of some PR twit at the Beeb trying to bump the viewing figures for a failing show with a car crash of a host at the helm.

The usual tedium of the summer TV schedules has been relieved......

.....in part by the BBC's repeats of Only Fools and Horses - a delight at any time, but also by a new freeview channel called, rather inappropriately, Drama. An episode of Rumpole of the Bailey has been shown on weekdays and , along with Only Fools, I record them for later viewing to fill the empty evening hours. Of course Rumpole is more than just a spacefiller. It was always one of my very favourite shows and not merely because of the superb literary writing of John Mortimer but also because of the sublime casting of Leo McKern as the eponymous Rumpole, the Old Bailey hack and husband of She.

They seemed to know a thing or two about casting in those days because Leo McKern was not the only joy to be found in the environ of Equity Court. I also enjoyed Bill Fraser as the terrifying Judge 'The Mad Bull' Bullingham who acquired a purple hue the more he became exasperated with Rumpole's defence tactics. How Bill Fraser managed to emulate that apopleptic colour is a testament to his skill.

I must also mention the lovely Patricia Hodge, in her heyday, as Phyllida 'Portia' Erskine-Brown. Very beautiful and even striking in her gown and horsehair peruque. Talking of beautiful lawyers there were also occasional appearances by Rosalyn Landor as Fiona Always. It would be an omission of unforgivable dimension not to give a reference to the truly magnificent Marion Mathie as Hilda Rumpole - She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Yes I enjoyed everything about the Rumpole TV series - almost as much as I enjoy the books to this day. I saw the the writers of the failed comedy series Vicious were bemoaning the slating they received from viewers and wondering why the were not commissioned for a further series. If they had but watched a single episode of Rumpole or Only Fools they might have got a clue.

My evening pleasures are not totally unalloyed however. This summer seems to have given rise to a greater than usual quantity of 'reality' docu-dramas or whatever they are called. The latest of these cheap and trashy programmes is on channel 4 and laughingly entitled 'The Dealership' I say laughingly because a 'dealership' in motor trade terms is an outlet for specific new car manufacterers whereas this alleged documentary features a used car emporium, in Essex needless to say. I don't know how they are going to sustain this level of crap for three episodes as they already said all there is to be said in the first. In fact if they just produced a title and description saying Essex and used cars that would be quite sufficient and our imaginations would have done the rest. Now that would be cheap programming!

It seems money doesn't buy commonsense any more than it does class #TheApprentice

I must admit I don't watch The Apprentice. I can't be bothered with the innane posturings of the 'candidates' and I'm not in the least convinced of Alan Sugar's sincerity or intentions. I mean why would somebody with his means not use the services of a reputable firm of headhunters to fulfil staffing requirements? The fact that he uses the medium of a television programme and presumably gets paid for it by the innept BBC casts a shadow of suspicion over the proceedings by itself.

However I did watch the final show of this series, because of a complete dearth of anything more worthwhile on Wednesday night.
The gravelly voiced Lord Sugar has apparently gone into the cosmetic surgery business with a woman who is possessed of just about the most irritating accent I have ever heard. A match made in heaven you might think.

Not necessarily!

The woman Leah Totton hails from Northern Ireland, claims to be 24 or 25 and to have graduated as a doctor and surgeon 2 years ago. But from somewhere in the dark recesses of my memory I seem to recall that it takes 7 years to gain even the most basic medical qualification and Dr Leah says that she has additionally taken unspecified courses in aesthetic medicine in Harley Street (maybe from one of the medical qualifications by post operations) and been working in the A&E department of a London hospital. She is obviously telling porkies either about her age or her medical degrees.

She also claims to have set up a company, LT Medical, which has been so successful in England that she intends to 'expand' into Northern Ireland. Oh really? Northere Ireland is packed with wealthy potential botox customers is it? I don't think the IRA's kneecapping victims can afford facial fills and skin peels. LT Medical is apparently so successful that it has no website or even a phone number.

All of which is why I don't usually bother watching The Apprentice. It's fakery and not even entertaining fakery.

The "not so White Queen" #sex scenes for U.S. version

The BBC's alleged "major new drama series" The White Queen is stuffed so full of historical innaccuracies as to render it as a work of fiction. The concrete steps and zipped dresses were two of my favourite errors. Now it seems that there were two versions filmed. The cosy tame English version for viewing on a Sunday evening here and a raunchy version for American cable channels. The Beebs continuing stupidity is beginning to amuse me now. They can film two versions and get neither right. It also amuses me to think of how the actresses justified their nude scenes. After all nudity was hardly vital to the plot in the English version, so the same cannot, in all conscience, be said of the US version.

I'm not peevish about it because I have zero interest in seeing Rebecca Fergusson (pictured right) topless or even bottomless. In any case I stopped watching after the third episode because it is such utter bilge.

#News - RIP Alan Whicker

Sad to hear of the death of Alan Whicker of bronchial pneumonia aged 87. He was a genial but always totally professional broadcaster of a type not seen these days. He leaves behind many fond memories of his time on the Tonight programme and on his own show Whicker's World which ran for over thirty years. A particular memory of mine is of the occasion, which he never tired of retelling, when he entered an Alan Whicker impersonation contest in the US and could only manage to come third.

It is to the BBC's eternal shame that they never made the listening to Alan Whicker a part of a compulsory training programme for all announcers and newsreaders. His English grammar and diction was always impeccable and his delivery of pieces to camera was almost a work of art. An art totally lost on the presenters and directors of today.

