Topic: The BBC

[Nobby Reserve]

Laura Kuenssburg, Andrew Neil anything more need to be said!

Former BBC News Political Editor, and a current host of 'Today' on R4, Nick Robinson.

From Wiki:

Political activism
Robinson was a founder-member of Macclesfield Young Conservatives (YC) and rose through the ranks, becoming Cheshire YC Chairman from 1982 to 1984 and became a key activist in the moderate-controlled North West Area organisation. Philip Pedley, as National YC Chairman, co-opted Robinson onto the YC National Advisory Committee in 1983 and appointed him National Campaign Director of Youth for Multilateral Disarmament. Robinson was elected National Vice Chairman from 1985 to 1987 and succeeded a fellow moderate, Richard Fuller, when Robinson was elected Chairman of the National Young Conservatives on the moderate ticket against strong right-wing opposition (1987–1988).[7]
At university he was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association in 1985

Alastair Campbell was very open in accusing Robinson of pro-Tory bias

[Yorkykopite]

"There are Tories who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished" is a stupid argument. It's just as stupid as "there are socialists who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished".

Sadly, we hear both arguments much more today. Why?

Because this country, like many other liberal democracies is breaking apart into silos. The idea that one might have to listen to an argument put by someone you disagree with is becoming literally intolerable to many people. Hence the crisis at the BBC which, famously and annoyingly, attempts to hold the ring and hear all sides.

I watched a lot of CNN over the past few months. I loved it. But I also started to realise I was watching a TV channel where all the reporters agreed with each other and even agreed with every single person they interviewed. There is something depressingly monolithic about that - and the answer to that state of affairs is not "Rick Santorum", because Santorum was simply the exception that proves the rule. (By the way, a conservative without a quarter of the brains or style of Andrew Neil). Eventually I got sick of the heartfelt homilies of each of the star CNN journalists (Anderson Cooper aside). They seemed to be competing with each other (and the dead, like Walter Cronkite) to say the same thing except with more tears and more sincerity. It was like watching hyper-ventilating Hollywood stars collecting their Oscars. Van Jones must have cried live on air at least three times, showing his despair at the state of the Republic. Laughable! 

It was also depressing to realise that not a single Trumper, and probably very few Republicans bother to watch CNN. Why would they? That means CNN is preaching to the converted and confines its mission to making the converted feel good about themselves.

Obviously the USA is even more 'silo-based' as a national community than the UK. But if the BBC disappears because of lack of public funding that will be the last remaining broadcasting obstacle to Britain becoming like America. It will affect every corner of the broadcast media. We will all go into one corner and watch John Pilger, or John Pilger's children, do his Pilger thing. The other side will retreat to their channel and watch whatever turns them on. Britain, as a democracy, will be up shit's creek.
 

[Yorkykopite]

PS The buzzwords on the Left for the Two-Minute hate are Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil. The buzzwords on the Right are Laura Kuenssberg and Emily Maitlis.

PPS Some of the hatred about Kuenssberg, on both Left and Right, seems to be provoked by her semitic surname.

[jillcwhomever]

"There are Tories who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished" is a stupid argument. It's just as stupid as "there are socialists who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished".

Sadly, we hear both arguments much more today. Why?

Because this country, like many other liberal democracies is breaking apart into silos. The idea that one might have to listen to an argument put by someone you disagree with is becoming literally intolerable to many people. Hence the crisis at the BBC which, famously and annoyingly, attempts to hold the ring and hear all sides.

I watched a lot of CNN over the past few months. I loved it. But I also started to realise I was watching a TV channel where all the reporters agreed with each other and even agreed with every single person they interviewed. There is something depressingly monolithic about that - and the answer to that state of affairs is not "Rick Santorum", because Santorum was simply the exception that proves the rule. (By the way, a conservative without a quarter of the brains or style of Andrew Neil). Eventually I got sick of the heartfelt homilies of each of the star CNN journalists (Anderson Cooper aside). They seemed to be competing with each other (and the dead, like Walter Cronkite) to say the same thing except with more tears and more sincerity. It was like watching hyper-ventilating Hollywood stars collecting their Oscars. Van Jones must have cried live on air at least three times, showing his despair at the state of the Republic. Laughable! 

