« Previous | Main | Next »

Sequin the Sequel

Sequin | 10:28 UK time, Wednesday, 15 November 2006

The Queen's making a speech. Absolutely no connection, but Eddie is away from PM for the day. Shame that, because there is stunning news of this blog's roaraway success. Richard the Blog Wizard tells me that not just have we had 10,000 comments since Eddie started it back in August, but in fact that makes us the first BBC blog to go over 10,000 comments. We are the biggest, the bestest, the most fabulous blog ever says our editor today Roger "the Fox" Sawyer.

Now, you know in films when they step back in time and the screen goes all wavy and misty. Do that in your mind now.
valeriesingleton.bmpAnd in the centre of those waves and that mist imagine the face, the lovely face, of Valerie Singleton who, during the eighties, sat in this very presenter's seat . She popped in this morning to visit some of her old friends at PM : That'll bring back some memories I bet. Anyway must dash, got a state opening to attend to.

all the best,



  1. At 11:01 AM on 15 Nov 2006, RobbieDo wrote:

    Ah ha!

    "our editor today Roger "the Fox" Sawyer", you say.

    Could this be our very own lesser spotted silver-fox?

  2. At 11:04 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Lee Vitout wrote:

    Fantastic...the very lovely sequin is back with us again. Good to see Valerie too, great photo by the way. P.M. you do spoil us.

  3. At 11:10 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Welcome back, Cap'n Sequin! Are we allowed to know why Eddie decided not to present today? Was it:

    • He thinks the Queens' Speech isn't important enough for him to deal with.
    • He thinks the Queens' Speech istoo important for him to deal with.
    • He knew he would be overcome seeing Valerie Singlton in the office.
  4. My money is on the third option! I've got to admit, my memories of Valerie Singlton aren't of her presenting PM. Rather they're dragging me back to the halcyon days of Blue Peter.....

  5. At 11:17 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    How wonerful to see Valerie. I can never hear her name without thinking of stickyback plastic!

  6. At 11:43 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    And miniskirts, Ffred?

    Coming for a dip, Sequin? And (after the programme, of course) perhaps a wee dram?

    You'll be made most welcome. I've brought some Venison sausages - Bambi Bangers for those who know how to combine vermin control with nutrition. Waste not, want not.

  7. At 11:50 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    I posted a lovely comment about Valerie S which seems to have got lost ........ sniff!

    But, on a more serious topic, I've been reviewing the old beach and discovered something rather worrying. Where was Andy C, who, after all, was the first to tread softly back to August, on the big day, or indeed any day after Nov.2nd?

    Fearless, you and I were there for the great event, Mr. I Kew (another of the first footers) is a bit elusive, but ....... Andy?

    Yoo Hoo, Where are you Andy C? Are you okay?

    BTW, I'm wondering if anyone would like to take part in charting a history of this Blog. I've made a start on it. It's just that, with the technology always being so fickle and out of our control, we might want to 'keep notes' somewhere that WE can control?

    What think other froggers?

  8. At 11:50 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Stewart M wrote:

    Ed (6)
    I've some venison steaks in the Freezer. Will get out and defrost, So keep a space on the Barbee for me.

    I remember the miniskirts too mbut was too young to appreciate them :-)

  9. At 11:51 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    RobbieDo (2),

    My thoughts exactly! And just how 'foxy' is this Roger anyway? I'm thinking of transferring my afections from Eric...

    I have a very good friend who claims to have "foxy bowels". She first discovered this when in Dublin. I imagine you would all rather I didn't explain...

  10. At 11:51 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    “We are the biggest, the bestest, the most fabulous blog ever”

    I couldn’t have done it without the rest of you.

    OK, I realise that it’s only in a very small way that I’ve had a hand in this, but it felt like a compliment.

    The nurse is telling me I should have a hand in that guy’s brain, while he’s still out, so I must dash.......

  11. At 11:52 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    P.S. My friend (not the Foxy-Bowelled one) is in Parliament for the state opening today. I am sick with envy. Well, I have a dull stomach ache anyway.

  12. At 11:59 AM on 15 Nov 2006, Simon wrote:

    so, in a kind of six degrees of separation thing, Dr Muir is practically related to John Noakes, Simon Groom or even Petra.

  13. At 12:00 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I got my Blue Peter badge during the Val era, and a letter signed by Biddy Baxter.

    But I do remember Val co-presenting PM with Hugh Sykes, who's currently doing a fine job of reporting for BBC TV news from Iraq.

    I read somewhere that Ms Singleton and Mr Sykes hated each other. Always wondered why ... I mean ... what's not to like?

    The elusive silver-fox unmasked at last, eh? Wonder what they'll make of THAT on the beach!

  14. At 12:09 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Lissa, The Blog Queen wrote:


    Glad you like the photos of Valerie Singleton. How exciting to have her and Sequin in the office and the Queen on the telly.

    My first meeting with Richard the Blog Wizard went very well. He's terribly helpful. (Check out his photo). We've been very busy. I've even been taught how to post photos properly.

    Richard does ask that when the beach threads get too long (more than 600 comments) you will have to move on. Otherwise it starts crashing your computers and means I can't get onto the administrator site. I'm sure if you ask nicely Eddie will open a new beach or you could strike out alone and colonise another post. I don't want to be prescriptive so I'll leave it up to you.

  15. At 12:21 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Hey, Lissa's at it again! I've just spotted Richard the Blog Wizard in the team pics!Nice to meet you, mate.

    As for 'Simon the Producer though he's left us now' ....... ? And why do we have Sarah on WATO?

    So, there's room for a pic of Roger the Fox, which would mean we could all judge his foxiness.

  16. At 12:23 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Have just checked the flickering photostream. Roger is there. Check for yourselves


    Incidentally, I see the PM team includes a number of quadripeds. This might explain the newsletter problems (just you try using a keyboard when you're wearing hooves!)

  17. At 12:24 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Hillman Hunter wrote:

    Could Valerie post a fact sheet, on how to make Tracy Island the Advent Crown and a pencil case out of an old washing-up liquid bottle please?

  18. At 12:24 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    BigSister (8)

    I did take a copy of DayOne before it started to disintegrate. If you need it perhaps Fifi or Jonni wouldn't mind acting as a point of exchange as I don't have a web page. It's 2.39 Mb so slow download if not on broadband.

    Does raise an interesting issue about 'real world' communication between froggers outside the blog.

    I too have wondered about the whereabouts of AndyC - Hope you're OK Andy?

  19. At 12:25 PM on 15 Nov 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    "Get down Shep!"

  20. At 12:28 PM on 15 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    "Foxy-bowelled" (9 & 10) just does not conjure up a good image - whichever angle you come at it from.

