« Previous | Main | Next »


Eddie Mair | 10:24 UK time, Tuesday, 20 March 2007

is Budget Day. In years gone by we would have dragged our sorry carcasses to Westminster, and devoted most of the programme to the event. But it's been our experience in recent years that maybe we were doing too much on it. Certainly, the feedback we got via email and the Blog to the last budget and the more recent pre-Budget report suggested that we should be more selective in our coverage.

We're going to do the programme from our usual base in W12, and do our best not to overdo it.

There are practical reasons for this too. Desk space at Westminster is at a premium. There often isn't the space for people to work in. We lose valuable production time shuffling back and forth. Sometimes being located close to a story can contribute to us losing perspective on everything else. Oh there are lots of reasons. See how it all sounds tomorrow. We've still not started our Glass Box idea formally ( it IS coming) but we'll do one tomorrow so you can let us know what you think.


  1. At 10:53 AM on 20 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Eddie, We know you'll make the best decision in the circumstances. Given that there will be 'live coverage' as ever, followed by summings up from economists and every other expert under the sun (I'll happily comment from the occupational psychology perspective, if you like?) I think you'll be doing us a great favour not to make it the sole focus of tomorrow's programme.

    And, anyway, there's only so much Scotch we can take between 5 and 6, isn't there? ;o)

  2. At 10:58 AM on 20 Mar 2007, For your information. wrote:


    Re: The Budget.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to drink alcohol during Budget speeches. No other person or occasion is granted the privilege in the House of Commons chamber. Gordon Brown has never taken advantage of the alcohol concession, preferring a glass of Scottish water at his elbow, though during his last two Budgets he didn't drink any of it. John Major and Stafford Cripps also preferred water, while Jim Callaghan drank tonic water. Benjamin Disraeli chose milk as his Budget day tipple.

    Chancellors who have taken advantage of the booze boon, include Ken Clarke (whisky), Nigel Lawson (whisky and water), Winston Churchill (brandy) and Geoffrey Howe (gin and tonic). Geoffrey Howe also named his Budget, ‘The Summit' when he switched to the post of Foreign Secretary. Presumably that was after a few G&Ts.

    Awards for the grimmest budget day tipples go to Derick Heathcote Amory, who drank milk, honey and rum, and Gladstone, who drank a mixture of sherry and egg, described by a diarist of the time as resembling a hair-preparation.

  3. At 11:02 AM on 20 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Praise be, non-coverage of the Budget - a wise decision (prudent, even, if you wish to keep listener numbers high).

  4. At 11:13 AM on 20 Mar 2007, Jonathan (jonnie) wrote:

    I'm hiding tomorrow - with a copy of the Exchange & mart.

    Anybody want a used Range Rover

  5. At 11:15 AM on 20 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    FYI - well I never knew that! Maybe it would be a merrier occassion all round if the general public were each given access to alcohol when the budget is being delivered; or turn it in to a bank holiday....as you can tell, my tuesday is not going well.

    Eddie - I will be making start getting in to the habit of making notes for the future GB (not easy whilst hula hooping).

  6. At 11:52 AM on 20 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    PS my last post makes sense if you've had the kind of morning I have! :)

  7. At 12:54 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    A sound idea. I remember as a child being bored rigid by budget coverage. I think the headlines of it should be mentioned but there will be wall to wall coverage of it EVERYWHERE.

    Buck the trend, find some of the news that has been "buried" and report on that instead.

  8. At 12:58 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    PM Newsletter:

    "...two convicted terrorists have been issued with 2 false British passports each."

    Was it intentional?

    No matter. This is why I have no confidence in an ID card system.

  9. At 12:59 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    Budget Bingo

    These are me budget bingo words. I will (if I listen) tick off when they are said.

    Prudent, disadvantaged, young, education, commend, trust, escalator, Higher,
    duty, unchanged, real, terms, continued, policies, success, growth

    Can I have a prize if Gordon uses all of them?

  10. At 01:10 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Forgive the frequency (and I'm not aiming to get throught the x,000 barrier), but I applaud any effort to avoid bombarding us PM listeners with commentary on the budget. Just give us the salient facts and spare us the effects on the typical 2.4 children, the typical yuppies, the pensioner...

    Same goes for sport commentaries, in my case. When Radio Five Live was invented, I sighed, "At last, no more sport on Radio 4." Disillusionment soon set in.

  11. At 01:12 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    How about a piece examining how and why the chancellor dislocates his jaw during speeches?

  12. At 01:15 PM on 20 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    Re PM Newletter.

    I hate to break this to you team but Stalin is dead, and has been for quite a long time. I know sometimes things take a while to filter through from PM - maybe sometimes it takes a while for things to filter through TO you too.

