« Previous | Main | Next »

That's Dannatt

Eddie Mair | 11:52 UK time, Friday, 13 October 2006

The answer to the question posed in Quiz Time was the Department for Education and Skills.

But that's old news. Today, we have the new head of the British Army rubbishing Government policy in Iraq. Later on the blog, I'll be letting rip into Mark Thompson.

By the way, we love the blog. And we love the comments. To be serious for a moment, we think it's a great way for PM listeners to properly interact not just with us but with other members of the audience. I try not to get blogged down too much in serious stuff here. But we were wondering whether you'd welcome the opportunity to comment on big news stories here. For instance - on General Sir Richard Dannatt's comments. Maybe comments could eventually be used on air?

We just don't know - and we don't want to dilute what the blog is already about. But what I might do is start a fresh strand on Dannatt. Why not let us know on THIS thread what you think of the notion outlined above.

Meanwhile, regular correspondent Wolf has sent in what I can only assume is a postcard photo of himself, dressed as....oh well see for yourself...



  1. At 12:19 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    It's Sophie the Sheep! What did I tell you! I knew it was really a wolf.

    Eddie, I for one might be delighted to comment on General Sir Richard's comments. It's a good suggestion - provided you aren't telling us off for sometimes being frivolous.

    Frivolity is the spice of life - eh, Fearless and Appy?

    And the damned blog's forgetting me today, too.

  2. At 12:29 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Sara, 1, lol!

    That was exactly how I reacted to Eddie's carefully chosen words. You could practically hear him bending them into a form that didn't sound like he was telling us off - but the suspicion is still there!

    I bet they sit around the PM office asking why, when they went to all this trouble to connect with listeners' views on the day's news stories, they ended up with a frog. Hahaha!

  3. At 12:34 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hi Sara! It is indeed. and things have certainly been a little "spicy" the last day or two!! As for the "forgetting me" thing, I posted on the "Talking of Sheep" thread about a possible fix! It's still working for me now...

    I think we can certainly stand the more serious comments, and I do think it's important to question the fact that the government spokespeople seem to be avoiding a direct reply to Gen Sir Richard Dannatts' comments. I would love to hear a direct answer to the question "Do you agree with Gen Sir Richard Dannett when he says that the presence of British troops exacerbates the security problems, yes or no?"


  4. At 12:39 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Serious matters:

    I think PM would do well to do a feature sometime on Buy Nothing Day, (Nov 25th) a global celebration of non-consumption.

    What better way to bring the Year of Global Warming to a close than to point people in the direction of real and effective alternatives to the unbridled consumption that has created this quagmire?


    Oink Oink!

  5. At 12:43 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

    No, really. I wouldn't do the blog if the fun wasn't here. How dull would that be?! I was seeking to reassure everyone that that its spirit will always be like this, at least as long as I have anything to do with it.

    We just wanted to give you the chance to get serious on big stories...if YOU want. If it doesn't fly, we won't bother, and we won't mind either way. John and Sara, you can relax.

    I on the other hand have spent the last half hour on the blog and not on the show. Must get on!

  6. At 12:54 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Glad to hear you don't mind us turning your blog into our playground frog instead:) Why don't you join us? Come on in, the waters' lovely and warm!

  7. At 01:20 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Grant Thomas wrote:

    This years contender for the 'Foot in Mouth' award? And pre-breakfast panic interview on Today this morning was as convincing as Jack Straw's re-appearance in his own constiuency, flagged by about 10 people in balck, without veils, that I can only guess was his 'discreet' security.

  8. At 01:27 PM on 13 Oct 2006, enoch ramsbottom wrote:


    Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt obviously has his finger on the pulse in Iraq. For this alone, he should be carefully listened to. A lot of people in this country supported the removal of Saddam, based on the information the Government told us at the time. We all remember the arguments about WMD's etc... don't we?

    I think it is good news that the British Army has someone in charge who seems capable, sensible, honest and cares about his troops on the ground. A man who is not afraid of saying what he deems to be correct.

    The bottom line, is that Mr Blair and his fellow travellers should sit quietly and listen and learn from a man like Sir Richard Dunnatt. If he says that British Forces should exticate themselves soon, then the British Government should at least take heed of his words. Politicians often say they'll listen to the military professionals. I wonder if this time they will?

  9. At 01:27 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I'm another who's up for some serious stuff as well as the laughs.

    Normally I get cross when TV newscasters ask me: 'What do you think?' at the end of bulletins. They're supposed to tell ME stuff, not the other way around.

    But PM's different. Our comments are worth airing!

    Go for it Eddie. There must be a Sony in this somewhere...

  10. At 01:28 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh Eddie, we do get serious sometimes, honest! Just look back and see! (When you've prepared for the programme, obviously). For instance, I'm sure I harped on about the death penalty just the other day and got a bit cross with somebody (in a friendly, non-threatening manner, of course) who used Sadam Hussein as a counter-argument (jokingly or otherwise). And Ed Iglehart is tireless in his attempts to get us to think about important issues - just look at his no. 4 (which is much better advice than "just look at his no.2", but I digress...)

    The thing about this blog is it's both serious and frivolous, just like you good self. I'm so glad you don't want to alter its spirit - there are plently of dull old rant-and-have-a-go-at-each-other blogs out there - you wouldn't want one of those. This place is full of people who say what they think and listen to each other - heck, some of us have even been know to change our minds about things, apologise, be anti-cynicism... it's lovely here. Your acknowledgement of the desirability of this cyber-place, in fact, is leading me to forgive you for not knowing I was a woman with a long-term crush on you when you put my Oliver Reed postcard up. I can't say the adoring love still there (I'm brusied, Eric, brusied) but, friends again?

    Chums, what's the betting he never, ever reads that and my heart is broken all over again?

  11. At 01:47 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Question for Eddie

    When, as I confidently predict, you start reading out our insightful gems on air, who are you going to say they're from?

    Serious comments may seem somewhat undermined if they are from 'Fifi' or whatever.