    I think that the humour that ridiculous exaggeration brings to everyday conversation is somewhat undervalued.

    Also, I can't help feeling a little bit "used". All this talk of the "biggest blog" ever makes me feel as though we're being treated as if we're just numbers. Come on, be honest, how many comments would you have posted if you thought that nobody cared about the content, only that the counter went "click" and notched it up as another one. We know full well that we're the bestest, but Sequin saying so rings rather hollow to me.

    [Click - oh, there's 10,746...]

  21. At 12:36 PM on 15 Nov 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Valerie Singleton


    But who was the lovely in vision continuity lady at the begining ??

  22. At 12:41 PM on 15 Nov 2006, steve wrote:

    Not only is this "the biggest, the bestest, the most fabulous blog ever" but it's a great place to meet talented people — as I've just found out. And Val as well this morning! Woooweee!

    Ed: Haven't had Bambi bangers for a while. Afraid my dogs can't catch them, just give them a bit of exercise, so the Bambi's in this neck of the woods are extremely fit and lean! Got a couple of nice pheasants for later though.

    I thought the Houses of Parliament were opened in the 1880's, just goes to show what you get with PFI these days. Oh, and Big Sis, thanks for the info on the white poppy a few blogs back, much appreciated.

  23. At 12:45 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    (11) I’ve heard of Parliament.
    Does this mean your friend is famous?

  24. At 12:45 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Thanks Lissa and Sis, but still no picture of our camera-shy Blog Queen, I see.

    If postings are reprieved from limbo, how will anyone except the severely obsessive know? They'll just mysteriously appear in date/time order in long deserted, derelict blogscapes.

    Any hope of clarifying what criteria cause such dis/non-appearances? How about a special thread, e.g. the wood where all the naughty ones could be posted? Members only, of course.

  25. At 12:46 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Sequin, Let me be the first to congratulate you on both on the trouble free posting a pic (of the lovely Val S) and the way you've incorporated into the text of your blog entry! (i.e. the text on the left, the pic on the right). Have you and Lissa been taking lessons from Roger [the coder] (who pic has also suddenly appeared).

    Come on Lissa, no need to be camera shy!

    Anyway, Sequin, I guess Eddie left you notes on how to get to the new mooring on the beach, guess you'll need a couple of G&T's after covering Parly.

  26. At 12:48 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Re Policing the Beach

    Right, so we have to stop at 600 each time.

    Lissa, dear, as you're on the spot, could you put a lovely note on Eddie's desk for him from the Froggers? Something along the lines of

    "Please please please please keep an eye on the Beach to make sure the froggers always have space - and set up a timely new space every time we're nearing 600". All we need is a mooring, we can do the rest.

    Roger - you look pretty foxy.

    Silverfox - Who is Shep?

  27. At 12:53 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    AnneP - That's a generous offer. Hang on to it for as long as you can. I'm sure a solution will present itself - and I'll have a very amateurish look around for a solution too. But there are some brilliant bloggers out there who will be more capable.

    Steve - Very kind of you. I'm glad you found it useful. The organisation has an interesting history and certainly got me thinking about a number of issues when I first 'found' it many years ago.

    Glad you like the Blog!

    And I'm not the only one to wonder where is AndyC .........

  28. At 01:00 PM on 15 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    thanks for the link Big Sis.

    What on earth are all those animals doing there.
    'They were outside one day'. Well I'm sorry Lissa you can't just leave it at that. Why were they there? and how do you mean - outside? outside what? and just ebcause they were there did you ahve to take photos?

    and of course although there are lots of photos there we still don't have one of Eddie, except for the not very flattering one onthe top of the blog, or of Sequin, or of Lissa the multi-talented one. Come on Lissa, bite the bullet and post yourself - if you see what I mean.

    ANd of course we're the best blog on the BBC, we havbe the best show, the best presenter, the most willing and helpful forgrunner, and the best listerners, so how could it be anything but the best blog.

  29. At 01:01 PM on 15 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    D**n! (Just being careful) You know how you sometimes think, this is quite a long post I'd better press the preview button, and then for some unknown reason you press the submit bitton instead. well I just did that with my last post, so apologies for the spelling mistakes.
    And that nearly came to you as spellign. Must be the cold.

  30. At 01:18 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Sophie wrote:

    late in today - seems to me its turning into a Bambi barbee. ed at 6 and Stewart at 8

  31. At 01:23 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs) wrote:

    Hi Big Sis @ (26)?

    If I may. The famous Shep was a Blue Peter Border Collie who ran a sideline as a sheepdog and didn't exactly need obedience classes.

    I got the feeling that all that "Get down Shep" business was a bit of a front. Shep I always thought behaved himself and acted the consummate TV professional at all times. Unlike the elephant. Remember that?

    Shep had a glittering career in television, in later years he provided bark-overs for pet food commercials and he was an inspiration to many. He made guest appearances at Crufts and featured in books and magazines. He was a green-card Equity member and honorary Water Rat. Sadly Shep died over ten years ago. He never married.

  32. At 01:30 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Lissa, PM Blog Bluffer wrote:

    Dear all

    The Blog Ed's prerogative is to remain anonymous.

    In reply to Big Sister's comments, I'm working on sorting out the photos. Sarah's up there because all of us work across 4 programmes (The World at One, PM, Broadcasting House as well as The World this Weekend). We are multi-talented. And the quadripeds are up there because they were outside one day a few weeks ago for CBBC. Trawl back - you'll find them. And I will try and remember to ask Eddie to make sure there's always a space on the sunlounger.

    Deepthroat, thanks for the compliments on the wrap round text. That's thanks to the Blog Wizard's morning tutorial.

    Talking of organising and categorising, I'm working on creating categories to make it easier to find previous posts. Do you fancy a BEACH CATEGORY or would that spoil your fun?

    Any hints or tips on how best to organise BLOG CATEGORIES would be most welcome.

  33. At 01:37 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Sophie wrote:

    I've just had a look at the flicker thing BigSister (16) and it turns out I'm a sheep, that could explain a lot. now that I'm a sheep will I like the beach do you think? I could keep the camels company.

  34. At 01:49 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Hi Delores - Haven't seen you posting for a while, so thanks for coming to my aid ....

    Ah yes, THAT Shep! I hadn't clicked. I was thinking Elvis Presley, his biggest weepy (well for me anyway), but yes, Shep from Blue Peter .....

    I've got my own Shep sitting alongside as I write this, but he's now an elderly guy, so very well behaved.

    We're trying to find a way to post up our pets (see earlier posts on this thread). I've been doing a bit of searching out, but have run out of time and without a solution. Perhaps Eddie will have to run a PM Pointless Pet thingey ...........