It was also depressing to realise that not a single Trumper, and probably very few Republicans bother to watch CNN. Why would they? That means CNN is preaching to the converted and confines its mission to making the converted feel good about themselves.

Obviously the USA is even more 'silo-based' as a national community than the UK. But if the BBC disappears because of lack of public funding that will be the last remaining broadcasting obstacle to Britain becoming like America. It will affect every corner of the broadcast media. We will all go into one corner and watch John Pilger, or John Pilger's children, do his Pilger thing. The other side will retreat to their channel and watch whatever turns them on. Britain, as a democracy, will be up shit's creek.

Bang on Yorkie, couldn't agree more especially the last bit.

[Qston]

"There are Tories who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished" is a stupid argument. It's just as stupid as "there are socialists who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished".

Sadly, we hear both arguments much more today. Why?

Because this country, like many other liberal democracies is breaking apart into silos. The idea that one might have to listen to an argument put by someone you disagree with is becoming literally intolerable to many people. Hence the crisis at the BBC which, famously and annoyingly, attempts to hold the ring and hear all sides.

I watched a lot of CNN over the past few months. I loved it. But I also started to realise I was watching a TV channel where all the reporters agreed with each other and even agreed with every single person they interviewed. There is something depressingly monolithic about that - and the answer to that state of affairs is not "Rick Santorum", because Santorum was simply the exception that proves the rule. (By the way, a conservative without a quarter of the brains or style of Andrew Neil). Eventually I got sick of the heartfelt homilies of each of the star CNN journalists (Anderson Cooper aside). They seemed to be competing with each other (and the dead, like Walter Cronkite) to say the same thing except with more tears and more sincerity. It was like watching hyper-ventilating Hollywood stars collecting their Oscars. Van Jones must have cried live on air at least three times, showing his despair at the state of the Republic. Laughable! 

It was also depressing to realise that not a single Trumper, and probably very few Republicans bother to watch CNN. Why would they? That means CNN is preaching to the converted and confines its mission to making the converted feel good about themselves.

Obviously the USA is even more 'silo-based' as a national community than the UK. But if the BBC disappears because of lack of public funding that will be the last remaining broadcasting obstacle to Britain becoming like America. It will affect every corner of the broadcast media. We will all go into one corner and watch John Pilger, or John Pilger's children, do his Pilger thing. The other side will retreat to their channel and watch whatever turns them on. Britain, as a democracy, will be up shit's creek.

Agree wholeheartedly

[thaddeus]

"There are Tories who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished" is a stupid argument. It's just as stupid as "there are socialists who work for the BBC and therefore the licence fee should be abolished".

Sadly, we hear both arguments much more today. Why?

Because this country, like many other liberal democracies is breaking apart into silos. The idea that one might have to listen to an argument put by someone you disagree with is becoming literally intolerable to many people. Hence the crisis at the BBC which, famously and annoyingly, attempts to hold the ring and hear all sides.

I watched a lot of CNN over the past few months. I loved it. But I also started to realise I was watching a TV channel where all the reporters agreed with each other and even agreed with every single person they interviewed. There is something depressingly monolithic about that - and the answer to that state of affairs is not "Rick Santorum", because Santorum was simply the exception that proves the rule. (By the way, a conservative without a quarter of the brains or style of Andrew Neil). Eventually I got sick of the heartfelt homilies of each of the star CNN journalists (Anderson Cooper aside). They seemed to be competing with each other (and the dead, like Walter Cronkite) to say the same thing except with more tears and more sincerity. It was like watching hyper-ventilating Hollywood stars collecting their Oscars. Van Jones must have cried live on air at least three times, showing his despair at the state of the Republic. Laughable! 

It was also depressing to realise that not a single Trumper, and probably very few Republicans bother to watch CNN. Why would they? That means CNN is preaching to the converted and confines its mission to making the converted feel good about themselves.

Obviously the USA is even more 'silo-based' as a national community than the UK. But if the BBC disappears because of lack of public funding that will be the last remaining broadcasting obstacle to Britain becoming like America. It will affect every corner of the broadcast media. We will all go into one corner and watch John Pilger, or John Pilger's children, do his Pilger thing. The other side will retreat to their channel and watch whatever turns them on. Britain, as a democracy, will be up shit's creek.