  13. At 01:22 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    Jason (7),

    I seem to recall Yesterday in Parliament saying that the Lords will have the Sexual Orientation Order (or whatever it's called, the one the Catholic Church is saying it will shut down it's adoption agencies over) tomorrow, with a comment about "burying bad news" or somesuch. Perhaps PM can cover that story.

    Vyle (8), Just another example, I fear. I just deleted a large amount of rant, as not really applicable here....maybe will rant on on my blog later.

  14. At 01:31 PM on 20 Mar 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:


    I agree, but I wouldn't mind an item on how it will affect a single, child-free male in his thirties, who doesn't smoke, drink or drive and doesn't have a mortgage. That wouldn't take long, I think.


    As to not going out of your way to cover the budget, I applaud it. We'll be hearing what's expected to be covered from breakfast-time tomorrow anyway.

    What is the point of this trend of news items along the lines of, "Later today, the Chancellor is expected to put 40p on blue things..."
    Why not wait until he does it? It's supposed to be "news" not "previews"!

  15. At 01:39 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Filbyglade wrote:

    Stewart M.....how about emissions, road duty, CO2, offset, Stalinist, ruthless, sustainable, climate, carbon, neutral and Kyoto.

  16. At 02:08 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Budget Bingo (x2 so far)

    Tres amusant, mes grenouilles.

  17. At 02:09 PM on 20 Mar 2007, whisky-joe wrote:

    Stewart M.

    Budget Bingo great idea :-)

    I find it's always amusing to watch Gordon Brown say "trickle down" with a straight face.

  18. At 02:37 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    The SSC says :'What is the point of this trend of news items along the lines of, "Later today, the Chancellor is expected to put 40p on blue things..."
    Why not wait until he does it? It's supposed to be "news" not "previews"! '

    An excellent point. Once upon a time, the secrecy of the Budget before the Chancellor's speech was sacrosanct. Chancellor Hugh Dalton had to resign after admitting to leaking part of his Budget in 1947.

    Gordon, however, has leaked (off the record, bien sûr) like a sieve. Or possibly a colander. And because he is politically unsackable he has done it with impunity. Not only that but he has a habit of pre-announcing and re-announcing initiatives (I seem to remember he 'announced' the Child Trust Fund in about three consecutive Budgets). This makes his speeches incredibly dull.

  19. At 02:41 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Eamo wrote:

    TSSC (14), you do realise that you'll start a mad rush now, with people buying blue things before the 40p surcharge goes on them?

  20. At 02:44 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Regardless BBC PM is the best.

  21. At 02:45 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    John (13): Quelle Surprise. (There should be an apostrophe in there somewhere but I forget where.)

    It would be a useful day for BBC researchers to trawl all the announcements made by all the other departments to see what things they hope will go unnoticed. I wonder if the cash for honours enquiry will take any steps forward tomorrow.

    Vyle (10): Sadly most of 5Live's output drives me mad. The sports coverage is often banal and seems firmly aimed at those who's opinions are shaped by The Sun and the Daily Mirror (or is it just "The Mirror" now?).

    Radio 4's sports coverage during news bulletins and shows like Today are, imvho, suitably compact yet fairly comprehensive. Although there is far too much cricket and rugby for my personal tastes, reflecting the more middle class sporting likes of the target. A brief update on the fortunes of Manchester City, the continued demise of West Ham and anything bad that has happened to the top 6 Premiership clubs would do me nicely.

  22. At 02:49 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Carl wrote:

    Your coverage of the budget couldn't be minimal enough for me. I suggest we all go and live abroad and let the terrorists have our passports. We're all going to be poorer anyway, so now is the time to go. I fancy Switzerland... snow or no snow. Hope you've got a suitable PM blog strapline for tomorrow. If not can I suggest..
    PM - The Budget on a budget.

  23. At 03:11 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Hi SSC,

    Is this an example of 'previews instead of reviews'?

    Meanwhile, the Green Party has released its own "carbon-costed" budget - aimed at helping to lower UK emissions by about 90% by 2050.

    This was needed, it said, to "have a fighting chance of staving off devastating climate change".

    They have outlined tough measures to reduce carbon emissions by 7.5% in 2007/8, such as raising APD to £100 and spending the proceeds on VAT cuts and environmental measures.

    They say they would also charge £1,800 in tax for the worst "gas-guzzlers", double the climate change levy on businesses, spend £3bn on buses and cheaper rail fares and boost renewable energy grants by £500m.