    Sequin: Can you ask Eddie for us .....?

  35. At 01:59 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Well, at least you're not Sophie from the Archers!

    Speaking of which, yesterday's episode is just being rerun and I seem to remember it was a bit 'lively'.

    Logging off for a listen in.

  36. At 02:06 PM on 15 Nov 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    Is that photograph of Valerie from this morning? She's still looking very youthful isn't she?

    What a glamorous show in prospect this afternoon, all foxy, regal & sequinned. I shall have to put my tiara on especially.

  37. At 02:09 PM on 15 Nov 2006, steve wrote:

    jonnie -21 the vid you link to is a gem. Thank you for the laugh. Such innocence.

  38. At 02:20 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Dear Lissa PM BB

    You will never be anonymous, just faceless.

    Thanks for all the recent help. Categories sounds good. Beach sounds fine to me, and should make life easier in the future.

    Thanks for the permanent sunlounger.

    I remember the fun with the animals well, and how the Team were agog with excitement. It was nice that the Bloggers could share in the fun.

    IF Eddie decided to do a Pointless PM Pet Project, would that create a huge amount of work for you? And could we email in the photos, d'you think? Well, those of us who have scanners or digital, would certainly find this the easier solution - and if submitted in a suitable format (you could specify) it might make things easier from your end.

    What do you think?

    How lovely to have such a helpful BlogMistress!

  39. At 02:25 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    Oh Lissa (32)

  40. At 02:29 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:


    He knew he would be overcome seeing Valerie Singleton in the office.

    And his ermine has become a bit motheaten.

  41. At 02:31 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    A blog category, just for the beach? That sounds a wonderful idea, Lissa! I'd also recommend serious, semi-serious, and pointless as the remaining categories. That way those who want to filter out, say, the silly stuff can(although why they would do this is beyond me, as this is sometimes where the most profound* things are uttered).

    On a semi-serious point, will Cap'n Sequin be writing a newsletter? It's nice to have to have an idea of what I'll be listening to when I'm stuck in the traffic jam that is Oxford ring-road...

    *I'll say it again. I'm very pro-found. It beats being lost any day!

  42. At 02:59 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    (32) Lissa - one of those Freudian errors?

    I’m talking about the mix up of Throat and Thought.

  43. At 03:08 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Big Sister (8),

    Do you mean to keep a blog which is a history (and I assume in some way an index) of the PM blog? Or will this indeed cut across what Lissa is hinting at?

    New blogs are easy to set up if you ask the right person.

    Anne P (18), and it could house such historical documents.

    Big Sister (16), I don't know why people keep leaving out Vicky et al in discussing the production team. I mean, if the ITV digital monkey made it to air, how come Sophie was not allowed to contribute?

    Lissa (32), how would you catigorise this thread? Valerie Singleton? Blog indexing? Beach mooring etiquette? I mean, when the spirit (in either format) moves us, we all sparkle in our own ways, which sometimes blows a thread wildly off-course. An index of PM blog highlights?

    Funny thing, sticky back plastic. I got mine out a few days ago, to cover some drawings that otherwise would become greasy with machine oil in a few seconds...ah, the fragrance of my past...(sticky back plastic, that is).

  44. At 03:10 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mrs Delores Behan-Ingland,

    Nice to hear from you again, and to be reminded just how disruptive elephants can be.

    Simon has reprimanded me for introducing a pachyderm into the Afghanistan room, and I recall the introduction of a related pachyderm into another thread killed it stone dead.

    And Valerie's only left urine on the studio floor.

  45. At 03:12 PM on 15 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    Big sister you ARE brave, I couldn't face the re-run of last night's bulletin from Ambridge, although I do remember thinking bitterly that of course it was OK for David to snog Soppy Sophe but for the same 'crime' with Sam it sounded rather as though Ruth was about to be cast into outer darkness. Which is at the least old fashioned....

    And another odd thing, according to the RT a certain Mr Mair is hosting PM tonight so maybe this day off was arranged in a hurry.

  46. At 03:16 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Anne P (18):

    I would love to provide the wherewithall for the Beach Archive ... however I'm not remotely tecky, don't have the right software on my computer, and our cheapo website is a bit short of bandwidth.

    Whatever that is.

    If you could do what I do ... just copy the text into a Word document ... I would be happy to send copies to anyone who requests it via the website.

    You can post a message on the Lying Scotsman Guestbook (making the bass player very happy) and leave an email link for me to send it to.

    To which to send it, I mean. Val. Oops.

  47. At 03:20 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Mmm, gossipmistress, I'd posted something similar to Sequin this morning, but it got lost in the tubes.

  48. At 03:21 PM on 15 Nov 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Is Richard the Wiz around?

    For, tis true, many comments have been lost on Day One, including Eddie's No. 1.

    How can this be? Where have they gone? Are they, as I write, seeking a new, permanent Beach?

    We have a right to know .....

  49. At 03:21 PM on 15 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    never mind about Eddie's moth eaten (v)ermine, WHERE IS THE NEWSLETTER?

  50. At 03:27 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Which Queen are the great British public interested in to-day, Elizabeth (of England) or Ruth (of the Archers). I refer purely to the national interest and not repeat not making any inference of any kind. I'm hoping for an honour, sometime in the future, when I've saved up or collect on the Euro lottery tomorrow!
    With or without under caution.

  51. At 03:40 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Perhaps he's doing Newsnight again?

    Worth a look to see .....

    Or have they got him on Westminster duties?

  52. At 04:01 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    ...Lissa (32), to think that I got frog-marched off the Dayone beach for an innocent double-entendre! Actually, I missed that first time, mainly I suppose I've got use to Aperitif calling me that all the time...

  53. At 04:01 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:


    What I've been attempting, rather tentatively, to do is to create a sort of 'guide' to the Blog, don't quite know what impelled me to do it ..... except I realise that new users are a bit mystified about how it has developed over the three months it's been here. (BTW, that's another milestone ahead of us - on Friday the 17th and I won't be around BOO HOO) But with a bit of history about the Blog, the Beach, names of the Bloggers, etc. - which could be of interest to all, and to which I'd hope all would contribute.

    However, I don't know the best way to make this available to all as I don't have a website of my own, and in any event would want it to be readily, but safely, available. And, as you'll have read above, there is a copy of Day One out there which has been saved and which could be posted for posterity, plus all kinds of other stuff which Froggers might want to have posted.

    I'm moving and shaking, but also paralysed by my inadequacies!

  54. At 04:03 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Ed (43);
    don't take it to heart, nor personally, please.

    I just felt that the linked page in question should have carried a health warning. I didn't intend that it should come across as a reprimand, more like a plea for greater consideration of the rest of us. E-mail / blog entries are an imperfect means of communication, since you can't read emotions into them too easily.

