--- In just-a-minute@..., "charles_454545" <charles@...> wrote:
>
> Today's episode is at http://www.mediafire.com/?gny5nydqoe2
>
> As today's posts have already said, this really is a good one.
> *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good, but everyone is on their
> game this week... :)
>
--- In just-a-minute@..., "charles_454545" <charles@...> wrote:
>
> Today's episode is at http://www.mediafire.com/?gny5nydqoe2
>
> As today's posts have already said, this really is a good one.
> *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good, but everyone is on their
> game this week... :)
>
>I wonder why Stephen Fry never does episodes outside of London - and this despite the fact he lives in Norfolk and always stands up for that neck of the woods on programmes such as QI. I agree that most episodes he is involved in are good - also I believe (hope) he is the kind of chap that will be happy to do Just A Minute to preserve the institution in coming years. Unfortunately only recording in London and preserving the institution are not mutually exclusive.
> *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good .....
>I don't think it makes much difference these days - this year only four
> --- "charles_454545" <charles@...> wrote:
> >
> > *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good .....
>
> I wonder why Stephen Fry never does episodes outside of London - and
> this despite the fact he lives in Norfolk and always stands up for that
> neck of the woods on programmes such as QI. I agree that most episodes
> he is involved in are good - also I believe (hope) he is the kind of
> chap that will be happy to do Just A Minute to preserve the institution
> in coming years. Unfortunately only recording in London and preserving
> the institution are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Am I wrong about this London-centric leaning of Stephen's? can anyone
> shed any light on it.
--- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 03:16 AM, j_a_m_fan wrote:
>
> >
> > --- "charles_454545" <charles@> wrote:
> > >
> > > *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good .....
> >
> > I wonder why Stephen Fry never does episodes outside of London - and
> > this despite the fact he lives in Norfolk and always stands up for that
> > neck of the woods on programmes such as QI. I agree that most episodes
> > he is involved in are good - also I believe (hope) he is the kind of
> > chap that will be happy to do Just A Minute to preserve the institution
> > in coming years. Unfortunately only recording in London and preserving
> > the institution are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Am I wrong about this London-centric leaning of Stephen's? can anyone
> > shed any light on it.
>
> I don't think it makes much difference these days - this year only four
> shows out of 22 have been recorded outside London.
>
> I would like Stephen Fry to do a lot more JAM too! I suspect he is just
> a very busy man and reluctant to commit to too many more panel shows,
> given his association with QI.
>
--- In just-a-minute@..., "j_a_m_fan" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Stephen is unbelievably busy, his latest show on the BBc is a follow up Tv programme to Douglas Adam's excellent last book 'Last Chance To See' which literally takes him all over the world to many of the most inaccessible spots, this on the heels of travelling all over the USA in a London taxi as well as filming some US series in L.A. a certain number of weeks per year ("Bones" I believe) ... not to mention QI and many other guest appearance slots he does ...
>
> Trouble is, how many radio shows will survice at all if they attempt to remain based purely in London? NONE is the official answer, outside the news studios.
>
> I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4 will stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing it for money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into an 8 figure contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC. This may have been discussed previously but I have been unable to keep up with all messages in recent times. If anyone knows, a quick response to this post would be much appreciated.
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 03:16 AM, j_a_m_fan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- "charles_454545" <charles@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *Most* Stephen Fry episodes are good .....
> > >
> > > I wonder why Stephen Fry never does episodes outside of London - and
> > > this despite the fact he lives in Norfolk and always stands up for that
> > > neck of the woods on programmes such as QI. I agree that most episodes
> > > he is involved in are good - also I believe (hope) he is the kind of
> > > chap that will be happy to do Just A Minute to preserve the institution
> > > in coming years. Unfortunately only recording in London and preserving
> > > the institution are not mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > > Am I wrong about this London-centric leaning of Stephen's? can anyone
> > > shed any light on it.