Spot on!  The BBC has to be preserved, despite its imperfections.

There's clearly more to gain for the right from the BBC being downgraded or disbanded.  You only really need to look at the print media to see the balance you'd end up with.

There's undoubtedly a degree of editorial placements within the BBC from whichever government is in power.  Unfortunately this reinforces itself if any one government is in power for a long period.

The presenters are generally balanced but most regular observers could have a reasonably educated guess as to what their personal viewpoints are.  With someone like Andrew Neil we'll see his true colours more now that he's free from the constraints of the BBC and his allegiances are solely to The Spectator and GB News.  That said, Neil was vociferous in his criticisms of Johnson in the lead up to the election - it's difficult to imagine a senior presenter on Fox or CNN being so critical of "their man".

I listen to Radio 5 most mornings and Nicky Campbell is clearly a socialist at heart, some of his off the cuff remarks give him away.  That said he - like most at the BBC - is capable of being professional and he interrogates the views of any of his guests with much the same energy.

[Nobby Reserve]

PS The buzzwords on the Left for the Two-Minute hate are Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil. The buzzwords on the Right are Laura Kuenssberg and Emily Maitlis.

PPS Some of the hatred about Kuenssberg, on both Left and Right, seems to be provoked by her semitic surname.

I thought her name was Afrikaans. Dunno why, I presumed her family was from South Africa. I had no idea she was Jewish.

I can't abide her because of her fawning over first May, then Bozo, highlighted in her failure to ask any hint of difficult or searching questions to either.

[Nobby Reserve]

Up until 2010, I viewed the BBC as a pretty politically balanced broadcaster, although one that had ties to and was very supportive/protective of the old-school Establishment. Not in a pernicious way,; more like a benevolent lord of the manor and well-meaning family.

Through the Thatcher, Major & Bliar years, I did not see a bias (so the argument made about every government making political appointments to senior BBC positions, which in turn lead to a bias within the corporation, is groundless)

The British (English?) right, like the MAGAwits in the US, hated the balance. Used to most of the media propagating hard-right positions as 'normal' (shunting the Overton window some distance rightwards), they viewed the BBC as lefty. The same right-wing print media, through their endemic gaslighting, reinforced the erroneous opinion that the BBC was left-biased.

The Tory Party themselves put into action their plan to bring the BBC more under their control after the 2010 GE. There were stories from whistle blowers of interference in news editorial direction and threats of 'privatisation'. Labour, under Miliband, were moved to formally complain to the BBC about their pro-Tory bias (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/dec/31/ed-miliband-labour-bbc-bias)

When the odious Whittingdale took over at Culture, Media & Sport, bully-boy interference and threats ramped up. The bias is subtle. A study into BBCs coverage of the 2015 election campaign showed how they focused on policy areas that were key Tory strong points with the public, whilst relegating focus on policy areas (like underfunding the NHS, education and public services) which are strong for Labour. 

All this notwithstanding, I still support the principle of a national broadcaster funded through a licence fee (or similar). But when that entire neutral ethos is being corrupted by a political party abusing their position to strongarm the broadcaster into presenting a biased news agenda in favour of that party, it presents a dilemma: does one continue to stick rigidly to one's principles even though it brings a large electoral benefit to the Tories? Or do you shout that the BBC is being abused by the Tory Party and try to bring attention to this Orwellian corruption?

[TSC]

I thought her name was Afrikaans. Dunno why, I presumed her family was from South Africa. I had no idea she was Jewish.

I can't abide her because of her fawning over first May, then Bozo, highlighted in her failure to ask any hint of difficult or searching questions to either.

German origin.

[Red Beret]

Never posted in here before, so just a quick question:

Why the ABSOLUTE FUCK should I pay money to the BBC for watching a charity livestream on youtube being hosted by an American??

[Elmo!]

Never posted in here before, so just a quick question:

Why the ABSOLUTE FUCK should I pay money to the BBC for watching a charity livestream on youtube being hosted by an American??