    Your contributions to the blog are, I am certain, greatly regarded by all of us.

    I used to be a butcher for a couple of years before joining the Navy, so am used to seeing dead animals. But that page was hideous. If I have that reaction to it then how might others feel?

    In friendship,


  55. At 04:10 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Fifi (45)

    Sorry wasn't meaning to burden you with responsibility for the archive.

    I saved DayOne as a web page in .htm format direct from Firefox as the attempt to copy and paste the whole thing into Word just froze Word. I am happy to email it to anyone who needs it (are there any copyright issues Lissa?).

    I was just suggesting that perhaps I could use you as a postbox since convention prevents us exposing personal email addresses here.

    If Lissa needs DayOne for something I assume she can get a copy from backup? Though since things started disappearing during the day it may be they were not all backed up.

    Anyway I suppose the real question is whether a blog is of its nature ephemera and should perish quietly.

  56. At 04:11 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Belinda wrote:

    Maybe he's just signed a contract with Al-Jazeera English?

  57. At 04:22 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Charles Hatton wrote:

    Jonnie – Thanks for the tip last night saying they had read my blog comment on World: Have your say. Such a pity they didn’t call you in the end. You would have given them the benefit of your steady outlook. It would have been fun! I still think he could have said the n-word as much as he liked in the show and no-one would have been bothered. It’s the fact that it’s in the advertised title that is the problem.

    Gossipmistress – Did you hear that they read a comment out from you too?

    Fifi – A Blue Peter Badge!! I’m SO jealous!

    Fearless – Definitely option 3 …

  58. At 04:24 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Sophie the Sheep wrote:

    I'm with deepthought (42), I think it would be sad to try and coral the sparkle into pigeonholes. Would we get into trouble if we went off message do you think? I heard a great new saying - don't diss the bliss - basically if you are being told something fantastic and mad, don't try and logic it as you will just destroy the joy.

  59. At 04:47 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Is anyone able to enter the newsletter text here in the next few minutes? Thank you.

  60. At 04:48 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Say chaps,

    Ed must being doing something pretty important to have Sequin sit in today - she's also on after the Moral Maze tonight!

  61. At 04:51 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Re largest church that may be built. I see, on the BBC R4 web, that a certain American fried chicken retailer has built a very large picture of their founder, visible from space. This is at Area 51, it is claimed that the company want ET to be their first port of call for a snack.
    I've always tried to convince myself that small is beautiful!
    If seen by ET, what image of our species does that portray? Some could argue that it is sexist. Imagine the presenter on Uranus PM announcing that a strange face has appeared on the surface of the third rock from a nearby Sun.

  62. At 04:51 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Doc (23),

    Nah, she works for an MP s'all. She's not even as famous as me.

    Surely two beaches is more than enough, btw? All this talk about opening another beach when the second one gets to 600... Do some of you never do any work???

  63. At 04:55 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    One newsletter in my inbox, an hour after it was allegedly sent.

    Hello, Sequin!

  64. At 04:59 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Newsletter arrived at 16.56, thanks.
    Regards to Jack, met him a few times many years ago when I was in another life as a freelancer, oh happy days!

  65. At 05:08 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Simon (54),

    No worries. It's strong stuff and should have carried a stronger health warning.

  66. At 05:09 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Re my contribution of big picture seen from space. It was mentioned on MSN from Reuters not BBC as stated by me.

  67. At 05:15 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Anyone had any further thoughts on where the Blog Guide could be posted?

    Perhaps I'm just wasting my time.... But there 's a school of thought (think SOs) who would maintain that being on the Blog is a WoT.

    Personally speaking, I love it!

  68. At 05:20 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Penrose wrote:

    Next Years Queens Speech.

    "During the course of this parliament my government will continue its reform agenda and bring before these houses proposals for a full written constitution. This document, which will be legally binding and enforceable, will define the ‘rights and responsibilities’ of this and future governmental administrations. It will provide the definitive legal framework by which elected governments shall administer power on behalf of, and for the benefit of, all of my subjects. My government believes that the present system of ‘constitutional law by precedent’ could, if left un-checked, lead to a irrevocable separation between the elector and the elected and to a situation where; the people become responsible to the government rather than the government responsible to the people; where governments exercise power over the citizens rather than on behalf of them; and where parliaments ability to make law and govern would be balanced against certain inalienable principles formally defined. My government feel that this would be the single most significant piece of legislation since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, and promise to undertake the widest possible consultation in the course of creating this important and long overdue reform of governmental practice. "

    Yeah, as if...!

  69. At 05:21 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Anne P (55) ... and anyone else who's interested in how we might put together a sort of 'This Is Your Life' for the frog, and make it available for new spawn.

    I propose an off-lilypad meeting:-

    1. You are welcome to use the Lying Scotsman website 'contact the band' address to reach me directly. It's not my proper email address but it'll reach me quickly without putting my details here on the blog.

    2. Once I have all your email addresses, and I'll circulate them to everyone else who's entering the debate. Obviously I will guard your privacy at all times - and if you wish me to delete you from my address book when we're sorted, I will.

    3. Over the next day or two we can chat about it by email, without clogging up the blog. If you like we can use the simple e-forum format I've found helpful for multi-person debates in the past ... doesn't need broadband or anything.

    I really like this idea, and I love the blog to bits, so I'm happy to be the cog here. (Or the spanner in the works, if you prefer!)

    How's that sound? ;oD

  70. At 05:28 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Dr Hackenbush (59)

    Mine came in at twenty past five (!).

    But I've just posted something else on this thread so I'd best wait a few minutes till the pixies are looking the other way . . .

    * * * * *


    We've been a bit preoccupied with the Queens Speech - a detailed run through coming up on PM this afternoon as well as our Political Editor doing a bit of un-spinning - telling us what it all really means.

    Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons will join us live.

    Otherwise, on the eve of the vote for the socialist candidate in France's presidential election, we ask whether the favourite Segolene Royal has blown it. And the row over the building of Britain's biggest church - in Essex.

    Au revoir


  71. At 05:35 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Doc H - is this too late? It's only just arrived with me.


    We've been a bit preoccupied with the Queens Speech - a detailed run through coming up on PM this afternoon as well as our Political Editor doing a bit of un-spinning - telling us what it all really means.

    Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons will join us live.

    Otherwise, on the eve of the vote for the socialist candidate in France's presidential election, we ask whether the favourite Segolene Royal has blown it. And the row over the building of Britain's biggest church - in Essex.

    Au revoir


  72. At 05:41 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Hi Fifi,

    Poor Anne has got a bit dragged into this one (so apologies from me, there!)