> >
> > I don't think it makes much difference these days - this year only four
> > shows out of 22 have been recorded outside London.
> >
> > I would like Stephen Fry to do a lot more JAM too! I suspect he is just
> > a very busy man and reluctant to commit to too many more panel shows,
> > given his association with QI.
> >
>
On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 08:07 PM, j_a_m_fan wrote:
>
> I agree Stephen is unbelievably busy, his latest show on the BBc is a
> follow up Tv programme to Douglas Adam's excellent last book 'Last
> Chance To See' which literally takes him all over the world to many of
> the most inaccessible spots, this on the heels of travelling all over
> the USA in a London taxi as well as filming some US series in L.A. a
> certain number of weeks per year ("Bones" I believe) ... not to mention
> QI and many other guest appearance slots he does ...
>
> Trouble is, how many radio shows will survice at all if they attempt to
> remain based purely in London? NONE is the official answer, outside the
> news studios.
>
> I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4 will
> stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing it for
> money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into an 8 figure
> contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC. This may have
> been discussed previously but I have been unable to keep up with all
> messages in recent times. If anyone knows, a quick response to this
> post would be much appreciated.
>Could you quote your source for this please?
> I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4
> will stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing
> it for money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into
> an 8 figure contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC.
--- In just-a-minute@..., "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@...> wrote:
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "j_a_m_fan" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4
> > will stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing
> > it for money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into
> > an 8 figure contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC.
>
> Could you quote your source for this please?
>
> The last I heard (and that was from a un-named source and reported in "The Sun") was that the Graham was unlikely to sign another exclusive contract with the BBC and that Channel 4 were keen to have him back. Unless things have moved on (and they may well have) then there's nothing in that to indicate that he won't be able to do any more BBC shows. If he signs and exlusive contract for Channel 4 then that would exclude him from the BBC but AFAIK that's not the current position.
>
> kJ
>
--- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> On shows outside London - I gather the sole reason for not going on the
> road so much is financial. I am not sure that the venues have all that
> much to do with the popularity of the show, or its ultimate survival.
> While the show rates, it will probably stay on air. I say "probably" as
> the death/retirement of Nicholas may be a turning point, the sort of
> point where the BBC might think it time to try something else.
>
> On Graham, I've seen the stories talking about him going back to Channel
> Four but wasn't aware this had been confirmed. He was on Channel Four up
> until 2005, and did JAM back then, indeed more regularly than he does
> these days, so it's not like it would mean he would be banned from
> appearing on BBC Radio. Of course a daily chat show would involve a
> heavy workload, so maybe he wouldn't want to do JAM as well... but then
> again, it's a commitment of a couple of hours once or twice a year...
> and we know he loves the show.
>
> On Sue (other email), like you I think her very good. I think the fact
> they took her to Edinburgh suggests they see her as one of the core
> cast, post-Clement.
>
> I suggest on the blog this week that that core could be Paul, Gyles, Sue
> and Graham - I may be overly optimistic about Graham!
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 08:07 PM, j_a_m_fan wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree Stephen is unbelievably busy, his latest show on the BBc is a
> > follow up Tv programme to Douglas Adam's excellent last book 'Last
> > Chance To See' which literally takes him all over the world to many of
> > the most inaccessible spots, this on the heels of travelling all over
> > the USA in a London taxi as well as filming some US series in L.A. a
> > certain number of weeks per year ("Bones" I believe) ... not to mention
> > QI and many other guest appearance slots he does ...
> >
> > Trouble is, how many radio shows will survice at all if they attempt to
> > remain based purely in London? NONE is the official answer, outside the
> > news studios.
> >
> > I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4 will
> > stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing it for
> > money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into an 8 figure
> > contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC. This may have
> > been discussed previously but I have been unable to keep up with all
> > messages in recent times. If anyone knows, a quick response to this
> > post would be much appreciated.