You don't have to pay a license for that.

[Red Beret]

You don't have to pay a license for that.

I do according to the letter I have - not that I am watching stuff like that of course.

No watching or streaming live TV shows from online TV services like ITV Hub, All 4, Amazon Prime Video, or YouTube.

Now, yes, a charity livestream from the likes of Markiplier or Jacksepticeye is not something I would define as a "TV show", but I suspect the licence people would only be too happy to disagree?

[Elmo!]

I do according to the letter I have - not that I am watching stuff like that of course.

Now, yes, a charity livestream from the likes of Markiplier or Jacksepticeye is not something I would define as a "TV show", but I suspect the licence people would only be too happy to disagree?

As I understand it, that is only livestreams on Youtube of things that are also being broadcast on TV.

This is the wording on their site - it specifically says "TV programmes live on Youtube":

Do I need a TV Licence to watch online, including on YouTube?

    You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch programmes live on any online TV service - such as ITV Hub, All 4, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV or Sky Go. You don’t need a TV Licence if you only ever watch on demand programmes on any TV service apart from BBC iPlayer.

    You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube. But you do need a TV Licence if you watch TV programmes live on YouTube. An example of this would be watching Sky News live. But it isn’t just live news or sport which needs a licence – it’s any programme which is part of a TV channel, broadcast or transmitted for everyone to watch at the same time.

[Red Beret]

As I understand it, that is only livestreams on Youtube of things that are also being broadcast on TV.

This is the wording on their site - it specifically says "TV programmes live on Youtube":

Well that's something at least.  Guess I'll steer clear of cnn.uk though mind.

[McrRed]

Despite the ad hominem nonsense and emotional appeals I would still happily get rid of the BBC/TV equipment licence. Particularly with the BBC in its current guise.
Let's be balanced about it though: those who want it, pay for it. Or be more honest about it: pay for it from central government funds - that way the propaganda can come off the right column on the balance sheet.

[Yorkykopite]

Netflix want more money from me and I'll give it. But it's now more expensive per annum than the BBC. Yet no live TV, no News, no Radio, no World Service broadcasting in different tongues to places where dictators preside, and no news online.

[ShakaHislop]

Spot on!  The BBC has to be preserved, despite its imperfections.

There's clearly more to gain for the right from the BBC being downgraded or disbanded.  You only really need to look at the print media to see the balance you'd end up with.

There's undoubtedly a degree of editorial placements within the BBC from whichever government is in power.  Unfortunately this reinforces itself if any one government is in power for a long period.

The presenters are generally balanced but most regular observers could have a reasonably educated guess as to what their personal viewpoints are.  With someone like Andrew Neil we'll see his true colours more now that he's free from the constraints of the BBC and his allegiances are solely to The Spectator and GB News.  That said, Neil was vociferous in his criticisms of Johnson in the lead up to the election - it's difficult to imagine a senior presenter on Fox or CNN being so critical of "their man".

I listen to Radio 5 most mornings and Nicky Campbell is clearly a socialist at heart, some of his off the cuff remarks give him away.  That said he - like most at the BBC - is capable of being professional and he interrogates the views of any of his guests with much the same energy.

What incentive is there for the BBC to improve/fix its mistakes with this attitude? It's a free pass to be as shit as it likes because of the boogeyman argument that getting rid of it will always be a worse alternative.

[Yorkykopite]

What incentive is there for the BBC to improve/fix its mistakes with this attitude? It's a free pass to be as shit as it likes because of the boogeyman argument that getting rid of it will always be a worse alternative.

The incentive is an old fashioned socialist one I suppose. To give the best service you can get, free of the compulsion of profit. Most people in the industry want to do this anyway because craft pride is important.

I think it shows.

It's exactly the same motive that operates in the National Health Service, which is similarly free of commercial incentives. If anything the BBC has more competition than the NHS. But one could use the same argument that you use against the BBC against the NHS too. "Why bother improving doc? Why even try nurse? You're just relying on the public belief that things would be worse without the NHS."

[Fromola]

What incentive is there for the BBC to improve/fix its mistakes with this attitude? It's a free pass to be as shit as it likes because of the boogeyman argument that getting rid of it will always be a worse alternative.