    Yes, it would be good to have a haven. And I've already got things on hand to get it started, as I've bleated about all day. For my part, I'm very happy to put together the Guide, but would like it to be in a format that enable all bloggers to contribute in ways that make sense to them. But, yes, we would need to be reasonably careful to control its integrity, which is why I've shied away from some of the 'offerings' that are out there on the Web. And we'd certainly not want to cause problems for anybody ....

    Sounds like we're kindred spirits, Fi, 'cos like you I also love the Blog (if you hadn't already gathered as much - and I'm sure you have by now!)

    I'll be in touch with you directly ....

    Big kiss from Big Sis x

  73. At 05:51 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Sara's SO wrote:

    Dear Somebody's Big Sister and the lady called Fifi,

    Anything you can do to get my Sara off the kitchen floor would be very welcome indeed. As you will know from the new beach, she has collapsed owing to blog confusion and it seems the medicine did not help.

    My socks still need ironing. So please do help. Is the "blog guide" something which should be posted here, or would the off the lily pad meeting be preferable? If some of you technically minded chums would decide what's best, I will kick Sara and let her know.

  74. At 05:51 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Claire wrote:

    Go Go Ségo !!

  75. At 05:54 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Penrose (69)

    Excellent idea! But beware the idea that any protections will be a permanent fix without constant vigilance. Witness the excellent efforts made by Jefferson and colleagues which has been pretty well corrupted and suborned in just over two centuries.

    "SOME writers have so confounded society with government,
    as to leave little or no distinction between them;
    whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.

    Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
    the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections,
    the latter negatively by restraining our vices.
    The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
    The first is a patron, the last a punisher....

    Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence;
    the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.
    For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed,
    man would need no other lawgiver;"
    -- Thomas Paine, On the Origins of Government...1776

  76. At 06:07 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Ooooh, so many interesting things today! Better do a bit of a round-robin post.

    Sequin - good to hear you PMing again. As for Valerie, when I were a lass I had the honour of trainee-producing her on PM

    Ed - you said: "And Valerie's only left urine on the studio floor." If she has - and I doubt it very much - you shouldn't draw attention to it.

    Silverfox - is this the first time you've changed your post? Gosh! Exciting!

    Peter W - I don't think a huge number of people are all that interested in Queen Elizabeth of England unless they're historians...

    As for the KFC face that's visible (risible?) from space, wonder if Stephen, Leader of STROP, can see it from Pluto?

    And the Archers - yesterday was *phewww*. Anne, I agree with you about the David/Sophie (unsheep)/Ruth/Sam thingy. Double standards and two faces?

    (Collapses in heap of froggy exhaustion)

  77. At 06:14 PM on 15 Nov 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    Charles H (57) thanks for telling me, no I didn't hear it, not sure I even know where to find it!

    Excellent show Sequin by the way, I'm just putting my tiara back in its box. Tenacious interviewing!

  78. At 06:37 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Fifi (70), Big Sister (53),

    One quick alternative would be to find an almost blank thread on this blog somewhere in the past to discuss such things. Just like the woods, there are other threads with very few comments. Maybe we could ask Lissa to put "semi-permanant" link(s) under the Recent Entries section on the right hand side for us to navigate to them immediately. "I didn't" (13 Nov) only has six entries. But we'd better not suddenly start drinking, dipping in the ocean and all the rest on that thread.

    Ideally, of course, they would be newly formed thread a la the New Beach thread Eddie created earlier this week, especially as it would have a suitable and obvious title, but one cannot have everything - or can one?

    I could provide a remote site, either a blog or a forum (I run both), but then we'd have to keep posting links to this external site, and why people would want to visit (otherwise it would get very cliquey)...but surely all matters pertaining to the PM blog should reside somewhere on the PM blogsite.

    Lissa's mentioning of categories could well do this. I would suggest that a few threads which are not accessed by date, but as separate threads accessed by name (say underneath the Recent Entres section), such as "Frogging for newbies". An index is more difficult, for the obvious editing requirements, and just how much detail would it have to go into?

    Aperitif (I forget what), yes I have work to do, but after the last couple of days, I also need some fun.

  79. At 06:38 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Sara's SO - if you're so keen on ironing, may I direct you to Annasee's website (well actually I'd like to do one of those really clever underliney, just click here and you'll be teleported off to another website things that so many of you can do, at this point, but I can't) and there you'll find you can place an order for an Ironing CD. It comes well recommended by some of the froggers - Fearless, Jonnie if I'm not wrong?

    Fifi, Big Sis, count me in and let me know. Fi, usual address :o)

  80. At 06:40 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I would love to help so will contact you Fifi. My subject is history if that is of any use whatsoever.

    Incidentally I would love to put puppy's portrait on a useless pets' site. He looks exactly like all other black labradors. Its a bit like babies, their mothers recognise them!

    Ah, having said that I remember we lived in Berkshire when my children were babies. There were sheep all around and in the Spring I could swear that the lambs' bleats were like my babies' crying. Very disconcerting. Was I a bad mother I asked myself. And the answer came (for those who remember), a good enough mother.

  81. At 06:52 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Deep (79)

    It's very quiet and shady in the August wood.
    And the oven is already half-built.

  82. At 06:52 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Great Blog.

  83. At 07:01 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I knew there was something I meant to say.

    I am sure that Ruth will be fighting back, w can't judge by the one episode when she was too weak from longing to properly defend herself.

    And it must have come as a shock that David so quickly realised what was up. Not like him usually surely?

  84. At 07:17 PM on 15 Nov 2006, m. mamba wrote:

    KICC is a big church in UK and this church has done a lot in the community in Hackney. Why is it that the Mayor proposing to let build the biggest mosque in Europe isn't controversial? Is there any hidden agenda against Christians?

  85. At 07:23 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Richard Lyle wrote:

    Since Valerie Singleton's been in the office today and we've had some reminiscing about olden dayes, is it time to ask if we can have the PM Theme Music back?

  86. At 07:40 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I knew there was something I meant to say.

    I am sure that Ruth will be fighting back, w can't judge by the one episode when she was too weak from longing to properly defend herself.

    And it must have come as a shock that David so quickly realised what was up. Not like him usually surely?

  87. At 08:02 PM on 15 Nov 2006, andycroak wrote:

    Ta Da!

    Hello again, thankyou for missing me, I'm really touched.

    I can also add my recommendation for Annaseeds Ironing CD. Nice.

    If there's any web thing that needs doing, I'm willing to have a go, though it looks like Day One has been curtailed somewhat (only 900ish entries last I looked, and some of those referering to the 1000 milestone being passed. Odd).

    What would be really nice - something that keeps an eye on all frog entries and notes when/who has just posted and where etc. I'll have a think (any webby person got any ideas?).