    Fifi La Tourdefrance

  12. At 02:01 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Whisht wrote:


    to be honest once in a while we've all said something serious - I find it breaks the monotony of being amusing (trying to be amus...)

    and actually, I don't want that split off from the frivolity - having both is what creates the interest (for me)

    I know some people email their serious comments - and good for them - but if we ever do actually say something of import, maybe we should flag it with (i dunno) a few asterisks as a top line. Or shouty caps (eg IMHO) at the top...

    then if the Production team want a quick trawl at ten-to-five they can quickly skim the blogs looking for signs of comment.... (only if it helps them mind, and the 'flag' will need testing)

    just a thought

  13. At 02:02 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Chrissie wrote:

    Yeah, I'm up for the serious stuff.

    (I'm finding it tricky to blend in with the fun bit)

  14. At 02:05 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Whisht wrote:

    Fifi - its your own darn fault for choosing a silly name for your postings...

    wouldn't catch me doin... oh.

  15. At 02:10 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Stephen, Leader of STROP wrote:

    Has anyone else noticed the appearence of Ladies among the "staff photos"

    Not of Lissa I notice, but Manveen and Julia seem nice people. I must ask though, were these pics taken during yesterday's shennanigans?

  16. At 02:14 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Wow! People called "Fifi" can't make serious comments eh? I'm in trouble with a name like mine then! Is my PhD a waste of time because I don't have a "serious" name?


  17. At 02:21 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Oh, Drinks, stop it! You're making me cry.

    Gotta say, though, that you sum up the PM frog rather well. I note that occasionally somebody does launch into a bit of a rant and it looks and feels slightly out of place. I guess that speaks volumes about the style of the thing as it usually is.

    On that subject, I find it quite interesting that most froggers appear to exercise a degree of self-censorship (crikey, you wouldn't believe the mess I made of that word - it's only 10 characters and I had about 4 mistakes in it - clearly influenced by the blooper reel on WatO) - in so much as certain things seem not to be said. It's self-evident that people can disagree with each other - it happens - but there are rarely any huge outbursts that result stand-up shouting. That's got to say something about assumed identities whilst frogging, me thinks.

  18. At 02:29 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    15 said "Has anyone else noticed the appearence of Ladies among the "staff photos"

    OMG where are these photos? I have to see them! Please can somebody help?

  19. At 02:31 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Rachel wrote:

    Re: photos: Hurrah for the women who are 'doing' and 'working', as opposed to the men who are merely fresh and intrepid. Still no photo of dear Lissa, though.



    We can be serious. Why, even I was last week or thereabouts. But I'm a bit worried that I won't have the discipline to read through acres of serious comments on a serious bloggy thread thing without a dose of appy, FF, Dr H et al to keep me going.

  20. At 02:32 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    Stephen (15) - very nice, but where oh where is Lissa!

    FF (3) - Yes, that does seem to work, but it's a bit of a fiddle. I went to some other blog this morning (can't remember which) and it remembered who I am even though I've never commented there before.

    I think I'll stick to frogging here.

    Sorry I missed your suggestion - I have just looked back at talking of sheep and I can't remember seeing any of the interesting things you were talking about, like your journeys to work and so forth. I must have got lost in some other thread.

  21. At 02:35 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Hoorah - we're not being told off after all! My Paranoid Hat slipped down over my nose when I started to read this thread. However, whatever Gen Sir Prof Dr Eric says, will go.

    PS, Me too - I can also be serious, but sometimes have enough of that elsewhere, and certainly don't have enough of this frogging elsewhere. (if I had got to grips with the volumes of advice passed to me in earlier frogs, then I would have that 2nd don't in italics, but hey I'm not going to be harsh on myself, it's nearly Holiday Time!)

    Talking about holidays - you chaps may or may not be interested to know that I don't have to be having palpitations about today's 24hr stoppage and subsequent go-slow at the Passport Office, because it got to us in record time, and we're all legal (except yesterday I found I'd lost the travel insurance documents.....)

  22. At 02:39 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    I agree about the silly name stuff, I'm really called Derek...

    Although I took the opportunity to open my mouth on t'other entry (i.e. the serious one), my instinct is to agree with Whisht's (capitalised?) comment about the merry mix on here. The reason I keep coming back to it - apart from the obvious "distraction from doing work" one - is that some of the comments are, and the interplay between comments is, so just totally out of left field. I'm talking bizarre. I just love the completely stupid word plays and references that litter otherwise perfectly reasonable comments.

    Almost everybody says something serious occasionally - but with so little pomposity. It's just so difficult to take yourself too seriously when one thread of conversation is about putting Kirsty Young on your nose. I also like the way most of us at one time or another have bent over backwards (stop it) trying not to say brand names. It's patently obvious that they don't get skootered - but we're all "playing" Blue Peter!

  23. At 02:42 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Stephen Leader (15),

    I hadn't, so thank you for drawing that to my attention. What attractive, happy ladies they appear (probably was Friday, I reckon). Still waiting for Lissa...

  24. At 02:44 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    I agree with you Whisht - I suspect I might feel more uncomfortable with separate strands, a bit of a Them and Us thingy? I, for one, prefer to slip in and out of mood, the stream-of-conciousness-ness is what I find very liberating about this way of communicating. It suits me down to the lilypad, so to speak.

    I would be up for a flagging system though, as I can't see that cramping anyone's style.

    Fifi, 11,- Some people (they remain nameless)(oh, well that cliche doesn't work...) change their names on this frog like they change their tastes in confectionery etc, so they'd cope fine!

  25. At 02:58 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Rachel wrote:

    Lissa - very interested to hear your comment (on the other blog, but thought I wouldn't contaminate its interesting seriousness) that the women don't want their photos on the blog. I assume it isn't vanity, but some security thing - we might all be stalkers etc. I hadn't thought of that, and can understand it - so I will stop nagging you for your photo. Perhaps a cartoon representation - just to balance the genders?

