The Tempest (say) and an episode of Eastenders are both exactly the same thing. A performance for entertainment. The difference is that one is contemporary and the other historic. If your point is that Eastenders is a result of what happens when things are 'left to the masses', there are far better analogies; the latest generation of talent show and all of reality TV, both of which are also exploiting weakness and so are offensive.

The 'masses' have no real say in what output they watch. That's up to the executive management of this 'independent board'. My argument against the BBC is that if this independent board was as free as you imply, in the light of its charter, how come it panders to the masses with what you consider bilge? Might just as well have state control and do away with the pretence.

Which one do you think will be remembered more in hundreds of years time?

The Tempest, while not wholly original, has inspired countless adaptations and taught in schools all over the world.


Using your own argument, who are you to judge? Although from a technical point of view, I agree.


Sorry, that is illogical and suggests you are missing my point. I never gave any opinion on the independence of the BBC, and I don't agree that we should hand the BBC over to the state. I haven't even said that EastEnders should be abolished, I simply said I think it is toilet and represents a poor influence on society.

All I've been trying to establish is why you 'think it is toilet and represents a poor influence on society'. Not unreasonable I would have thought. In particular, why is it a poor influence on society?

I agree I'm no judge, but in the case of reality TV and the talent shows, the rationale behind my comment is that producers are exploiting some peoples' desire to appear on TV and then making them figures of fun or derision.

Thread and off topic can be quite annoying!

Yep, supposed to be "light hearted"

Got me there Jeff!
I'd better alter my CV before it's too late!!

It is not unreasonable, but I have already said once or twice and yet you seem to ignore me. Notwithstanding I did originally put a wink smilie after the original post (meaning it was intended as a flippant point), but you also seemed to overlook that too.





I'll also add that I think EastEnders will influence behaviour in a negative way.



But they are volunteers, although in main their talent is questionable beyond a handful that can sing a bit.

If you'd rather my posts were not here, just say and I will remove them. I do believe the posts are light hearted, so I don't see the problem there, but I also think the thread went in a rather interesting direction that was not totally off topic.

But if people are upset in any way by my posts or behaviour, then I am always willing to remove the offending posts.

Not really down to a spelling mistake. The road name was totally incorrectly entered. The problem here according to the report was that the two police who attended the incident failed to ask for or check the name against the police computer.
If this had been a spelling mistake, a few letters transposed or missing then as Google does, I would have expected the police computer to offer alternatives.
So, this isn't a spelling mistake, it was a lack of local knowledge by the police who entered the original data and the final report went wrong because the attending police failed to check a name.

History is full of mistakes and there will continue to be more, it's human nature but we are now part of a blame culture so rather than accepting a mistake was made, we spend time defending the actions of those responsible. (Listen to the policeman with the N.East accent climbing out from underneath. )

No Andy, I'm fine with all your posts as I am most other's (should that be an apostrophe? . )
I was just trying to keep it "light hearted".
Compliments of the season by the way.

And seasonal felicitations to you too!

Your posts are acceptable so leave them there and just like East Enders, I'm a Celebrity, Big Brother, and all the other programmes that viewers may find acceptable then there is a channel change switch at the end of the fingers (mouse or controller) of those that don't want to view or read.

I don't see what not being lighthearted has got to do with anything. Why not discuss the darker side providing perhaps you don't describe the inner workings of some diabolic torture, especially if it involves fluffy animals.

Just to set the record straight, I really dislike East Enders because of the need for the script writers to try to convince us that the characters are slightly diluted versions of the Krays when in reality, being a "cockney" doesn't make them sharper, tougher or more wordly wise than any other urban community. What I do enjoy from the BBC is the beautiful way they craft most of their drama pieces.

I agree; however, my original point about EastEnders et al. was more a comment on the audience, than the program itself: plenty of people don't turn over the channel!

In the spirit of the thread - only! - I think that should be " others' ".

Had to think about that one: "others" is a plural noun meaning "other people". However, it would be "other people's", since "people" is singular. Or is it? No it can't be, because it's "people say", not "people says". Hey, ain't this fun! (I have worked out the answer to this conundrum, but it would be boring to go on.)

I think other's might be correct as it could as you say, be construed as short for 'other people'. people being plural, therefore the apostrophe is in the correct place. Does that work for you ?

You've both totally confused me now! I have a feeling, like me, neither of you are sure.

I think it should be others' posts as Biker1 was referring to many posts by a group of people. Other's would be referring to one person's posts, but like I said, I'm not sure.

I agree and would have put it like that if not wanting to promote further discussion on this thread.
The posts would be the possession of many others.
Possession has the apostrophe after the s I believe?

Only if the noun is plural and ends in s. One book's covers (possession). Two books' covers (possession). The man's book (possession). The man's tall (missing letter). Ten bananas (banana's only if you're a greengrocer ). Ten bananas' skins.



Greengrocer's apostrophe All good fun.

Do you think we should have a rule that says......
'Put an apostrophe wherever you like and it will not be criticised, mainly because none of us are really sure where it goes anyway.'

We are sure where it goes in most cases, but plural possession can be confusing! I say the rule should be to rearrange the sentence if unsure!