  88. At 08:29 PM on 15 Nov 2006, marymary wrote:

    I'm not much good at web stuff, but rather than saving the "saved posts" as a Word document, could someone turn it into PDF format. That could then be posted as a link at the beginning of each "new beach" and the same can be done for all subsequent beaches.

    Would that work to preserve the memories?


  89. At 08:32 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Fifi (70) - have made contact via Lying Scotsman as suggested.

  90. At 08:38 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Andyc (88), I think the questions being raised are connected to the issues raised about the Dayone Beach and the like. My suggestion of a few threads that are purely subject related (e.g. Beach, Frogging for newbies...) which are available on the right hand side under "Recent Entries" would answer a lot of issues, while keeping the whole thing accessible to all Froggers on the PM blog. Diverting away to other sites I think will not be a good idea - how would new people learn of them?

    Mind you, Beech would certainly need regular back-ing up, else the trek though the dunes start to need supply stations.

    One harder issue is an index of the Frog. For that needs constant editing (and having indexed something, don't I know), and in any case this thread started on Valerie Singleton, various allusions to what is happening on the New Beech, to a discussion of how to better organise the frog, not least with comments from Lissa herself. What do you index that lot under, unless every thread appears under beech?

    I would have liked an index today, to find out which entry included Vicky, Sophie etc, as I wanted to refer to it.

    Sophie the Sheep (58) was not quite right in reflecting my views; I think each thread from Eddie's or Sequin's comments at the top should be able to free flow, some will be serious, some totally frivilous, as now; on the other hand, I see the advantage of a few specific threads, like a Q&A for newbies.

    Otherwise I think a self-select group might issue a UDI and have their own lives blogging away elsewhere, but their comments here may allude to their own blog to the mystery of others who are mystified where to find this other blog. Well, I think you see what I'm driving at.

    As you may realise, I "run" my own blog, that is I've used code, which I've now started to modify, on a server, and only I and the ISP by proxy of having my code on their server are responsible. I also have fora, other information pages etc elsewhere, so I'm not unaware of such matters.

  91. At 08:46 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Marymary (89), I'd much prefer pdf to word, but in both cases, the format of the frog is going to mean entries run over page breaks in an unpredictable way. Just imagine how long a sheet of paper would be to print all of Dayone on one side of paper! I know, I face this problem all the time elsewhere.

    I mean, I could receive the saved file from - sorry, forgot who for the moment - and convert it into a pdf, but it will not be the best laid out document ever published!

    Fifi (70), see my comments, or leave one at my blog.

  92. At 09:21 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Deep John, surely, after my initial error, I have been calling you "Deep John"? I can call you "Deep Throat" if you really want me too, but are you worthy of the name??? ;-)

  93. At 09:47 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Timothy Hilgenberg wrote:

    I'm in Paris on business and it suddenly clicked. I've always liked Sequin - I thought that was a rather good nome de plume, but sharing the news with some French colleagues earlier and now reading this... it is se queen (imagine a French accent!)

    With state opening is suddenly made sense - to me anyway :-)

  94. At 10:18 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Deepthought (or do I change to Deepthroat) wrote:

    Yes, Aperitif (93), but since Lissa (32) called me Deepthroat earlier today, I'm beginning to wonder if I should go with the flow...another name change...

    As for worthiness, I must pretend I have no idea what you are on about, despite the fact I never associate the words with the Watergate investigation. I'm as pure as the driven slush.

    Oh, and if anyone wonders why I spell Beach/Beech, it's because I am surrounded by Beach tree wood, and long for the Beech. Or is it vice versa? I blaim the deafness in my right ear for my chronic inability to pick the correct vowel(s) in a word.

    Oh well, "whatever" as teenagers are supposed to say...Back to the beach and the Shiraz. And Apertif and Fifi practicing...

  95. At 10:39 PM on 15 Nov 2006, whisht wrote:

    howdy all, as has been my lot recently, I'm a tad tired so forgive the lack of sparkle (if there ever was the threat of any!)

    Must say I'm wholeheartedly with Deepthought on all his comments re: organising the Blog. (or not over-organising it, as the case may be).

    Cannot see how its gonna be categorised well (hm - I do this for a living so I should know!) what with us veering off all over the place and carrying on dozens of conversations mid-thread!

    Also, rather than setting some discussion up elsewhere, please lets keep blogging here. Lets be inclusive and not get too cliquey(sp?).

    Anyone can post here - but more importantly everyone should feel like they can post here. If there are alusions to stuff going on "off-blog" or comments from some kinda council it might put some people off, and that'd be a shame.

    If anyone who hasn't ever posted reads this and thinks "I haven't a bloomin' clue what they're on about half the time, but that guy had a point when he was posted about ASBOs/ Afghanistan/ Asda" then pitch in!

    Honest - it'll encourage others and I think widening the crowd is a good thing (I think I said on an earlier thread how odd it had been that so few of us had commented on a particular topic as we didn't feel like we had a worthwhile insight - a wider crowd commenting may have stirred stuff up a bit more, got some of the wise minds I enjoy reading here commenting too and everyone learning a bit).

    [god that's far longer than it needs to be - that's tiredness that is]

  96. At 10:44 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    andycr, good to see you back.

    Meanwhile, another good Archers. Surely time for the children - especially Pip - to notice that all is not well? Even more so, I mean.

    And what is Debbie up to?

    And as for Sam, well, I see trouble ahead...

  97. At 11:53 PM on 15 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Doesn't Sam deserve Sophie, and vice versa?

  98. At 12:28 AM on 16 Nov 2006, whisht wrote:

    blimey - just been back to the Beach on Dayone and saw the carnage. Sand and posts everywhere.

    Its like a hurricane hit it! must be due to global warming no? I mean, this kinda thing never happened 10 years ago...

    12.30 again!
    mind you, Aperitif said something nice to me (again) on the beach, so at least I'll go to sleep happily.
    actually, lots of you have said nice things (i was trawling back as I had missed stuff and then found myself spouting utter nonsense tonight!)

    anyway, before I say more half-cocked gibberish, just wanna say I really do enjoy coming here and listening in.

  99. At 07:56 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Hello, whisht! You and andycr have been absent for a while and missed.

    No-one here yet? Spose I'd better get on with breakfast, shower etc, then

  100. At 09:30 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Morning Frances - you're a pearly.

  101. At 09:51 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    I absolutely agree with the drift suggesting that everything to do with the blog should stay on the blog.

    This is something we need to try to get some help with from the 'powers that be'. Unfortunately, because the technology is controlled at third hand (understandably), it makes it very difficult for us to engage with those who run it.