>
--- In just-a-minute@..., "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@...> wrote:
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "j_a_m_fan" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder, also, if Graham Norton's 'defection' back to channel 4
> > will stop him appearing on Just A Minute. Again, he wont be doing
> > it for money if he is to make future appearances, he MUST be into
> > an 8 figure contract (over 3-4 years) to have moved from the BBC.
>
> Could you quote your source for this please?
>
> The last I heard (and that was from a un-named source and reported in "The Sun") was that the Graham was unlikely to sign another exclusive contract with the BBC and that Channel 4 were keen to have him back. Unless things have moved on (and they may well have) then there's nothing in that to indicate that he won't be able to do any more BBC shows. If he signs and exlusive contract for Channel 4 then that would exclude him from the BBC but AFAIK that's not the current position.
>
> kJ
>
>Thanks for that.
> I do not assert that the contract would be necessarily exclusive,
> only conjecture that stars of Graham's earning capacity would
> need to be motivated by more than financial gain for appearing
> on Just A Minute - which is notoriously poorly paid.
>
> My source was the Radio 4 Today programme 2-3 weeks ago. I'm
> sorry i can't be any more specific than that, though I do
> believe it was on the same day, coincidentally I'm sure, that
> a report was released, or some call made, for the BBC to
> publish all their top stars salaries, them being paid by
> the public, after all.
>
> The term " 'defection' back to channel 4" was actually a quote
> from one of the newsreaders that morning and thinking about it,
> possibly, this may have been in the section when they review
> the day's newspapers and that they were simply reporting the
> same article that you read in The Sun. I haven't heard it
> mentioned again since, but I've been relatively out of touch
> with the media of late.
>
>The current requirement for the BBC to demonstrate "value for money" is a double-edged sword. As you rightly point out, this can be read in the context of moving production and staff into less costly environments, such as the move of several departments and pretty much the whole of Five Live to Salford from London.
> As you rightly said, fewer episodes are currently being
> made outside London, which is flying directly in the face of
> stated government policy.
>
> The political argument goes: the more the BBC moves out of
> London the more it can afford to do and the better value for
> money it can thus give. This in the light that perhaps the
> next round of license fee rises may well be the last any
> government feels it can impose.
>
> By definition, any BROADCASTER that chooses to base its staff
> in one of the world's most expensive cities, and by far the
> most expensive place in the UK, is making a common-sense error
> that goes beyond stupidity and smacks of elitism.
>Thanks for that.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1210446/Graham-Norton-set-quit-BBC-Paul-OGradys-C4-show.html
>
> A daily mail piece (don't believe everything you read in
> that paper!) that might throw more light on the matter for you.
> it certainly doesn't appear that it is a done deal - perhaps
> this is simply Graham's (agent's?) way of negotiating his next
> BBC contract.
>
> I read on one of the news aggregation sites that it had been reportedThis story which popped up in my letterbox today from the Evening
> in "The Sun" and attributed to an un-named source. I hadn't noticed
> anything further appearing on this story which is why I was keen to
> know where you got the information from.
> As you rightly said, fewer episodes are currently being made outsideI work for a public broadcaster too and my experience is that what the
> London, which is flying directly in the face of stated government
> policy.
>I can see the point but I think that's far too sweeping a statement. I
> By definition, any BROADCASTER that chooses to base its staff in one of
> the world's most expensive cities, and by far the most expensive place
> in the UK, is making a common-sense error that goes beyond stupidity
> and smacks of elitism.
> The current requirement for the BBC to demonstrate "value for money" isyes I think you put your finger on it - Nicholas and Paul say on the
> a double-edged sword. As you rightly point out, this can be read in the
> context of moving production and staff into less costly environments,
> such as the move of several departments and pretty much the whole of
> Five Live to Salford from London.
