BBC Getting Sensitive

Did anyone else notice something slightly odd about today's 'Dream Team' paper review on Breakfast with Frost?

As David was turning over the papers and reading out the headlines, he came across The Sunday Telegraph headline 'BBC orders critical coverage of Queen's Jubilee'. This nearly gave old Frosty a heart attack and he flicked the paper over as soon as he realised and stuttered his way through, trying to find another story on the Telegraph's front page... oops! It was made pretty obvious that Auntie didn't want this one mentioned and the Telegraph was hidden under about 5 other papers and wasn't touched by the Dream Team.

Surely all broadcasters should be open about their plans, especially if they're leaked to a Sunday broadsheet. What is the point in trying to cover it up?

It's the same for all broadcasters really. Sky have always reported BSkyB's profits and losses, but there have been a few times when they have negelected a few key stories from the day's agenda - the investigation into BSkyB being one example of this...

What makes broadcasters so reluctant to shame such details with viewers? They're more than prepared to let sources leak them to national newspapers but when they do they try to hide them away from the people who actually watch the channel.

And while I'm on about Frost, he's looking a little unsteady. Makes you wonder whether the BBC are going to do another Brian Redhead and let him work until he dies without stopping him. He doesn't look very well to me.

He was probably aware of the BBC crack firing squad (ready ... take aim) just out of the corner of his eye

You mean Sian Williams doesn't just read the news?

Surely if the BBC is a public organisation, surely this must mean that they should be open and 100% accountable, especially in situations like this.

The only coverage of the Jubilee shuold be the royal family getting shot. They are a waste of space and money and they sit on their arse all day and do nothing. No-one wants them or needs them.

Oh, that's charming! You're talking about the Queen here remember, someone that runs our country. OK, not everyone think she's the best but at least give her some respect and credit.

The queen does not run the conuntry. the government does. The queen has absolutly no say in any of the governemt's buisness.

Aren't you a Tory, James? Or am I confusing you with someone else? Perhaps I am.

Either way, the Royal Family do not sit on their arses and do nothing.

They provided something for all of us plebs to laugh at, blame and execute.

In their present form they are very outdated. Look at the Dutch Royal Family as an example of how Royals can be just normal people and well liked.

The Royals do a lot of charity work and provide tv stations with audiences when one of them dies.

I'm still waiting for Fleet Street to break their biggest rule yet and report on Prince Harry's father; it's not Charles, BTW. It's the ginger bloke that everyone forgot, Fleet Street will never say so, though. It'll be interesting when/if it does come out.

And as for the Duke of Edinburgh's mistresses... well, they'll all come out one day, that is, the day when a certain national newspaper decides to unearth those photos from it's archives...

Don't forget that the queen voluntarily pays income tax, that's putting something back into the country's coffers isn't it?

I'm all for them. the alternative to the Royal Family turns my stomach.....

Correct but there is a lot more red tape in that. The government is the Queen's government after all (even though she has nothing to do with it). She technically has some say in the business of the government as it is up to her to grant the charters and sign the bills to make them law.

If you want to know exactly how much power a British monarch has, read about the Constitutional Crisis 1909-1911, and that will tell you. The monarch has some tough (OK, you might not think so) decisions to make regarding who to support. Technically they are to support the government but that doesn't always work if they are not in favour of the government's policies (e.g. a Tory today). They do tend to favour with the g't as the people have chosen them.

Anyway, I say yay to the retaining of the monarchy.

Are you saying the Duke's mistresses are all lesbians;)


And don't forget old Queenie. She is rumoured to have dailled with her racing trainer, who was the father of Andrew:o

(Edited by Marcus at 5:16 pm on Feb. 3, 2002)

Ok this is supposed to be about TV discussion, not the future (or not) of the monarchy. But as everyone else has put their two penneth in, my view is scrap them once the present queen dies they do nothing but cost us money and take up valuable space in tv schedules when one of them marries/dies.