  26. At 03:09 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    To be honest I doubt if we'll get namechecks from the Edmeister. But that's not important. If he reads the comments, then it means he's still keeping an eye on this virtual playground he created, and that's all that matters... Plus, all us here would know if he's used the comments, even if the "world outside doesn't)


  27. At 03:16 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Thanks Appy, Tireless is better than tiresome....

  28. At 03:18 PM on 13 Oct 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    Super blogs.

  29. At 03:19 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    John H (17) - I am enjoying today: I've never frogged so much and on two threads at once!

    I get your point about exercising self-restraint. I suspect that some of us may not be lifelong bloggers and might feel a bit new or out of place in this kind of forum. Which makes it rather like being at a cocktail party - one is a bit careful in case one should stand out as being loud or rude or in some way offend others.

    Aperitif, anyone?

  30. At 03:23 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    My first comment of today got the Nasty notice, and not appeared...


    What about those of us who have admitted to not using their real first name, even though the name is "more sensible". Hope you've lined up the spirit and the mixers for tomorrow.

    I think Eddie's got it right, in having a separate page for a serious topic.. it's the multiblogged frivilous ones that get me confused...

  31. At 03:32 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Col Winbay wrote:

    Dear Mrs. Trellis,

    If you scroll up the page, you will see a picture that looks almost exactly unlike a sheep. If you look at its left hind hoof (what's a sheep doing with a hind's hoof?) and then deflect your gaze to your right you should see some pictures. If you click on these you should be able to view a larger version.
    Hint: the people with longer hair are more likely to be the girls, or ladies.
    Manveen is "doing PM letters". How would you like that job? P and M. Just up your street.

    How is the weather in North Wales?

  32. At 03:41 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I expect he'll lead with something like "comments on the blog today inlcude..."

    Am I really going to post this pointless little thought?

  33. At 03:52 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    And now we've "Fiona and Mark outside the Green Room" too - how exciting!

    Can we have "Eddie in his dressing room" or "Eddie relaxing on a bear skin rug" or "Eddie dressed up as an action hero", or...

    ... sorry (blushes and goes off for cold shower).

  34. At 04:06 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Sara (29),
    I can't help but think you sound like my pimp!

    I'm sure that isn't what you meant, but it did worry me momentarily.

    John W (30), I dunno, what about such people? How do we know which are made up and which are real? Aren't all names ultimately "made up"?

    I don't think Eddie would have any problem reading out your name somehow.

    Ed (27), you are quite welcome, and never tiresome.

  35. At 04:15 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Appy, I'm glad you did post this pointless little thought. All thoughts are welcome, and none are ever really pointless if they bring a smile to someones' face as yours did to mine


  36. At 04:28 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Ed, I've been meaning to say for several days now - your work visible on your website is absolutely stunning, and I'm a bit envious of your talent, and the lifestyle I imagine you to have. Well done you :O)

  37. At 04:34 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Just back from long walk in darkest (and incredibly beautiful East Sussex, something, a peregine? was spooking the birds over the newly created wetlands and the spectacle was magnificent) with new rescue black labrador puppy; he is now stretched out exhausted, and i am pretty tired as well. Isn't it funny how quickly a puppy becomes part of the family? Even one of my cats has decided to forgive me and has joined in today.

    ANYWAY that is why i have been so long getting to the blog.

    I am a bit wary of serious matters because I have spent happy hours on political blogs and sometimes it seems that the entries are engineered to pile in and hijack an argument, making it look as if extreme left wing or rightwing views for example (or evangelising religious ones as well) are far more important than they really are.

    To broaden that out for a moment, i sometimes feel that in the chase for balanced reporting you can get two people on air. One may represent 95% of opinions, the other 5%, but each gets 50% of the time. It doesn't seem right.

    So i hope we don't get lots of people signing up not for the show or the blog, but just to promote a point of view.

    Sorry about all that. Woolly mind like the sheep from which i spent time distracting puppy.

  38. At 04:35 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Welcome, Manveen, Julia and Fiona (although given your problem with typos on Fl*kr, can we just establish that M isn't actually called Maureen, please?)

    I think I'm invisible today- just thought I'd share that pointless thought with you!

  39. At 04:56 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    The General in the interview this morning started to talk about domestic issues. Things start to get a bit dangerous when servants of the Crown start publicly to make 'political' statements.
    At one point I was half expecting the General to make a call for a coup. Similar events have been rumoured about, at various times, in the last 50-60 years.

  40. At 04:57 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    *Yawn* Is it time to go home yet?

  41. At 04:59 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Chris (36),

    Thanks (blush). I should be like a pig in excrement - mortgage paid, ancestors buried, kids grown (though one living in sin at the bottom of the garden, (of which i'm eternally glad)).

    BUT I'm angry, anxious and depressed and it's all Shrub and Toady's fault! I think I've got eco-despair, and I can't reccommend it to anyone - "the burden of awareness" someone called it.

    Anyway, a walk in the woods usually gives a brief respite, and practical work in good company is the finest therapy - usually involves temporary cold-turkey for the news addiction ....


  42. At 05:04 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    While reading through the Serious Blog, and nodding sagely, or growling quietly, the inevitable happened and I found myself wanting to leap in with a fatuous comment. That obviously says a lot of bad things about me...I still have a kind of 6thformer-ish urge to become agitated by the inability to decide on a tack of black or white. I can be completely convinced by someone's reasoned argument, only to be wholly swung around by the next. Unwilling to attract confrontation, my contribution is to deflect. Perhaps I need to take myself more seriously in order to feel that others will do the same.

    Oh, that was a little too psychoanalytical for a Friday afternoon, I don't think I want to take it any further - it hurt. Anyone want to dip into my bag of chocolate raisins?

  43. At 05:09 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Valery (37), I think you were invisible earlier but now you're popping up all over the place! At least you're not being offered around like a tray of hors d'oeuvres though!

    Hurrah about the passports. How long til you're off now?

    Silver Fox, you're such a sweetie - with these compliments you're really spoiling us!