I don't see the point of the BBC anymore in the UK. They never challenge the government on anything and they helped turn Frottage into a star which set the momentum for Brexit. Boris and his ministers are always happy to line up for Marr or BBC Breakfast for a cosy chat (even when they were boycotting the other main channels). Laura Kuenssberg basically just says whatever the government tell her to say. The whole organisation at the top has been stacked full of Tories since 2010 and there's a revolving door between number 10 and the BBC (Allegra Stratton the latest).  They're also in thrall to the government for threat of losing their license, so never want to rock the boat anyway.

Their sport output is pitiful (except for the big events they still get by law with free to air) and their flagship comedy show is Mrs Brown's Boys.

The whole Savile thing was an utter disgrace as well.

[Red-Soldier]

They still make the best natural world and history programmes.

[mickeydocs]

They still make the best natural world and history programmes.

Do you mean in English or in general.
National Geographic and Discovery make some great documentaries.

[Red-Soldier]

Do you mean in English or in general.
National Geographic and Discovery make some great documentaries.

In general.

So I understand, but you have to pay a private company for those, so I wouldn't know.

BBC1, 2 and 4 are the live channels I watch/record the most on TV (I appreciate I'm not the average watcher).

[Elmo!]

They still make the best natural world and history programmes.

I agree, which is a big part of why on balance I still pay for a license fee, despite their shocking news output.

[TSC]

Marr attempting a complete hatchet job on Strugeon this morning.  Disgraceful IMO.  Actually asking her will she resign if she mislaid parliament (she hasn't).

Marr cosied up to Johnson earlier and now he's spoiuting his reference to '40 years between referendums'.

[AndyMuller]

Marr is a fucking gobshite.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Marr attempting a complete hatchet job on Strugeon this morning.  Disgraceful IMO.  Actually asking her will she resign if she mislaid parliament (she hasn't).

Marr cosied up to Johnson earlier and now he's spoiuting his reference to '40 years between referendums'.

If true, that would be an extremely serious situation and Sturgeon should resign. I mean, it is not like Marr is her accusing her of losing the keys to her bike lock.

[Elmo!]

If true, that would be an extremely serious situation and Sturgeon should resign. I mean, it is not like Marr is her accusing her of losing the keys to her bike lock.

 

[Red-Soldier]

Johnson poised to appoint Paul Dacre chair of Ofcom

PM’s choice of controversial former Mail editor is part of his election promise to radically overhaul the BBC

For many who work in public service broadcasting, it is the nightmare that refuses to go away. Could Paul Dacre, former editor of the Daily Mail, really now have the chance to oversee the statutory regulation of British TV and telecommunications? The Brexiter and longtime bête noire of liberals and leftwingers is understood to be very close to being offered the influential role of chair of Ofcom.

According to Whitehall and media sources, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is preparing to announce the controversial appointment soon, and will later reward Dacre with a peerage. The remit will be to target the BBC.

“This is an appalling idea,” said one leading figure in British TV management. “A key role for Ofcom in the coming months will be focusing on improving the nation’s broadband, which is vital not just for business but for social inclusion. Dacre knows nothing about any of that.”

He does, however, have one attribute likely to go down well with many in the media. Associates report that he maintains his long-held dislike of the big internet platforms. Organisations such as Google and Facebook have effectively destroyed the advertising market that supports the newspapers in his stable.

The 72-year-old journalist is still editor in chief of Daily Mail Group, publisher of the right-leaning daily newspaper, and the Mail on Sunday, the London free title Metro and the MailOnline website, for which he is paid a large salary. Ofcom staff, in contrast, adopt political neutrality.

When Dacre’s candidacy for the Ofcom chair was first mooted at the end of last summer, many politicians, academics and television executives expressed great alarm. Former Labour minister Lord Adonis said back then that Dacre “demonstrably doesn’t believe in impartially and statutorily regulated media”, and therefore would be presiding over an institution he did not believe in.

Although a date has not yet been set, the prime minister is believed to be hoping to announce the appointment quickly, but he is said to still be meeting some resistance within government circles. The permanent appointment to the role of Ofcom chair has been held open since early last year, when economist Lord Burns announced he was stepping down.