>
> However the othdf part of the same requirement is that the BBC does
> have a number of existing facilities in London and, until and unless
> they are closed, it is duty bound to make best use of them under the
> same "value for money" banner. They spent a lot of money (I don't have
> the figure to hand) renovating the Radio Theatre in Broadcasting House
> and it would be equally stupid to have such a resource and not to use
> it.
>I think I'm right in saying though that Graham Norton did "Just a Minute" while at Channel 4?
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "j_a_m_fan" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1210446/Graham-Norton-set-quit-BBC-Paul-OGradys-C4-show.html
> >
> > A daily mail piece (don't believe everything you read in
> > that paper!) that might throw more light on the matter for you.
> > it certainly doesn't appear that it is a done deal - perhaps
> > this is simply Graham's (agent's?) way of negotiating his next
> > BBC contract.
> >
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> I tend to agree that we may be seeing negotiating positions established rather than anything more substantive.
>
> And the Daily Mail is possibly one of the few papers which (in my humble opinion) is ahead of The Sun in the wouldn't-use-as-toilet-paper stakes. :-)
>
> kJ
>
>Hmmmm - but only marginally .....
> And the Daily Mail is possibly one of the few papers which (in my humble opinion) is ahead of The Sun in the wouldn't-use-as-toilet-paper stakes. :-)
>
>He certainly did - his first show was in 1997 off the top of my head.
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@..., "j_a_m_fan" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1210446/Graham-Norton-set-quit-BBC-Paul-OGradys-C4-show.html
> > >
> > > A daily mail piece (don't believe everything you read in
> > > that paper!) that might throw more light on the matter for you.
> > > it certainly doesn't appear that it is a done deal - perhaps
> > > this is simply Graham's (agent's?) way of negotiating his next
> > > BBC contract.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for that.
> >
> > I tend to agree that we may be seeing negotiating positions established rather than anything more substantive.
> >
> > And the Daily Mail is possibly one of the few papers which (in my humble opinion) is ahead of The Sun in the wouldn't-use-as-toilet-paper stakes. :-)
> >
> > kJ
> >
>
> I think I'm right in saying though that Graham Norton did "Just a Minute" while at Channel 4?
>
> Paul
>
> >Well off topic, I agree. I would just like to make the final point that you may not be aware of. The same grade of staff with the same seniority at the BBC is paid 10-20% MORE in London - because they live in London where prices are artificially high because everyone that works there is paid 10-20% more for working there. Why pay that much more for equally skilled sound engineers, editors, assistants etc etc.
> > By definition, any BROADCASTER that chooses to base its staff in one of
> > the world's most expensive cities, and by far the most expensive place
> > in the UK, is making a common-sense error that goes beyond stupidity
> > and smacks of elitism.
>
> I can see the point but I think that's far too sweeping a statement. I
> can give you some examples from my experience if you like, but the
> economics and politics of managing public broadcasting is a bit
> off-topic.
>
> Well off topic, I agree. I would just like to make the final point thatWell you seem to have answered your own question there! :)
> you may not be aware of. The same grade of staff with the same
> seniority at the BBC is paid 10-20% MORE in London - because they live
> in London where prices are artificially high because everyone that
> works there is paid 10-20% more for working there. Why pay that much
> more for equally skilled sound engineers, editors, assistants etc etc.
> You say basing staff in London is "by defintion... a common-senseI actually made the point that for a BROADCASTER this is by definition a common-sense error.
> error". Thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of companies are based in
> London, they can't all be lacking common sense, surely?
> Let's imagine ifOK. Lets imagine pitching to a cash-strapped public that a new broadcaster should pay a 2-400% premium on office/studio/car parking space and a 20% premium on staff because London has better people than Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff or one of the other cities that great segments of the BBC have already moved to. I think the public, especially those in Manchester, Bristol and Cardiff, would say
> you were starting the Beeb from scratch - would you really make the
> decision on where to base the BBC solely, or even largely, on where
> you could rent/buy the cheapest office space
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0968 seconds under 4.91% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.