OneGuyFromBarlick

So they are coming back today to assess the structural integrity? Looks bleeding obvious to me! I wonder how long his dad's grave will survive?

Enjoyed watching the programme on the Cutty Sark last night. Here's a pic for you from 1976. Henry ? from the Maritime Museum with the Norwegian rigger who looked after all the rigging.

Good programme about the role of traitors in the fall of Singapore on 'Dispatches' last night on C4. I knew nothing about this man or his activities so it was riveting stuff. (LINK) Evidently it's an old story because the files were released after 60 years in 2002 but it must have escaped me.....

I watched that as well Stanley, quite an eye opener and the fact that Churchill was reluctant to sort the bloke as he was part of "the club". He certainly led a charmed life, unlike the poor lads at Pear Harbour, Singapore and Malaya.

I didn't see the programme and didn't know this about Sempill although I was aware that the RNAS had provided a lot of training and assistance for the establishment of the Japanese Navy's air force in the 1920s. The issue should be seen against the background of Japan having been an ally of Britain in WW1 and although its armed forces didn't do much fighting they provided a lot of help to our war effort both in distracting German forces in the east and sending us desperately needed materials. Also, at the time, the Japanese Imperial Navy had become very powerful, almost separate from the state, much larger than the army and even took over islands in the Pacific and controlled them independently of the Japanese emperor. Our Royal Navy had earlier sent officers to assist in training the Imperial Navy and to observe their tactics against the Chinese. It helped us assess the role of modern warships even before the beginning of WW1. Thus, there were strong links between the two navies and helping the Japanese navy would have been second nature. Of course, Churchill had been First Lord of the Admiralty in the early 1900s, until Gallipoli, and would have been aware of this close contact and presumably approved of it at the time.

All that is covered in the programme Peter and I forgot to mention that there is a short clip of what I think were Hawker Hart planes based at Singapore. Also the story of the humble naval rating who investigated the possibility of a land assault and forecast what the Japanese would do. He recommended that the proposed investment in fixed naval guns should be spent on aircraft. Some good stuff about the Blackburn Iris seaplane.
Ian, one of the things that has always struck me about political history is the incestuous nature of many of the relationships. Definitely a 'Toff's Club'. This persists of course to this day. I remember when I first read Harold Nicholson's diaries many years ago I was shocked to find how much policy was decided over Nancy Astor's dinner table at Cliveden. Modern version of Rebekah and the Chipping Norton Set? The thought of Jeremy Clarkson having an input is enough to give you nightmares....

I watched a programme on BBC2 last night, the first of two on Afghanistan. I'd forgotten much of the story of our involvement in the late 19th and early 20th century and it was fascinating. I suppose one of the reasons why I liked it so much was because it confirmed many of my own thoughts about the country, it's always seductive when someone reinforces your prejudices! However, I think it was well balanced and informative and I shall certainly be looking for the next episode. I think this LINK is a very fair revue.
During the programme he mentioned the diary of Lady Florentia Sale about her time in Kabul and the retreat to Jalalabad. Have a look at this LINK for a biographical note about her. I had never heard of this before.

Watched the second programme last night. Same high standard and Rory Stewart was again impressive. I particularly liked his interview with the Russian general who had been in Afghanistan. At one point Rory asked him if he had any advice for our military leaders. The general permitted himself the ghost of a smile and said "Look for the quickest route out." I'll bet Alexander would have agreed with that.
One thing that struck me was that Mr Stewart is so good I can well imagine him being asked to do more presenting. If he does I hope he takes note of the effects of 'presenter's syndrome'. I have complained in the past about the effects on Time team and I note that it has spread to 'Coast'. Nick Crane has been elevated to main presenter and his delivery has slowed down to the point where it is like listening to Tony Blair making a speech. The assumption seems to be that the slower and more tortuous the syntax the more weight it carries. I can't help thinking that if anyone spoke like this in real life we'd think they had some sort of impediment. The disease has spread to the other presenters as well, the only one who seems immune is Dick Strawbridge. As for that Ruth Goodman..... (Perhaps it's my age.....)

There's a lot of it about Stanley! The presenters are using unnatural voices which they (or the producers) think is setting a fashion and catching or retaining the attention of viewers/listeners. Same with filming, a lot of fast zooming, waggling the camera to make it look like they are filming `on the hoof'. Presenters walking down the street talking to a distant camera and people around looking at them and wondering `why is that idiot talking to his/herself?' Flashing quickly from one shot to another.

Very interesting stories about Burnes and Lady Sale, thanks for the link Stanley.

I like your list of 'director's fads'. See Hairy Bikers for artificial scratches on film. I hate scenes of clouds racing across the sky. 'Background' music masking what the presenter is saying in straight documentary films, almost as though the director thinks we need entertaining because we couldn't possibly want to hear anything as boring as a human voice giving information. The flashing multiple images completely baffle me, I tend to shut my eyes when they come on. Images artificially degraded to flag up they are 'historical'. And perhaps above all the stupid research mistakes that jump out and hit you in your face if you have knowledge of the subject. (I'm an Old Fart aren't I!) Last but not least, my all time favourite, the car that screams to a halt outside the house after a high speed journey and has condensate pouring out of the cold exhaust pipe.....
How about the pram running away down the hill........