Burns is believed to have tussled with the prime minister over the appointment of a new Ofcom chief executive. Eventually he agreed to leave in order to get his own choice of Melanie Dawes.

Dawes stepped across from her high-ranking civil service job in February last year. Announcing the move, Dawes, who is married to Benedict Brogan, political editor of the Daily Mail under Dacre, spoke of “a big agenda ahead”. That includes handling the most vulnerable moment in the BBC’s recent history.

Johnson came to power with promises to seriously reform the basis on which the BBC operates. These plans were interrupted by the pandemic, but he has now set up a government panel to consider the future role of public service broadcasting.

Charles Moore, former editor of the Telegraph, was initially considered for the role of BBC chairman. In the Times earlier this month, journalist James Forsyth, husband of Downing Street spokesperson Allegra Stratton, wrote that Johnson had eventually agreed to appoint a less contentious BBC chairman in the shape of financier Richard Sharp, who will take up the job in the next few days. It is thought that, as consolation, the PM hopes to regain the support of anti-BBC Conservative backbenchers by making Dacre the figurehead of Ofcom.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom

[Jiminy Cricket]

Johnson poised to appoint Paul Dacre chair of Ofcom

PM’s choice of controversial former Mail editor is part of his election promise to radically overhaul the BBC
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom

Fuck me sideways. That's not good news. Where is the UK heading?

[Red-Soldier]

Fuck me sideways. That's not good news. Where is the UK heading?

Not a good place!

I have said that I think the country is permanently fucked. 

It's a dark future ahead I feel.

[Jake]

Fucks me off that the only live thing I ever, ever watch is the footy. On Now TV, BT App on my xbox and on Amazon Prime.

I don't understand why I have to pay the BBC for the privledge.

[Buck Pete]

Aww man. Jim Steinman has passed away aged 73

So many fond memories of blasting out "Bat out of Hell" as a teenager.

RIP

[liverbloke]

Aww man. Jim Steinman has passed away aged 73

So many fond memories of blasting out "Bat out of Hell" as a teenager.

RIP

that is sad it really is

bat is a top album - the classic album doc about it is a good watch too

[Crosby Nick]

You took the words right out of my mouth Pete.

[afc tukrish]

You took the words right out of my mouth Pete.

One of the Who's lesser efforts...

[Buck Pete]

that is sad it really is

bat is a top album - the classic album doc about it is a good watch too

Everything just came together for the album didn't it.  As if the stars were aligned.

Steinman's writing, Meat Loaf's voice and Todd Rundgren production.

[LanceLink!!!!!]

RIP Shock G, Digital Underground.

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/PBsjggc5jHM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/PBsjggc5jHM</a>

[Buck Pete]

Surprised Chopper not been in here commiserating the passing of his childhood poster boy Les Mckeown.  Frontman for the Bay City Rollers.

Seriously though, RIP Les. 65 years old.

Mock them all you want but the Rollers were literally worldwide stars for a year or two and I bet it was one hell of a ride.

(Insert hilarious Bye Bye baby joke here)

[Son of Spion]

^
I read about Les yesterday.

I was never a fan, but I do remember Roller Mania. So sad to see him go at such a young age.

RIP Les.

[So… Howard Philips]

Surprised Chopper not been in here commiserating the passing of his childhood poster boy Les Mckeown.  Frontman for the Bay City Rollers.

Seriously though, RIP Les. 65 years old.

Mock them all you want but the Rollers were literally worldwide stars for a year or two and I bet it was one hell of a ride.

(Insert hilarious Bye Bye baby joke here)

I had to take my ten year old sister and her mate to see the Rollers at the Empire in their heyday. I was supposed to baby sit them but the moment we got into the Empire they told me to do one and they joined the screaming masses.

I went to the bar and had a few beers with the security staff and Liverpool Police's finest - not only was it legal to drink and drive in the early 70s but it was obligatory for some coppers to drink on duty. The coppers much preferred to police a full blooded Liverpool-United match than try to control the screaming mass of pre pubescent girls.

The week later I took my sister in law to be and a mate to see David Cassidy in Manchester.

The things you do for your family.