The fine line between respect and rudeness #EmergencyBikers

There I was innocently watching Emergency Bikers. Why, you ask? Well for the simple reason that there is bugger all else to watch at 8 o'clock on the main channels on a Wednesday night. As usual the childish language of the para med bikers was making me peevish. Particularly their insistence on using 'pop' instead of take or put. As in; "I'm just going to pop a bandage on your arm and then pop you down the hospital"

I consider it very childish and utterly unnecessary as neither the use of take nor put needs any extra effort. Using it makes these paramedics sound as if they are treating their patients like children when they are at their most vulnerable.

Anyway I eventually got so peevish that I simply had to tweet about it using the hash tag #EmergencyBikers. Not with the intention of eliciting a response from the producers but simply to make a point. My tweet went like this:

There we go AGAIN! Just going to *pop* a bandage on your head. PUT, its PUT you morons! #EmergencyBikers

Okay so morons was a bit strong but I was extremely dismayed at the frequent use of 'pop'
Some hours later I found that I had a reply which went like this:

Think you should show a little more respect.

from somebody called Flymo and whom I now realise is one of the bikers featured on the show.
Well for his information, respect is something that people earn and do not NECESSARILY command it simply by the nature of their chosen profession. For example I respect the law but NOT necessariy individual policemen. They earn respect by their conduct.
What annoys me about the emergency bikers (and many others in the health professions) is the way they talk down to patients who are very vulnerable and may be unable or unwilling to complain about their treatment.

Of course it is not just the use of childish words as I've always been disturbed about the insistence on using first names. Again for the information of Flymo; a person's first name is for the use of intimate friends and relations. It's totally disrespectful to assume that because someone has fallen off their bicycle that they wish to be called by their first name.
The conversation should therefore go like this:
Biker: My name is Mark Flymo. What is yours?
Victim: John Smith.
Biker: Ok Mr Smith, I'm going to put a bandage on your head and then take you down to the hospital for a check up.

There isn't that easy and full of caring respect. Anything else is plain rudeness.

The Mail Online must be extremely short of news and it's not even August yet

This picture was purported to have been taken this week when Jeremy had been out celebrating the launch of his new series of Top Gear. He looks a trifle the worse for wear which would not be too surprising as the launch edition was rather flat and boring. However none of that is the point of this post. Jeremy is pictured leaving the West End club Loulou's with a female companion. Regardez the said female companion's lapel. Either the said female suffers from early onset Alzheimers or this picture was actually taken last October/November time when the wearing of a poppy would be less unusual.

I'm utterly depressed by the viewing figures for The man with the Ten Stone Testicles

According to figures released today, just over 3 million watched the Channel 4 documentary at the scheduled 9pm slot and a further 8 hundred thousand at on the 4+1 slot. What hope is there for people who want normal entertainment and intelligent documentaries when there are so many viewers for this kind of prurient voyeurism.

The poor television schedules tonight

There is absolutely nothing worth watching in the 9 o'clock slot this evening.
BBC1: New Tricks - Well, new it certainly isn't and it was tripe even when it was new.
BBC2: Rick Stein's India - Another cooking programme to add to the zillions of others.
ITV: Long Lost Family - Utter shite hosted by the abominable Davina McCall.
Channel4: The Man with the Ten Stone Testicles - I don't know which is worse, the programme itself or the kind of people who watch them. I suppose it is intended for the kind of voyeuristic deviants who watch the embarrassing body programmes with the vile Dr Pixie etc.
Do the television companies imagine we're all out having picnics enjoying the wonderful weather or what?

Strange that TV companies assume that we're all out and about at weekends enjoying the good weather....

When they know perfectly well - or at least they should know, bearing in mind the amount of money they spend telling us about it - that the weather is absolute shit. And we're all indoors wanting to watch the television except there's bugger all on worth watching. I think tonight is the fourth this week when there has not been a single thing I consider worth the electricity to watch. Tonight it's the turn of The White Queen on BBC - billed as 'a major new drama series' when in fact it's just another lame excuse to cast a bunch of lame and rather too young men in frilly shirts in order to entice a female audience. Of course it is also full of historical inaccuracies (for example; when were zips invented? And I actually saw a house with concrete steps). Of course the BBC claim it to be a 'reimagining of history'. I just wish they would reimagine it on someone else's momey.

I have been trying to watch The Returned but I've lost track of the plot now. Far too much time shifting for an easily confused old fart like me. Thank god for digital recording!

Of course I'll have a bash at Big Brother just to take the piss out of it on Twitter. To be honest, Twitter has been far more enjoyable than television of late.

Unnecessary #BBC expenditure No2 - New series #AirportLive on #BBC2

I do not understand why we always seem to have two or more presenters on a documentary or news type feature. Tonight on Airport Live there are three. Anita Rani, someone called Dallas Campbell of whom I have never heard and Dan Snow whom I detest. Surely it would be sufficent to have Anita Rani on her own as she is more than competent, speaks good English and looks very attractive on camera. Surely three presenters must add considerably to the cost.
I would like to watch this programme but will probably not do so because the trailer for it indicates that the script will have an amazing number of *amazings* and I do not particularly wish to see Dan Snow's scarecrow hands ruining the imagery of aircraft taking off and landing nor his dumbed down style simplifing anything remotely technical.