    I never liked blue things anyway ;-)

  24. At 03:49 PM on 20 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    Jason, as far as I could make out they managed the whole weekend without any mention whatsoever of the Grand Prix, and this despite the Mclarens - ie British cars - coming in 2nd and 3rd, one with a british driver in his first Grand Prix. I long ago gave up any hope of getting any info about the World Rally Championship on the BBC but I do think not mentioning the GP results bordered on the curmudgeonly.

  25. At 04:16 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Ed (23)

    "Spend £3bn on buses and cheaper rail fares."

    What's the point of that? Nice to have cheaper fares, of course, but there isn't enough room on the trains for the current set of passengers. (WATO today)

  26. At 04:26 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Sara wrote:

    Admin Annie (12) - Stalin dead, you say? Does this mean Dame Vera isn't?

    Oh well.

  27. At 04:39 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    Jason (21),

    Actually, I see I've an errant apostraphie in my (13) - for it's read its, so perhaps you can slide it along to where it should be (but I've not spotted that yet).

    Ed I (23), there are many energy intensive businesses that are already re-locating to areas of cheap energy. Alcoa (US owned aluminium smelters) in Iceland, and UK aluminium extruders to Italy and Spain. The Icelandic energy maybe fairly green in CO2 terms, but not in other environmental aspects, the S Europeans I cannot think of any other reason than they don't yet charge anything like as much for environmental costs.

    While I'm fairly green, unilateral plans such as huge hikes in climate change levy will just push more manufacturing abroad. Someone joking told me that one day manufacturing industry will be made illegal - perhaps they were not joking after all!

  28. At 05:08 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Vyle (25)

    "there isn't enough room on the trains for the current set of passengers."

    A very good reason to spend more on providing more.


  29. At 05:12 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Deep John,

    The competition for inward investment by ensuring cheap labour and an unthreatening regulatory/tax environment is termed "The Race to the Bottom", and is not only misguided and illusory, but totally inhumane.


  30. At 05:31 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Bank manager wrote:

    re tomorrow's budget:
    - ban motor sports due to excessive carbon emissions
    - children to attend the school most local to them due to excessive carbon emissions
    - impose tax on all foodstuffs imported when they are out of season at home due to excessive carbon emissions
    - tax breaks to companies who allow workers to work from home to eliviate excessive carbon emissions
    - ban on various sports commentators due to excessive annoyance factor
    - ban on all tv shows that require phone voting due to dumbing down of the viewer
    - ban on local radio stations due to the bloke in my office who insists on having it on in the office instead of Radio 4
    - ban on the use of "cracking" as an expression of delight/ satisfaction due to its incorrect usage

    Any chance that Gordy will include any of these?

  31. At 05:56 PM on 20 Mar 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:


    That was the *worst* Stephen Fry impression I've ever heard.

    Eamo (19):

    [SSC laughs wickedly and hugs his share certificates in "Blue Things 'R' We plc"]

    Ed (23):

    That's interesting, but no. What I mean is things like:
    "Later today, Tony Blair will make an announcement about his resignation. Unconfirmed reports suggest he will hand over power tomorrow to his chosen succcessor, Sooty. A spokesman for for Mr Sooty said, 'Squeak! Squeaksqueaksqueak!" which we think means, "There will be an official briefing later this afternoon."
    Followed by two minutes of complete speculation from an 'expert' who knows nothing more than anyone else *because nothing's happened yet!!!!!*

  32. At 05:57 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    Ed I (29),

    Yes. However my point is that there are some jobs/industries that are energy intensive, not necessarily labour intensive. As they are so energy intensive, they have been relatively energy efficient for a long time, for obvious reasons. In these cases, the climate change levy (a UK regulatory cost) isn't going to change that much(*) CO2 being released, but it will change where it will be released. One aim of the levy is to encourage energy efficiency, but where industries are already efficient, they have much less chance of "improvement".

    *Other than those moving to where hydro projects are going to be the power source, and probably "new" units will be a little more efficient than even those of 10 years ago.

  33. At 06:04 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    No Bank Manager, but I'll vote for you

  34. At 06:16 PM on 20 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    Dear Bank Manager, I will go with all of those bar one, and I expect you can guess which one!

  35. At 06:36 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Izzy T'me wrote:

    This may be contraversial, but could we ban the CO2 emmissions from the hot aired, pointless, so called "comedies" that radio 4 seems to be broadcasting in the 6.30 slot, these days? Obvious exceptions are The Now Show, News Quiz, ISIHAC etc.

    Grumpily yours,


  36. At 07:12 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    Just what is the benefit to us of hosting enterprises which don't employ folk, but simply consume vast quantities of energy?

