Jugalug

What does that even mean?

This is a creepy thread.

They're not just interested in the raw figures though, they're interested in how many of a certain demographic are listening. If they're doing well in that respect, they're doing well.

Why do you not think Moyles is coming back?

It's helpful if you post a link to your source. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20069706

Very unlikely to be owned by the BBC, it's probably on a lease, so it'll just be returned to them.

No! The Royal Charter is the 'law' that decides how much money a TV licence costs. It has no direct power over the organisation in any other way. You can argue that it has an influence over it 'because' of this, but the Royal Charter does not specify any control directly.

I don't think that's true at all. I had a period when I posted quite regularly, then didn't for a while. Please don't be offended when I say that I've never thought of you with the level of importance required to specifically visit this website to challenge you.

Yes... but I wasn't online. I'm not sitting here refreshing the page waiting for Viv's reply. Anyway, you can of course make an argument to do with the funding, but I don't think there is any real 'control' by the government. Both the supporters of the opposition and of the governing parties regularly make claims that the BBC's coverage is biased away from them, but in truth I think the BBC is about as impartial as you can really get. Any bias is quite subtle in any case. I don't think you can say that this scheme is anything to do with the government's wishes, and I think the BBC is more ideologically-biased than in favour of one government or the other.

...or when you say the government control the BBC. You might say I haven't given any explanation, but then neither have you.

No.

It doesn't say it will be called 'Top of the Pops' though.

Yes there is.

Sorry to burst all of your bubbles - but the Guardian article I read yesterday about this issue made no mention of him 'remaining on breakfast' until then. It simply tied him to the corporation. If they wanted, they could easily push him off to weekends, even Radio 2 or somewhere.

Same. They sound pretty settled to be honest. What's with the rolling eyes, Viv - can't you stand someone having a differing opinion?

Television bandwidth is very expensive, and there are a limited number of screens. If they put Chris Moyles on, something else would have to go. Indeed, to use the bandwidth would require it to be made 'worth it', and it would need to be properly produced - hence, whenever they do it, they use at the very least a dedicated vision mixer. In fact, if you take a look at the red button schedules - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tv_and_radio/5345480.stm - you'll see that there is a lot of stuff not available on Freeview, due to the lack of available 'channels' on that platform.

Mmm, owns? Really? The people doing the insulting are especially sad and moronic - but are the comebacks especially witty? Sorry... but I have to ask.

Sorry to go back a few posts but 63 is definitely NOT old. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. Elisabeth Sladen died far too young, and from cancer. It's all so needless and a terrible shame. For you to make it seem trivial, or not worth caring about, with your childish-style 'OLD', is quite offensive, if I'm honest. Sorry, but it's true.

The latest news is that he's sacked. Dave Pearce starts on Sunday.

I don't think he really feels quite as strongly as he appears to - he is just trying to create a running joke-type thing.

I thought it was great - it really made me laugh.

There will be a podcast, which can be subscribed to already. Not sure if this has been mentioned as I can't be bothered to go back and check. Soz.

So your previous comment was essentially 'I've never heard of him so he must be awful'?

At least he didn't jizz all over it - which could have been one consequence of visiting that site.

I don't believe this is finished - I think it's the first stage.