    I'd have thought that, if the Beeb were prepared to do it, what is ideally needed is a permanent link to somewhere which can be a resource for froggers old and new and to which both the Beeb/Eddie & Co PLUS the bloggers can contribute content which they feel they would like/other froggers might need for the future.

    Speaking personally, I'd be totally happy for it to be monitored by an appropriate party, because the last thing we'd want would be for it to be used inappropriately/maliciously/etc.

    In case Lord Mair is too busy to read this posting, I intend copying and emailing to the prog. If I get a response today, I'll get back to you all on it. If later than today, I'll have to post you on Monday.

    Whatever the outcome, I'd personally prefer any add ons to be via the Frog.

  102. At 10:02 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:


    I totally agree with your drift up there - But it might also be nice to have a resource, via the Blog, where 'stuff' can be parked, e.g. the original Beach, perhaps the odd note about the sweet run, etc., etc., as I think the references that old froggers make are extremely obscure for anybody coming to the Frog for the first time - and should we always be trying to explain this stuff? Should we expect new froggers to have to trawl through what is now a big blog to try to understand some of this stuff which has grown organically over time? Isn't that how the Blog could become cliquey? I, like you, would hate it to be that, and there is a danger that this is the way it could go.

    Remember, too, that there would be no obligation for anyone to 'use' the resource - but it could be useful. More like a guide, or a magazine ....

    Looking back over the Blog, can we honestly say that, in recent weeks, many new listeners have joined in? How many of the postings from newcomers have been one offs, or perhaps a couple offs, with people disappearing again never, perhaps, to return?

    I'm making these as serious points. And I think there are ways to try to remedy this.

  103. At 10:12 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Yes, the carnage in the farmyard is truly awful. Will David now drive Ruth back into Sam's arms? Will Sophie be summoned to bed? Will Brian get off with Linda Snell? What kind of book will he do?

    Do I care? Well, I do listen. Do others care? It depends ....

  104. At 10:33 AM on 16 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    I know if I'm not doing my work I should probably be making a more worthwhile comment than this but - and I didn't catch Th'Archers last night, so I may have missed something - but I can't help feeling that there is a bit of unfair "laying of blame" from some on here. I'm not defending David, because he was clearly being very stupid. However, as far as I can see, he was guilty of having his head turned by the flattering attention of his ex. Insensitive, I agree, but hardly a marriage busting moment. Ruth's reaction was way over the top and David was rather "bloody minded" in his response simply because nothing was going on. Stupid, but vaguely understandable (you can tell this is a "bloke" perspective!). Ruth, meanwhile, having constructed an entirely false situation for herself, falls to the vaguely predatory attention of Sam - excusing herself because she thinks David is straying. Then, "crunch" time - David and Sophie kiss - reality dawns, Sophie comes clean and David knows that he's in deep water and runs away (should that be "swims away"?). Meanwhile Ruth is preparing to run away with the cow-man (is it a horse, is it a sheep, no, it's COW-MAN!!!) and justifies this to herself because of David's "wrong-doing".

    Now I'm not sure of where the rights and wrongs really are, but I'm fairly sure that this does not boil down to being David's fault.

    Perhaps there is a wider truth and/or parallel. If Ruth treats David as a lying cheat anyway, well, how does he lose by being a lying cheat? Or more importantly, how does he gain by not being one, since he's being treated like one anyway. Bearing in mind that, up to the kiss, he really isn't doing anything wrong - and betrays no intent to do anything wrong. Maybe we have created an atmosphere in this country where many young Muslims feel a bit like David - they're "guilty" of whatever charge we want to accuse them of. Somewhere in our national psyches, we appear to believe that if they are not guilty, then they will strive to prove this to society at large. No doubt some will. But for most, the sense of indignation they feel will, at best, lead to bitterness. Others will probably start down David's path, feeling and believing that they will never be treated any differently. Now, I honestly believe that there will be many people who will flirt with extremism only to come to a point where they reject it as unacceptable in a democratic society. But some people will be swayed and/or taken in - either because they already half believe in the extreme cause, or because they are personally manipulable.

    Golly, The Archers - social comment for a modern Britain.

  105. At 10:42 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Thanks to those who posted yesterday’s newsletter. I think mine did arrive before five, but I read all versions of it for the first time this morning.

  106. At 10:58 AM on 16 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    Big Sis (103), I do think you're making some interesting points. I'm not sure though that your implication that people popping in for a comment or three and then disappearing is a function of the frog's obscurity is necessarily correct. I admit that it might be. But if you have a look at other BBC blogs, what you tend to find is that the comments are exactly that - an endless (well, not so endless given that this is No1!) list of comments on the story and no discussion between comment-makers. If this is the "norm" for BBC blogs, then this one has a demonstrably different character. Some people will happen upon it and decide that they like it (my first comment on Day One was something like I'd found my spiritual home - and that was after only about 80 comments!), the majority won't. I would love to know how many people read but don't post comments and would absolutely urge those people to join in - not least because I have lurked on lists before, for a long time before actually sending anything.

    All that said, I for one would love to ensure that the frog is archived. In some ways, it is utterly ephemeral, but I do believe that it should continue to exist in whatever form it has been left. Some discussions carry on for ages, some - apparently topical and vibrant - are abandoned almost before they begin because another blog comes along. My first "wish" would be the one I've mentioned before - an accurate and expanded "recent comments" section. This could easily be expanded to, say, 20 entries (and would probably fit onto a page with just a few comments withouth extending it) and would allow all users to keep abreast of where discussions are ongoing. It could even be longer, I think. I suppose another possibility would be a new section that listed the "most active" frog entries - again as a way of maintaining focus. I come here regularly - as you'll probably gather - but often find exhanges going on that I knew nothing about.

    I wonder if most other things could be covered with a fairly simple FAQ. But, whilst not wanting to be exclusive (I wouldn't be allowed to join in if I was), part of being part of a community is getting to know it and find out how it works. You can only go some way to "technologising" this process. As an example, is it appropriate to have a political rant on this frog? And if it is, what form can it take? And what would you expect the response to be if you submitted a political rant? I don't have answers for these questions, per se, but I have a sort of feeling about what they might be - that's not something you can necessarily be told. In other words, the best way to join in is to join in. We rarely or never "flame" and most views, if expressed in a "this is what I think" rather than a "this is the way it is" way receive intelligent responses. (Damn, cramp in my arm from too much slapping of my own back....)

  107. At 10:59 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    John H (105),

    Brilliant shift of gears! And very appropriate, I reckon.
    Salaam, etc.

  108. At 11:43 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Deepthought (not deepthroat) wrote:

    Big Sis (102, 103), you've emphasised a point that I had sort of noticed but not really commented on. Namely the one-off or two-off posters. Now there are plenty who say they normally just lurk ("Only a lurker", for example), but we don't want to be so cliquey (sp) that they fear to contribute, or even stop bothering to have a look.