  44. At 05:13 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    Oh heavens, Appy (34) I am so sorry. Nothing like that intended. What kind of cocktail parties must you go to !!!

    Meanwhile, must go in haste - I've an hour's drive before I get home for mine (aperitif with a small a, that is!).

  45. At 05:30 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Tuesday, thank you kindly for asking, Appy!

    Just come off the phone to the airline, asking if I can possibly revise my decision not to take them up on their kind offer of taking an extra 5kg of luggage for "a mere" £10 - given that it came in a string of similar choices (eg, £10 to make sure you're sitting next to someone acceptable, £10 to be presented with a tray full of unpleasantness etc, etc), I made the brave (and as it turns out, incorrect) decision to say no to them all. Now getting serious grief from Teenage Daughter, who "can't possibly" manage on an allowance of 15kg.

    For future reference, girl at Customer Services was more than charming, in fact quite tuned in to my sense of humour (which doesn't always work with strangers on the phone I find - they just deem me mad, when I'm actually trying to put them at their ease), The upshot is "no" not unless I now wish to pay £20 extra EACH WAY - phew I could buy a new Really Light suitcase for that amount. Hmmm there's an idea?

    Bet you wish you hadn't asked now!

  46. At 05:53 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:


    Tuesday's my birthday! Do you want early cake or when-you-get-back cake?

    Have a fabulous time.

    Oooh, Annasee's being read out!

  47. At 05:57 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Al Singh Yu Wan Ho wrote:

    Hey, Annasee,

    Your late rats have been revealed to the nation. I'm sure you'd have read your thoughts with greater conviction, but ... well ... that's showbiz.

    Can I have your autograph, please?
    Here, on this cheque will do.

  48. At 05:59 PM on 13 Oct 2006, SmallAndNoisy wrote:

    Bit odd to say he didn't want the army "broken". As if he'd lost the receipt or something.

  49. At 06:12 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Well done to Annasee for having her comment about decking read out this evening...so the blog really is read....and well done Lissa for Editing.

    Does this mean that Manveen also reads the blog to see what comments to include in PM letters? It that a joy or purgatory, I wonder? I'm glad that she (and Fiona and Julia) agreed to appear in the picture gallery, it was too male dominated before.

    Like Valery, I've not fired off on the serious blog today, I feel I'd probably go into rant mode all too easily.


    I'd go with this kind of Warning, Serious comment indication if a completely separate blog page doesn't work, and seeing that Lissa slipped her comments there rather than here by accident, (I know, multi-tasking trying to edit the show as well), separate pages don't seem to work here. I'd probably be equally guilty of getting it wrong anyway.

  50. At 06:13 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Val (42 and holding), do not despair. I kinda think what you describe is EXACTLY what this blog is about.

    And I love the flagging idea. It appeals to the part of my brain that would like to be orderly and organised but rarely is....

  51. At 06:16 PM on 13 Oct 2006, steve (this one not the other who came after) wrote:

    Ed (41)
    How brilliantly put! I'd never heard the phrase "burden of awareness" before but it's right on the button.

    You're not alone and I know it doesn't help with the eco-despair, but there are fellow travellers out here. "Why can't they see?" sort of sums it all up quite nicely but then, if you live surrounded by concrete and submerged in the consumerism of urban life I guess there is not a lot to see. We are fortunate to both live in beautiful wild areas but the drawback to that is that we can see what is going on. Keep on, Ed, we just have to enjoy what is here while it is still here. What was it Confusion said, something about curses and living in interesting times. Enjoy your woods at least you know you are on the right track.

    Sorry, chums, didn't intend to be exclusive. Thoroughly enjoy the banter (usually covering my fish along with the caper sauce) (caper sauce — surely another term for streaking?) but keep the serious mixed in, not separate, it works well.

    Now where's the whiskey?

  52. At 06:16 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    I'm a six foot plus grumpy guy. But whenever silver-fox pitches in, I feel as if I'm having my tummy rubbed just for being a part of proceedings...

  53. At 06:37 PM on 13 Oct 2006, April wrote:

    Radio 4 listeners are not inclined "to properly interact", but might just interact properly.

  54. At 06:40 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I much prefer 'grumpy guy' to grumpy old men or whatever the show is called. Nothing like a little alliteration to add taste. Sorry listening to the News Quiz. And drinking my glass of dry white wine (New Zealand Sauvignan Blanc since you ask).

    Sara I hope you have arrived home safely and have had your first aperitif.

  55. At 06:46 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John H (49), I can hear you purring from here!

  56. At 06:48 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    John H - ah but, what if he's another chatbot?

    Ap, Happy Birthday when it comes! Try to save a bit of cake for when I get back if you can - plane trips make me swell up like a balloon anyway, so I'd better not have cake just before I go!

    I wonder how Anne's getting on? Remember to save some cake for her too. In fact, perhaps an opportunity for two cakes, and official and an unofficial?

    Sun's well over the yardarm here, and I'm going to the film being shown in the Hall at Nearest Village tonight. Last time I went to one the seats (institutional variety) were so damned uncomfortable that I wished I were 'comfortably numb'! Whale Rider tonight :o}. Anyone know if it's appealling?

  57. At 06:59 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Valery - enjoy the film and I wil certainly do extra cake on your return.

    Definitely a chatbot btw, but don't tell John, he'll be so disappointed!

  58. At 07:00 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    ValP (56) When do you get back? I want to know how long to save a slice of my cake for you....

    btw, nice PF song title drop there! Must admit I've never seen Whale Rider... Let me know what you make of it, as I'd be interested to know if it's worth watching when it comes ont' telly...

  59. At 07:09 PM on 13 Oct 2006, AndycRat wrote:

    I'm not sure that the silver-fox has quite got the hang of chatboxing - you're supposed to supply a link to a get-rich-quick scheme or some-such.

    Whale Rider reminds me of the time I went to NZ and went on a boat to see a whale. The sea was Force 101, and I really don't want to see another whale again, *groan*.

    I can't get the hang of the serious blog on the other side, is this a safe haven?

