Huw Griffiths

It's another "+1" post from me, too.

I don't want to labour the point - but the people here are right. "Stepping back from the brink" - and talking things over quietly - sounds like the best call.

Take care - I mean it - and so do lots of other people here.

"The thing about Celeb based shows is that I'm so out of touch that the guests may as well be random normal people!"

Interesting point. Sometimes, there have been "celebrity specials" of some programmes - in which the "pointless celebrities'" sole claim to fame appears to be that they appeared on some "unreality" show, a number of years earlier.

Indeed, a number of years back, there was a "celeb" version of "Big Bother", in which one of the "celebs" was best known for having previously appeared in a "non-celeb" version. I seem to recall that another of the inmates housemates had found "fame" solely because they'd failed a ridiculous number of driving tests. (Seriously - and to think that I don't tend to shout about having failed 2 driving tests in the 1980s.)

More recently, viewers of "Strictly Prancing" have been introduced to one "celeb" who seems to be best known for having "starred" in some irritating ads for a bingo website. (OK - I'm sure she's done other stuff - but really ... ?)

Please note that I'm not attacking any of the people concerned - but would you describe any of them as "A List"? Somehow, I don't think I would.

Still, I guess it could be worse - you could get a situation in which someone gets billed as a "TV star", on the basis of having appeared in one advert ... for deodorant.

I'm sure you could guess what I'd think of that ... .

I'm guessing he might not have done too many "gold runs".

Any of the people suggested in the previous 2 replies could be good - as could David Mitchell.

"Considering the producers probably screen-tested several candidates, you have to wonder how bad the others were."

Some people might be forgiven for wondering if these programmes might turn out to be the screen test.

I know this might sound counter-intuitive - but there are reports that they're planning on trying a number of people - giving each a few weeks worth of programmes as guest co-presenters. My gut feeling is that some will turn out better than others - partly because some would probably "do a better job" than others - partly because some will "fit" better than others alongside Alexander Armstrong.

I can only hope that one of these people works well with "Xander" - and that this person gets the job. Time will tell.

Probably pointless to ask ... .

I must admit that I've always liked Mk2 coaches - and class 86 and 87 locos.

Also, the rail blue / rail blue and grey colour schemes just looked "right" to me.

OK - I was born in the mid 1960s - so these colours were what I grew up with. As for the locos, they're what I saw during my industrial training.

I could imagine a number of people being delighted to encounter this sort of fare on the WCML again.

I don't watch anywhere near as much telly as I used to (and I never exactly had "square eyes" in the first place).

As for that guy with his noisome: "Irritating ads - YOU BUY ONE - YOU GET ONE FREE! I SAID YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE!!" Well, I'm sure he'll be back - unfortunately.

I suspect that some advertisers imagine nagging away with ads that drive people up the wall is going to "implant" certain brand names in viewers' minds. Well, it won't if we switch off. Also, if they annoy me, I'll just make a point of not doing business with the company being advertised - and I don't think I'm alone in this regard.

Haven't you heard - they've got 50 WAREHOUSES FULL of that ¢₹@₱ - sorry - AMAZING BARGAINS - to shift BY MONDAY!!!

Don't worry - when things get really desperate (and more people start seeing through the nonsense), they'll also bring back that equally dodgy looking woman with a squeaky voice, or the dancers with fake smiles pretending to beat a path to their door the moment they open their doors.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before one of these "outfits" starts plugging a new "Showtime Collection", advertised to a cheaply re-recorded backing track loosely based on a Queen single - like "The Show Must Go On" ... .

Probably intended to make himself popular with the nice Mr. Murdoch.

Cue some opinion column just before the next election: "THE SUN SAYS - VOTE FOR THE BLOND W_N_ER AND KEEP US AWAY FROM THOSE PESKY FROGGIES! UP Y**RS MACRON!!"

Of course, it's always possible that Murdoch might instruct his editors to be rather less restrained with "their" opinions. (Well, he might.)

It's also possible that I might be very much mistaken ... .

Since when have politicians been required to exercise common sense?

To be honest, though, I wonder if stuff like reverting to imperial units would even be workable in UK.

For commercial reasons, lots of stuff here is going to fit in with Euro conventions - doing prepacked stuff in different sizes just for UK (and not EU) market would increase costs - also, lots of Brits used to working in metric (and imperial calculations more "involved").

I could imagine some labels with both sets of units - possibly even "look up charts", so people can convert between them - but not much else.

How many people can even remember buying stuff in lb / oz, pints / fl.oz - how many were adults when this was the norm here (half a century ago) - probably not too many - probably less in a few years' time ... .

Personally, I think metric's here to stay - might even gain more traction in USA etc., due to need to work with countries where imperial not used!

Yes - sounds like "half baked" political posturing (aimed at "little englander" types) - nothing much to see here - move on ... .

I wonder how long it'll be before The Sun's opinion column starts demanding that kids sing "Rule Britannia" in schools.

Of course, when the words for this were written, "Britannia" didn't "rule the waves" - in fact, the country was repeatedly being made to look really inept on the world "stage".

How things change over time ... .

Anyone might imagine a soccer match between Swindon and Oxford - almost certainly a "friendly" ... .

This is starting to sound like one of those "meerkat" ads: "Whilst you open the fridge for the 27th time today - naughty!!"

OK - perhaps not - but everyone needs days away from work every so often - that's why weekends and holidays were invented.

It actually was a section in the Guardian - but I know what you mean about Private Eye.

"Zeitgeist"? Hmmm wasn't that a section in the Guardian?

(It's OK - I know the term has another meaning, which doesn't translate too well into English.)

All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't watch it this year (or last year ... or the year before that ... or ...) ... .

I think there are probably 2 points here:

• The EU, in general, aren't exactly amused by Putin's aggression - and the UK government have been quite "visible" about this issue. I don't think the EU particularly wish to be seen as taking a "pop" at the UK right now.
• Meanwhile, the UK have actually entered an "act" and song that fit in with what "Eurovision" is supposed to be about.

Of course, there might also be an element of not wishing to perpetuate past grudges - let's face it, regardless of membership status (or otherwise) the EU and the UK will need to work together on a number of issues in the future.

Whatever the score, I'm not complaining ... .

I've never been a fan of "Eurovision" - but I'm not sure that the guys choosing the UK entries have always "got" what it's about.

I think it's supposed to be a bit of fun - so something cheerful, that some people wouldn't mind on their car stereo, is likely to be well received - extra points if it's a bit "camp" or amusing.

"Null points" for anything tuneless - and definitely don't get the "jury" started on politics (especially of the "anti-EU" variety) ... .

Whilst on the subject of politics, there also often seems to be plenty of this in the voting ... .