    Anything which reduces the market for any form of highly energy intensive activity must be a good thing. It ain't oil or fossil fuels we're addicted to, but energy, and there's very good work been done on the disutility of energy use beyond a certain level.

    "The widespread belief that clean and abundant
    energy is the panacea for social ills is
    due to a political fallacy, according to
    which equity and energy consumption can be
    indefinitely correlated, "
    "Even if nonpolluting power were feasible and abundant, the use of
    energy on a massive scale acts on society like a drug that is physically
    harmless but psychically enslaving. A community can choose between
    Methadone and ``cold turkey''---between maintaining its addiction to
    alien energy and kicking it in painful cramps---but no society can have
    a population that is hooked on progressively larger numbers of energy
    slaves and whose members are also autonomously active. "
    -- Ivan Illich, 1978


  37. At 07:18 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Izzy T'me wrote:

    Dear Bank Manager

    Cracking good list!!


  38. At 07:23 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Annasee wrote:

    Bank Manager - I like the way you're thinking! Where do we vote for you?

    Eddie - I think you'd better give the Julie Andrews book to Stewart for his excellent budget bingo suggestion. I'm sure amongst the rest of his speech, Gordon will mention "These are a few of my Favourite Things, on which I'll be increasing the current rate of tax " and "Climb every Mountain, it produces fewer carbon emissions than taking the ski lift" Not to mention "Something Good is waiting for me at an unspecified time but probably after the May local elections and involving the keys to the house next door".

    Lets just wait and see.

  39. At 08:25 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    SSC (@31)

    If you say it right, an expert can be defined as a has-been drip under pressure.

  40. At 08:48 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    SSC (310. I'm shocked that you would attribute to Mr S. Ootty the words that were clearly spoken by Mr S. Weep. The accent was unmistakable....

  41. At 11:02 PM on 20 Mar 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Izzy,

    Actually I enjoyed tonights comedy slot more than I ususally do, but generally we are on the same wavelength.

  42. At 11:21 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Izzy (35), I could vote for that one. With your exceptions.

    Stewart, I like your budget bingo idea. Looks like 'education' is going to be a multiple scorer.

    Yawn - off to bed.

  43. At 11:31 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Fearless: Shhhh. I just saw Ms. Soo sneaking by muttering something - I'd have sworn it was something like "That's a lie!"

    I think she was referring to Mr. S. Weep!

    What have you and SSC started? It'll be all over the papers tomorrow.

  44. At 11:37 PM on 20 Mar 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    Ed I (36),

    If all cars were made with Aluminium bodies they would be far lighter, thereby more energy efficient. I know, laminates and non-metals are arguably lighter, but much harder to recycle at the end of life. But Aluminium is expensive compared to steel, but is lightweight, easy to machine, much easier to treat so as to not corrode (cf rusting away)...

    But aluminium extraction is costly in energy terms. This is why aluminium recycling (drinks cans) is so profitable, as it's 90% less energy to recycle compared to extraction from ore.

    Aluminium extrusion is costly, but make the complex shapes that are used all over the place. Typical examples are display stands, metal greenhouses, heatsinks for electronic components. The UK used to be a skill centre in this, but more or less all has moved abroad. So, not that many jobs lost, (we're not talking of whole towns being put out of work) but skilled jobs, the sort university graduates would be looking for.

  45. At 07:24 AM on 21 Mar 2007, HelenSparkles wrote:

    What I want to investigate Eddie, is how Gordon will cope with letting another chancellor get on with it if he is PM, he is not exactly known for sharing his toys!

  46. At 08:29 AM on 21 Mar 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Welcome back, Sparklyone! How have you been? We've all missed you here :-)

  47. At 09:05 AM on 21 Mar 2007, stewart M wrote:


  48. At 09:46 AM on 21 Mar 2007, Gillian wrote:

    srewart M (47) Thanks for the reminder...new series starts tomorrow. Remind me again tomorrow, please!

  49. At 10:15 AM on 21 Mar 2007, Huw Edwards wrote:


    I've just bought a military watch. It doesn't tell me the time, it tells me to get my hair cut.

  50. At 12:11 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Vyle (10), Couldn't read any further -- had to excitedly and wholeheartedly agree with your points about sports reporting! mwah mwah!

    Huw Edwards (49), Wow! I do hope you're that Huw Edwards off the tele! I think you're fab!! :-)

  51. At 12:18 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    Is the comments button not working on the Budget/Nils thread?

    Well, that's it, R4 will be off for 2 hours so I don't have to listen to the blogging budget (even Sean can't make it exciting!) - Why does Gordon have to do it on my day off??!