  60. At 07:09 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Lady Penelope wrote:

    Hm. Am not sure what I think about serious being separated from frivolous . . . there's such a thing as light & shade, after all. Even the serious sometimes enjoy laughing, and jokers do occasionally have more weighty thoughts.

    It was my impression that both were welcome on this blog. And that's why I've loved it.

    The Lord Muir's emails and blogstarters set a not-quite-reverent tone that I (I speak only for myself, of course. Other opinions are available) thoroughly enjoy. To designate a 'Here you must be sensible' strand (as distinct from a 'here you can say whatever you feel like saying' one) seems a bit 'OK kids, you've had your fun - now let's get on with the REAL work'-ish to me.


    I'd quite like to carry on as we are, acksherly.

    But if we have to do it behind the bike-sheds, will somebody pls tell me where they are?

  61. At 07:27 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Erm, Lady P... Did you really mean to say: "if we have to do it behind the bike-sheds"???

  62. At 07:49 PM on 13 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Damn - that disappeared before I even posted it. Uhuh, frog business as usual on this one then?

    All round to my bikesheds on the 25th then guys - Fearless, bring cake otherwise I'll have to pinch some leftovers from Big Bro (he's on 24th).

    Watch this space later tonight for Jonathanross styley film critique, ok?

  63. At 07:56 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Lady Penelope wrote:

    FF - did you not have bike-sheds at your school?

  64. At 08:00 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    You'll have to wait 'til the 29th for the slice of cake from me, I'm afraid VP...

    Oh we had bikesheds alright, Lady P. I'm just questioning exactly what you want us all to be doing behind them?!?!?

  65. At 08:04 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Lady Penelope wrote:

    Oooooooooo all round to Valery's then :-)

  66. At 08:54 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Honestly I go out to work for the day & come back to find Eddie is attempting to hijack the blog into some sort of "serious" territory. Do we do serious? I thought that was for the Today programme & listeners who send emails to the BBC messageboards. I much prefer this mixture of absurdity & the occasional profound thought. I mentioned the Bremner Bird & Fortune book a few days ago - that has the best explanation for the Iraq debacle (esp US involvement) that I have found. I don't think a satirical & humorous book is incapable of delivering a serious message.
    Someone said to me the other day re Iraq "well if we had Iraqi soldiers on every corner of our streets telling us what to do & pointing guns at us, we probably wouldn't think much of them" which I think puts a useful perspective on things.
    Now re the rats /decking story. I'd just got into the car after finishing work, my husband was driving, listening to the last few minutes of PM. As my comment was read out I thought he was going to crash the car! His jaw dropped as the whole sorry saga was broadcast. A stunned silence after it finished, then "at least no one knows our names" (I forbore to remind him of the weblink. That would just be cruel.)

  67. At 09:22 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Forgot to congratulate you earlier on your new found fame Annasee, well done! See, rats have their uses...

    I used to have two pet rats, gorgeous they were, and intelligent, cuddly and loving. Mind you, I would draw the line at cuddling the wild variety!

    We won't tell Hubby... SSssshhh

  68. At 09:59 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    So, Annasee, when will you be signing autographs? You realise you are now the first frogger to get on-air credit? You're famous! It's a milestone that deserves Guiness Book Of Records recognition :o)

  69. At 11:02 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    You are all just in time for my belated thoughts on the above. Yes, I’m all in favour of the serious bits being appropriated for use on the airwaves. I’d hoped it would start happening when I, yes even I, made brief comments of that sort. I mean, you did read my bit about the consumption of alcoholic beverages? It wasn’t a current affair so much at that time...

    And now - who was it that said, “Is there voters ..?” several times on the programme today?

  70. At 11:08 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    AndycRat (59),

    I love the idea of 'chatboxing'!

    Fitness and frogging at the same time - although I will need to wear protective headgear.

  71. At 11:14 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    So, after a day of "serious" blog input , Eddie chooses a comment to read out on air. What will it be about? Mmmm, I see, it's about rats. And garden decking. I have to ask myself how "seriously" he is taking this change of heart. Maybe it was a product of the away day, suggested from above?

  72. At 12:00 AM on 14 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    I missed it all, and PM, ...under floorboards all day... and aching all over now :-( however I have to agree with Fearless 26 comments way earlier.

    Look at the fun some of us had a few weeks back re writing that PM script! We all need a light hearted break now and again though.

    I feel that we should not dilute what could be turning in to be quite unique in it's own special way ??

  73. At 01:08 AM on 14 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Annasee, the secret is safe with us - what website? Ironing cd's? No, not a clue, must be someone else.... Have you looked up Corinne Howat btw? (actually, have I got her name wrong there? I'd need to look it up again.)

    Fifi - the infinite improbability drive is the answer to all our transport problems, don't you think?

    FF and Andyjimbo, typing this standing up due to the comfortably numb bum, and I would that the soundtrack had been as good...
    However the film itself is well worth watching when it pops up on tv. Slow start ( but then I'm a bit of a beginning, middle, end kind of gal and this seemed to start in the middle as so many do these days - fogey? moi?), but captivating once you got into it. The root of it being, basically, an anti-chauvinist theme, using a maori community to express it.

    There now, no spoilers there, eh? there are definitely whales though (and a bit of whale singing), and some seriously good acting by the young heroine, and most of the others. Beautiful skies. Altogether, understated and charming.(Have hankies near at hand)

    Up the wooden hill to bedfordshire now (that doesn't work because we live on one sprawly level with a few ups and downs, making it technically downhill to bed. You didn't want to know that though did you.)

    Good grief - I do hope I haven't posted this on the Serious Blog? Quick whizz up to the top - no, I haven't!