The speeded up film is a nuisance, especially in natural history programmes where sometimes we don't even know whether the velocity being shown is real or accelerated. Some of it is obvious but at other times, with e.g. unusual marine creatures, the average person wouldn't know what was normal. I've seen film of creatures on the deep ocean floor and don't know if their speed of movement was real or not. Another thing...quite often TV programmes might as well be radio because the pictures aren't essential and only distract from the interesting spoken information. And yet another...in history programmes they keep interspersing the historical story with pictures of modern times. So when talking about ancient Rome you get modern Rome, ancient London has modern London. I don't mean pics of ancient artefacts in these cities but simply film of people in 2012 walking along the street! Grump, grump, grump...

I agree with all of that. I have another major beef which is to do with the short length of time an image is on the screen. When we did the LTP the whole concept of describing the work rested on the worker describing what was going on in one image. These descriptions could take half an hour and were a a catalogue of the information in the image. I am convinced that on TV, whatever the programme, the director decides what he/she wants the viewer to recognise in the image and flashes it on the screen to reinforce this concept giving no time for the viewer to observe and come to their own conclusion. The image ceases to be an opportunity to observe and learn and becomes manipulation of the viewer. I draw a direct correlation between this screen culture and the ability of children and younger viewers to concentrate and suck the maximum out of an image and of course this spills over into general comprehension. We need time to stand and stare..... Ask many youngsters to observe and they say they are bored, they are hooked on multiple images that demand no input, only recognition. But then I am an Old Fart aren't I......

The presenting of the river pageant yesterday was a disgrace. Take out celebrities and rain and there was very little left. It could have been so much better if they'd done the research and actually told us something about the historic boats taking part and comparisons with other river celebrations in the past. I got fed up of hearing people in the dry telling us how 'soggy' the weather was.

I didn't watch it, but I was looking forward to watching "All the Queens Horses" later in the evening, and settled down in front of the fire to enjoy a couple of hours watching the promised magnificent displays of horsemanship. Five minutes in and I was shouting at the screen in disbelief, after 15 minutes I just gave up in disgust. The director obviously preferred to show the celebrities, the musicians, and occasionally the rider's faces....anything but the horses!

On a positive note i enjoyed the BBC 4 programme about the 2000 year old computer, the Greeks may not be good at managing finance but they were bloody good mathamaticians and engineers

Bodger, was that the same programme as Stanley mentioned here?...
http://www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/view ... era#p17916
It must be getting a lot of airings!

I have to agree with Stanley about the BBC's coverage of the Thames Pageant (likewise Thomo's comments in the Attention thread), it was very disappointing especially after all the build-up telling us how `nothing like this has been seen for centuries' or `seen in modern history'. We watched the beginning, realised how it was going to be handled and put on the DVD recorder instead, then watched it in the evening using the fast-forward to jump through as much of the silly stuff as possible. I wanted to see the ships and in particular what they had said would be `the working ships' but there was very little. I'm sure the Pageant itself was a great event but I hope it was better recorded for posterity by somebody else than the BBC. Canaletto would have done a much better job!

Double posted by mistake! Edited out the content.

Tizer yup, that was it

Last night I was watching the two progs BBC4 repeated a while back on Pink Floyd. Wonderful stuff. When they finished I found myself unwittingly at the Bucks House concert. The contrast between what I had been watching, both music and presentation, knocked the queen's concert into a cocked hat. Made a hasty exit......

What a pleasant surprise! After corresponding with Bodger and Stanley above about the TV programme on the Antikythera mechanism which I missed, last night Mrs Tiz said "Let's watch this programme I recorded about an ancient computer". And there it was, the same programme, and well-presented too, no flashy `designer TV'. I've been rabbiting on for some time now about how the professional science societies led by the Royal Society should start their own TV production company and sell their programmes to the TV companies; that way they would have control over the style and quality of presentation and the accuracy of the information. This programme would be a good example of what their product should look like. Only one thing seemed out of place. About half way through they discussed the role of the mechanism in relation to the ancient Greek games like the Olympics and one of the men involved visited the site of one of the games. He was accompanied by what appeared to be a glamorous blonde lady dressed all in black but she didn't speak, we didn't see her face and I don't know what her role was. I think a caption appeared at the bottom of the screen with the name of a historian but I've got to admit my attention wasn't on the bottom of the screen at that moment.

Glad you saw the programme. Sounds as though you and Mrs Tiz were doing what I have been doing, using the recorder as a defence against the worst of the recent programming! Michael Wright was impressive wasn't he. An oddball, he used to write me long letters with steel pen nib and black ink, full of blots and I often wondered whether he bothered to keep copies for the records. I learned many years later that he took on board everything I said about the Siberia engine and argued for the scheme but was over-ruled with the consequences I predicted. A long story, see me memoirs! He must have been working on the mechanism at the same time, I wish I'd known about it then.
I watched the programme about the transit of Venus last night and whilst I enjoyed it I think I detected the thought process of whoever was in charge. It's about Venus so we must have women as presenters! He/she even had one of the ladies in skin tight surfing gear.... I hope we'll see some images of the actual transit eventually, no chance of any observations from Barlick!
From the reports on the news I think we were with the majority in our criticisms of the BBC coverage of the Jubilee.

Being a scientist I've known quite a few oddball characters, not that I'm one of course (although I once wore red trousers like Michael Wright's!). My PhD supervisor once had a car with a thatched roof - that must class as oddball. But then just think what they must have said about Leonardo de Vinci in his time. By the way, I hadn't known, until the Antikythera programme, that Pythagoras had invented a device for lifting enemy warships out of the sea. Now that's what I call innovation!

There was a programme about the ship destroying cranes at Alexandria once. It all looked a bit far fetched to me.....

Perhaps Pythagoras was good at propaganda!