    Well done PM if you keep your promise to keep Budget coverage to the minimum!

  52. At 12:29 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Have read back now.

    Mr Fish (39), I have a couple of questions for you -- Why do your posts always have little squares between the words? Are you my father? (The latter inquiry being due to your use of one of his oft-repeated definitions).

    Big Sis (43), Hahahaha.

  53. At 12:58 PM on 21 Mar 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Huw (49) -
    Does it tell you what style as well? I could do with one of those (and if you are 'our' Huw keep safe matey)

  54. At 01:16 PM on 21 Mar 2007, A. Cynic ;o) wrote:

    Hey, 2p off income tax!

    Wonder what unannounced stealth taxes will be compensating for that one?

  55. At 02:00 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Fifi wrote:

    Oh, you cynic, A. Cynic ;o) !

    Fifi ;oD

  56. At 03:49 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    PUSH! (an extra one for the malicious warning)

  57. At 04:46 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    I've tried to respond, but it seems anything more than one line gets fragged.

    or a malicious warning
    or two
    or three
    Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
    or four
    or more

  58. At 05:27 PM on 21 Mar 2007, HelenSparkles wrote:

    Flipping busy Fearless, what with work & ailing relatives, but thanks for the sentiment. :-)

  59. At 06:09 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Aperitif (@52) wanted answers:

    Why do your posts always have little squares between the words?

    Dunno. Ask Marc. They dont have em when they leave here, and they dont have em when they get back here.

    Are you my father?

    I dont *think* so... When did you last see him?

  60. At 08:04 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Mr Fish (59), I have sussed it -- no doubt way behind everyone else: Whenever one would expect an apostrophe in your postings, there appears, instead, a square.

    I saw my father last night. He didn't say anything fishy but it could've been a double bluff.

  61. At 09:44 PM on 21 Mar 2007, stewart M wrote:

    Its not just a square, its a sqaure with a question mark in it. Must be a browser problem.

  62. At 10:05 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Stewart (61), Um, is that a joke? Sorry but I don't geddit. Anyway, I see a small square, no question marks, for the record.

  63. At 10:46 PM on 21 Mar 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Aperitif wrote @60:
    "Mr Fish (59), I have sussed it -- no doubt way behind everyone else: Whenever one would expect an apostrophe in your postings, there appears, instead, a square."

    Hmmm.... How's about this? does it appear as How[square]s? I've tried a different way of doing this, which might have sorted out the problem. Not that it's a problem for me, but I try to be reasonably friendly.

    "I saw my father last night. He didn't say anything fishy but it could've been a double bluff."

    If he is usually bluff, and was more so, then that might be it.

    stewart M @61 suggested it
    "Must be a browser problem."

    Play fair now! Apart from dating from 1996, what is the problem with Netscape Navigator 3.01?

    As a matter of interest, is it also putting squares with a question mark where I have put double-quotes above?

  64. At 12:16 AM on 22 Mar 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    Chris G & Aperitif - I don't see any squares at all in Chris' postings. They all look the same as everybody else's on my computer. I also never get sent back to September. Is there a link, do you think?

  65. At 12:25 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Fish, drinks, and GM,

    I'm on firefox and do see the squares (where apostrophes would be expected) and they have a question mark, but not in fish's last post, not even for the double-quotes.


  66. At 12:59 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Chris: Not so much squares as boxes.

    Neat fish!

  67. At 01:24 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Fishy Chris (63), That one was fine -- no squares (or, indeed, boxes, as beter described by Big Sis) at all.

    Gossipmistress (64), I've never been sent to September either so, no, I don't think there's any correlation there.

    Ed (65), I haven't had the question marks thing.

    All very mysterious innit?

  68. At 04:47 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    I wanted to ask deep if he'd heard today's "Crossing Continents", but it appears to have been fraggerated.

  69. At 11:29 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    I see Fish's boxes, but no questions marks and have never been sent back to September. Am I in a subset of my own, I've lost track :o)

  70. At 09:14 AM on 23 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Valery (69), That was exactly the same as my experience -- until yesterday, when I clicked on "main" and had my first trip back to September 26th...

  71. At 02:16 PM on 23 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Ah but we'd miss all these idiosyncrasies if they ever got them ironed out. ( I've had several goes at that word of Greek origin above, and none of them looks right!)

  72. At 02:23 PM on 23 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Val P,

    idiosyncrasies - my inbuilt inline spellchecker says it's OK (Firefox), but it doesn't like inline, which it underlines in red.

    Oh well...

  73. At 12:22 PM on 24 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Ed I - tee hee. Thanks for that!

This post is closed to new comments.


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.