  74. At 01:12 AM on 14 Oct 2006, Anne O'Rack wrote:

    Fearless (68)

    You may well be correct insofar as Annasee's rats' tail is the first blog entry to get an airing, but the honour of the first blog contributor to have a mention on PM goes to (wouldenchewknowit) a man. Charles Hatton (I think it was) had an email read out a few days earlier. It might have been longer than that, my relatively short term memory is becoming unreliable. Whether he posted the same observation I'm not sure.
    He did receive a couple of congratulatory comments. I've had a quick trawl through the blog without success. I found I got sidetracked and couldn't remember that for which I was searching, my relatively short term memory is becoming unreliable.

  75. At 06:05 AM on 14 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    jonnie- I'm really worried about your husband now. OK he objects to your blogging, but keeping you under the floorboards all day? That's WAY over the top. Have you spoken to someone about his behaviour? (Apart from us, of course - don't worry, your secrets are quite safe here)

    AnneO'Rack - thank you for the archival correction - I had also thought someone else had an email read out on air a few weeks ago. But thanks to everyone for their congratulations, (I haven't shown them to the other half - better that he thinks no -one listens & no-one reads this!)

  76. At 11:22 AM on 14 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Anasee, I must confess I can't blame him for that one. Ine of the perils for installing an entryphone.
    In a 100 year old building you can imagined the debris and skeletons of mice and rats down there. Last year on a previous excursion underneath the boards we found an old bottle of hair restorer and it went for £27 on e-bay!

    Oh and congratulations! I'll listen on 'Listen again' later on.

  77. At 01:41 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Anne O'Rack, I stand corrected (or sit as is currently the case.....)

  78. At 05:13 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Crikey and likewise crumbs, I posted this morning before 1100 and it still hasn't appeared by 1723...

  79. At 10:18 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Champagne cocktails all afternoon. Just home. Lashed. Anyone out there?

  80. At 10:44 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Appy - I am, but just going to bed. Cat woke me up at 5 am today scratching outside bedroom door when he was supposed to be in his cellar sleeping quarters, whence other half ASSURED me he had put him. Who should I blame? Him or the cat?
    Glad you had a good day out with some real people & real champagne. All this imaginary cyber chocolate & wine can leave you feeling a bit unfulfilled sometimes.
    Frances O - I fear your earlier post has gone down the great cyber plughole since it hasn't appeared yet. Oddly, when I wrote that long post very early this morning (the quiz one) it took hours to appear (in fact I'd gone back to bed) but the shorter one I wrote just afterwards was on almost immediately. I was beginning to think the quiz had also gone down the plughole, but smug in that I wrote it in word so could always send it again. Once bitten twice shy in that regard.

  81. At 11:07 PM on 14 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Champagne cocktails sounds good Ap, any particular reason?

  82. At 11:18 PM on 14 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Belts and braces are always a good idea Annasee! Words of wisdom from a control freak.

  83. At 11:33 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Officially, celebrating coming birthday. Truthfully, finished major piece of work recently and got to spend time with human beings outside the university for the first time in ages.

    Unfortunately now can't seem to settle down to sleep. And tele is pants. And I seem to have strawberry bellini indigestion!

    Nice to know some of you are out there, xxx.

  84. At 12:15 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Or, indeed, in here.

  85. At 09:49 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Wise advice, annasee. In fact, it was about being under the floorboards being a bit dodgy because that seems to be a good place for the rats that used to live under the decking to take refuge in, but I'm too lazy to go back and get all the references. Ho, hum.

    Morning, Appy! How's the head today? Virtual aspirin and vitain C on its way

  86. At 09:53 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Apps (79)Sorry to have missed out on the Champagne cocktails last night... I really ought not to get engrossed in a film after 10pm with a bottle of wine open....

    Fun evening folks?

    Annasee (80) that's too much like common sense to me! I think I'll try that next time I do a long frog (errr there has to be a better phrase than "doing a frog"!)

  87. At 10:14 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    'Doing a long frog' sounds like a phrase destined to enter the language.

    btw, anyone else a bit worried by the concept of a News Cheese? (strapline)

  88. At 10:15 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Morning folks. My head is fine thanks - I wonder if I'm still squiffy?

    Doc (84), in where/what? I think of you as "out there" in so many ways...

  89. At 10:30 AM on 15 Oct 2006, John W wrote:


    Glad no hangover, drinks, and I've not got one either. Doing the accounts with an open bottle of wine was perhaps not the best idea l had last night. Open books, half filed blocks of papers, pens, wine-glass stains...

    Strapline prediction proved correct so far, and no haiku (perhaps scared him off once I had started predicting them).

    Back to the desk and try and finish this lot off...

  90. At 10:35 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Frances (87) - it's the "gobbets" that really make me feel queasy. It's like the word 'succulent' - no sooner is something described as succulent then I feel too disturbed to eat it.

  91. At 10:39 AM on 15 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    ...oh, for those interested in the shed roof saga, I've purchased a large tarpaullin to put over it for now. The job for this afternoon. To actually fix it would need felt etc, and it's not so much that job, but I've found holes (rats?) where some of the supports have been weakened, and need to check those before I put my life in my hands and start walking on the roof so as to lay the new felt...

  92. At 10:42 AM on 15 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    hi folks - happy birthday Aperitif!

    A thought struck me as I was listening to Friday's PM:

    Who's reading out the letters??

    My guess is that its a job handed out in the office on Friday afternoon:
    "Who wants to be 'concerned of Sussex' talking about Dannat? and who wants to be the 'rats one'..?"

  93. At 10:44 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Morning John W. Hope your neighbours are behaving. Saturday nights are for wine not accounts, so think of whatever you did manage to get done as a bonus, eh?

  94. At 10:53 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Thank you Whisht - it's not actually until Tuesday, but as I was celebrating yesterday it does feel like it's already started.

  95. At 11:55 AM on 15 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Not sure about the neighbours, Aper, but the builders van has been outside all weekend, (including nights) smell of paint occasionally wafts up and the like. Sat nights....well, when else is there to do the accounts, they don't do themselves...

    Whisht, interesting point. Similarly for Feedback and other programmes - didn't Home Truths have mystery voices reading out letters, wonder if Fig has mystery voices. Hey, maybe Lissa, Manveen et al. are the mystery female voices for PM etc. Will they tell?