    There are some who were more frequent froggers in the past, but who have been less so recently (non-STROP steve, for example), probably because they've got work to do.

    Not all one-off posters appear to want to engage further, they just want to make their point - fair enough. Especially as their chance of having an email read out is much lower than others reading their comments on this blog.

    But new blood is always needed in the frog...


    I doubt that there are many threads in the Archers forum about PM. How come PM is never playing on the radio during an episode of the Archers? (Product placement, now, that's an idea. Lissa, get onto the script writers in Birmingham...).

  109. At 11:47 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Whisht 96:

    I agree that setting up a debate off-frog is not ideal. However, the proliferation of new threads is making it impossible to keep a coherent discussion going!

    Well, let's face it, blogs aren't exactly designed for collaborative project management are they?

    Would it be OK with everyone if I keep you up to date with developments, via the first posting of each new day?

    And of course, anyone is welcome to chip in with their thoughts -- as on any other subject, on any thread. Or to email me via the Lying Scotsman website and join in on the project directly.

    On that note.... I'm going to switch my attention now from THIS thread (Sequin) and head back to today's first thread (something about postcards wasn't it?).

    Otherwise I'll confuse myself horribly!

    Nice chaffin' with ya, Whisht.


  110. At 11:48 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Belinda wrote:

    Wait, The Archers...cows...The Common Agricultural Policy?

    Could there be a link with the imminent blog developments?

  111. At 11:50 AM on 16 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Sequin and the Westminster Hour.

    Well, I'm glad. She'll do well there. Its previous presenter (Andrew Rawnsley) used to have me in stitches with his pronounciation of the word "Hour", and, dare I say it, I never thought he was all that enthusiastic. I see he left in September. Is my memory playing tricks on me? Have I heard Clare Balding filling in for him? Now Clare, there's another good presenter, with an excellent understanding of whatever topic she handles.

    So, next question, Will Sequin have a Westminster Hour Blog?

  112. At 12:47 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Deepthought (not deepthroat) wrote:

    Big Sister (109), I thought many of the female listeners would have preferred Mark Darcy.

  113. At 01:07 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    My thoughts are that any off-piste action should be a camping site for retired stuff that might otherwise disappear, and also user's guide to stuff that might otherwise need explaining/researching endlessly (eg sweetie run), so that it makes the frog less cliquey and more inclusive. So, more power to everyone's elbows!

    Darn, must walk the dog before the Archers' lunchtime issue, I obv missed a good 'un last night!

  114. At 01:47 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Deppthought (Yes, I know, I know ....)

    I'd rather have Eddie, any time.

    Or Johnnie Depp(thought)

    But I'm not sexist. Clare's good, and deserves credit.

    Incidentally, my favourite newsreader of the moment is Susan Rae (Is that how it's spelt?) and the SO agrees. Mainly because it makes sense with her, and doesn't sound patronising. There are others, of course, of both sexes.

    But I'd rather hear Eddie any time.

  115. At 02:37 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Deepthought (John W, and not deepthroat) wrote:

    Big Sis (115),

    Think you're having identity crisises today. It's Carolyn who'se got the WT gig.

    Sus Rae started with a broader accent, but suddenly changed to Susan Rae with her milder accent; or so I recall. But there is also Seagreen and Corrie C on the news reading rotas, any of these three could read the telephone directory, as far as I'm concerned. But that's a male thing, I'm sure.

  116. At 02:42 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Deepthought (John W, and not deepthroat) wrote:

    Big Sis ~ Ah...my last posting, you were referring to Clare Balding, not Sequin ~ sorry about that mistake. I skimmed through a bit too quick..

  117. At 04:18 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Valery P wrote:

    Don't wish to know that DeepJohn...

  118. At 10:20 PM on 16 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    No, no, no, JH, you can't get away with that - David didn't do anything wrong up until the kiss??? Ruth told him time after time that she was hurt by his behaviour and he just ignored her and pressed on. He was self-centred and insensitive. Ruth was bound to seek comfort and reassurance from a friend. Thing is, she should have gone to Oosha (sp?), rather than Sam. Sam did not behave like a friend - he took advantage when she was vulnerable. She was stupid and naive and David has every right to be angry with how far she went, but he is not blameless, he was downright awful before Sophie kissed him.

    Ye gads, why do I even care???

  119. At 12:26 AM on 17 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    Oh Drinks, Drinks, Drinks, ...

    You see, I did mention that it was from a male perspective. As I remember it (that bit that I heard), Ruth implied that she was hurt by his behaviour by telling him that he was doing something that he actually wasn't doing. He was indignant because he felt wrongfully accused.

    She [Ruth] was scared that he [David] was behaving in a certain way and chose to accuse him of it - even though - via the power of radio - we know he had no such intention. Once she has adopted her position, what exactly are his options? - oddly enough, he actually embarked on the most conciliatory course imaginable - bearing in mind his naive sense of injustice.

    The ambivalence inherent in this situation only strengthens, in my mind, the slightly bizarre parallel I was drawing earlier.

  120. At 03:05 AM on 17 Nov 2006, onlyalurker wrote:

    Deepthought109 - the name was carefully chosen, even if, after the pub, I go back through the threads and finally post again!

    The newsletter and the blog are my oasis in the middle of the day when I'm working, so there's no fear of not staying around.

    I see no clique - just a bunch of friendly, interesting people.

    I have started to explain to others about the blog ... but stop when I see the expression. Nonetheless, if someone gets the point when I mention the beach, I know we're on the same wavelength.

  121. At 01:59 PM on 17 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    JH, yes, an entirely male perspective. I am arguing only that Dabid wasn't blameless (surely even a bloke can see that?), not that he was entirely to blame.

    Yes, Ruth did accuse David of having an affair but only after she had spent ages telling him his behaviour was hurtful. When he wouldn't stop she, understandably, wondered why and whether there might be more to it.

    Again I come back to: "up to the kiss, he really isn't doing anything wrong" and I say bollards, although my use of this word in yesterday's post (After the three question marks at the end of the first sentence) has clearly been moderated out. Nice to see that the whole post didn't go though - I wonder what the pixies will do with this one?

  122. At 11:39 AM on 18 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    I take your point - I was just stressing the "not entirely to blame" angle - I do think he was being stupid and insensitive - I can judge this because I know I wouldn't behave likewise!!

    I find you "dance around the pixies" quite interesting! Mind you, I will still assume that "Dabid" was just a typo - you really do need a new keyboard...

  123. At 01:05 AM on 19 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    You are clearly a very sensible boy, JH. Mrs H has evidently got you properly trained!

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.