  96. At 01:53 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Whisht, John W, when I worked in PM (in the days when Thomas Cromwell was the DG), the production team read the letters. Which is why you get, eg, a letter from Aberdeen read out in a Manchester accent, or a letter from Birmingham read out in a Glasgow one.

  97. At 03:58 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Maybe we should all volunteer to be the "voices of the letters"!

  98. At 04:47 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Fantastic idea, FF!

    Lissa, calling Lissa!

  99. At 08:06 PM on 15 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    he he... Thanks Frances O - I thought this might be the case!

    I guess if Eddie was feeling playful, then the next time someone had had to read out letters he could just thank them... though this might cause fewer volunteers in future!

    (or maybe the reverse...? are we all secretly wishing for fame...? lets not wish too hard, and keep out of the headlights, methinks)

  100. At 08:55 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I definitely don't want to be famous thanks - recently a Newsnight crew pointed a camera at me and asked me a question. When I raised my hand to obscure my face from the camera and politely said that I'd rather not be on TV the reporter was really rude to me. Wish I'd got his name. Why must some media people presume everyone wants to be like them?

  101. At 09:22 PM on 15 Oct 2006, John W wrote:


    I too have had criticsm about holding hands out to prevent a TV crew getting my visage. On more than one occasion, and one of them was definately US. In Chiswick (SW London).

    Exhausted after tarp fiasco.

  102. At 09:58 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    John (101) guess your worst nightmare then must be a TV crew filming you DURING the tarp fiasco? See - it could have been worse - already you're feeling better, yes?

  103. At 10:07 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Nah - don't want to be even radio famous. Just special to people who are special to me.

  104. At 10:22 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Who said anything about getting on-air credit? I just thought it would be a good way of getting together at Aunties' expense for a party :o)

  105. At 10:39 PM on 15 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    ahhh far too cunning for me, FF

    gotta get more cunning, gotta get more cunning...


    this is not the mantra to intone under your breath, as I now realise....

  106. At 10:56 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    'S all right, whisht, *we* know.
    But the get-together on Xs sounds like a very good way of rewarding us for our loyalty and for providing hours of entertainment for those poor, bored production types

  107. At 11:41 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    Dannat is in a difficult position- he has to follow government orders and should not question them.

  108. At 01:59 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Anne O'Rack wrote:

    Mrs Trellis,

    Your stated belief leads me to wonder whether you may have been the cook on Jet Morgan's rocket ship Discovery during the Expedition to the Red Planet.

  109. At 02:06 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Mr. I. Kew wrote:

    Straplines a-plenty,
    Constructed with thought and care.
    "Not today, thank you."

  110. At 08:29 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Does anyone know who this "regular correspondent Wolf", whose delightful picture we see above, is???

  111. At 09:22 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Whisht wrote:

    been wondering that meself Frances O...

  112. At 09:38 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Well, it's certainly not me!

  113. At 09:43 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Oh I see a strapline has appeared, but in reverse! Andycstrapagg, I salute the fact that you're the first person to be the strapline!

  114. At 10:02 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    So should Andy be proud of the fact that he has a visible strapline, or not? These fashion dilemmas are so tricky...

  115. At 10:08 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Hey, Andysrapp! Radio history has been made!

  116. At 10:16 AM on 16 Oct 2006, OntheLedge wrote:

    Hi everybody.
    Just trawling through my inbox this morning, I realised I had a number of PM newsletters lying around in a discarded way, a la Sunday supplements on a Monday morning .....
    This led me down a couple of mental avenues:
    (1) Should we ask Eddie/Lissa if they could design a 'virtual' binder for us to store them in, which could be available either for us online or downloadable for individual use?
    (2) Having browsed through my cherished copy of Gordon Brown's speeches, signed by Lord Mair in his own inimitable way, I was struck by the potential for Eddie to publish his newsletters. Believe me, they would be far more interesting, and LOL stuff. Nuggets of gold, in fact.
    I did say these were 'mental' avenues.

  117. At 11:19 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Mr. I. Kew wrote:

    I am wrong, again,
    I have been wrong before, in

  118. At 11:29 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    In belated response to 88 - I take this as a compliment, so thank you, Ap. My ‘in here’ was a reference to the fact that this place seems not unlike a chat room - and the rest is elementary. I think you’re a bit out there, too.

    As to radio fame, well I had my (real) name read out a couple of times by John Peel on his programme a while back, but would surely enjoy the kind of ‘fame’ that gets old Doc H credited with some wisdom on air PM. Or something.

    Now, if I can just reach my ‘illegal far-arms’....

  119. At 11:44 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Cheers Doc (118) - "out there" is definitley good.

    I thought, with the "in here" we were going to get a little descrip of your abode. No such luck, I see. Are you going to be here for cake tomorrow or are you des(s)erting me too?

    I Kew (117),

    I thought perhaps you might be my father, but you have admitted to once being wrong, so evidently not. Incidentally, what did get the better of you in 1992?

  120. At 12:02 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Has anyone seen Eddie today? Was his weekend that good? Or was it a long production meeting?

  121. At 12:19 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Re (119) - I wouldn’t do that, and I have expressed the fact that I won’t be away on one of these other threads. You’ve probably seen it by now.

  122. At 12:57 PM on 16 Oct 2006, AndycStrap wrote:

    O Frances and Annaseed : thankyou for noticing my visible straplines, I'll have a word with my tailor (Messrs Spencer and Marks).

    Radio history eh? And on the most contributed-to frog (except ours is, perhaps the only "frog") - our fame will spread far and wide.

    In fact, I'm now getting nervous of frogging with such a large audience, anyone felt that? That's why I haven't said anything remotely witty recently.

    ps Doc H : I've had stuff read out by Mr Peel on his Radio 1 programme. Beat that. He never did play any of my demo tapes /CDs though, but I take comfort from knowing that he probably did listen to them and they may still be in a box somewhere at Peel Acres....

  123. At 01:44 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Mr. I. Kew wrote:

    Aperitif, O,
    That I should be so lucky.
    Time has cleared my mind.

  124. At 02:42 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Mr I Kew, Sir,
    Are you the lovely Kylie
    Minogue in diguise?

    (Give my a break it's my first ever attmpt - "I should be so lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky...")


  125. At 02:59 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Frank Ribbons wrote:

    I was absolutely incensed by Eddie's interview with Alex Salmond re Sir Richard Dannat's comments. I had wished I had the text number of the show in order to shoot off a text there and then. Eddie you colluded with Mr Salmond to misinterperet Sir Richard's remarks. When Alex Salmond quoted him as having said that the presence of our troops exascerbated the security situation, he did so as though that were the whole truth of the quotation and and comment, and then proceeeded to use that in a hostlile way against Tony Blair. You let him get away with that, as though the quote indeed summed up Dannat's position. But Sir Richard had qualified that remark in his interview with Jim Naughtie that very morning! It was a case of letting a partial truth seem to be the whole truth. Not good enough for pm. What did you think of your handling of the interview Eddie?

  126. At 03:06 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Mr I Kew -123 - I think you'll find it's this blog that has cleared your mind. Or possibly emptied it completely.

  127. At 04:05 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    (118) (122) ·
    “I’ve had stuff read out by Mr Peel on his Radio 1 programme.”

    Andy, that’s actually what I meant. And I also know someone who’s had their stuff played by the man on said programme. Does that beat you?

  128. At 04:32 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Eric read an email of mine out a few weeks ago - referred to Superd**g and the woman who was banging on about VAT on suncream.

    Never been read out by Peel though.

    My best friend has been on Gardener's World. Does that impress?

  129. At 05:08 PM on 16 Oct 2006, AndycStrap wrote:

    Oh well, I've been thrashed in the bit-part-on-radio stakes!

    What was the stuff, Doc? I might have one of their records :)

  130. At 08:30 PM on 16 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    I once won a competition and spoke to Gideon Coe over the phone.

    It was very strange - like holding a strange magic radio to your ear with the presenter literally talking to 'just' you...

    lovely guy though. and a fantastic prize.
    Thanks GLR! (you are missed... and don't tell me 6 Music is almost the same...)

  131. At 09:57 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Sorry Whisht, I want to be impressed but I'm afraid I don't know who Gideon Coe is :/

  132. At 10:17 PM on 16 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    he he... He's faaaaarrrr less famous than John Peel (which was where I was trying to find the humour), but still a good presenter and seems like a nice bloke!

    the prize meant (among other things) being stared at by Angus Deayton - an experience I still can't quite get out of my mind...

  133. At 10:40 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ew! Angus Deayton! What kind of a prize is that? Hope it hasn't scarred you for life! ;)

  134. At 10:42 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    The ‘stuff’ was Bloc Party.

  135. At 10:53 AM on 17 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I know I left a frog expressing horror at the whole A.D. staring thing (132) last night, but it hasn't appeared. Anyway, Whisht, you have my sympathy!

  136. At 11:11 AM on 17 Oct 2006, AndycStrapNoMore wrote:

    Ooh, Doc, they were really famous for a while weren't they? Peel-to-chart fame?

  137. At 11:28 AM on 17 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    And now they're both there, making me look silly.

    Why does that happen????

  138. At 11:53 AM on 17 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Yes, Andy, and will be again. Their second record is largely complete, and is due out in the spring. Singles likely before that.

  139. At 02:29 PM on 17 Oct 2006, AndycStrapNoMore wrote:

    Excellent! I guess I'll not hear them though as I don't listen to Radio 1 daytime, or have MTV or anything, pity, I'm sure I'm missing out on stuff.

    Rob Da Bank did a good job playing the out-left-field choons, but he's been put into the early morning slot (00:00 to 02:00) so I'm bereft of good stuff at the moment... :(

    You'll have to let us know how The Block Party beat combo gets on!

  140. At 07:05 PM on 17 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Will do.

  141. At 10:26 PM on 17 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    don't worry Appy, I was also stared at by Mariella Frustrop (but for faaaaar fewer seconds, which merely embarrassed me...

    an odd night.

    Hopefully your birfday night has been even more fun!
    Happy birthday!

  142. At 11:01 PM on 17 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Cheers Whisht. I'm puzzled - what must you've done to win a prize that involved being stared at by celebrities? - it all sounds a bit unnerving to me! But I'm sure you found the MF experience enjoyable, despite the embarrassment. Perhaps she was undressing you with her eyes (but then what was AD doing???.... eww).

    Coming over to the most recent blog for champers/beer?

  143. At 11:42 PM on 17 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Appy - just been there but everyone must've been in the kitchen or something...

    anyway, don't worry, I was not the focus of attention.
    Its odd catching someone's eyes because I generally find that strangers look away (I do anyway). But on the night in question (a movie premiere party) all the guests were c list celebs who I would recognise but they'd stare at people (hence myself a competition-winner-non-industry-ligger) to see if someone was important!

    still, it meant accidentally gently elbowing Mel Smith in the belly and walking gently backwards into Gail Porter who was extremely polite (you can imagine which had more frisson for me...)

    but enough. John Peel weren't there and that's how all this silliness got started...!!

  144. At 12:23 AM on 18 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Wow Whisht, don't you get to mix with the glitterati?

    Um, I once told a very senior politician - and his wife - that he has a nice bottom (he does! - probably not as nice as Gail Porter's though...). Does that have any kudos?

  145. At 07:44 AM on 18 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hmm, do politicians bottom have kudos? I think that's between you and your therapist, Appy!

  146. At 06:39 PM on 18 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Tony's does - I spent quite some time looking at it a couple of years ago and it was really pert.

  147. At 10:34 PM on 18 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    um - this knocks me prattling on about being stared at cos 'they think i might employ them' into the long grass. (especially as I had even less cause to be there than the second unit tannoy operator).

    Appy, dooooooo tell!!

This post is closed to new comments.

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.